Talk:Greek government-debt crisis/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Controversy about media coverage - Point by point - "The need of (lazy) Greeks to work harder"

As some people seem to be intent on pushing an agenda I can see reaching any kind of consensus is going to be very difficult, however it doesn't mean the reasonable ones amongst us shouldn't try. I feel that it's best to take the paragraphs point by point to stop people being generally vague and reverting anything that doesn't fit their POV agenda.

The current paragraph as it stands is below, I've bolded weasel words that are covered by WP:Editoralizing

"The need of (lazy) Greeks to work harder". Actually Greeks have the highest average annual hours actually worked per worker in the European Union and one of the highest such number among OECD countries.

The first part "The need of (lazy) Greeks to work harder". is controversial, that doesn't mean it's true, or untrue, but means it needs balance and a qualification of both sides or the viewpoint.

Hard working/Lazy can't be quantified in one statistic, there is no A-F grade for effort that we can apply, so we need various metrics to allow people to draw their own conclusions. In isolation none of the provided statistics are relevant so I propose supplying the reader with a combination of data to allow them to draw their own conclusions.

The measures I propose providing to the reader are: Hours in work (with comparison to other EU countries, top, bottom and average) Productivity per hour in work (with comparison to other EU countries, top, bottom and average) I'm also open to other RELEVANT metrics being added if people can propose them. MattUK (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy about media coverage - Point by point - "Too many vacation days".

The current paragraph is below, I believe that the best course of action here is to add the number of days, EU average, and the three noted examples (Greece, Germany and France).

"Too many vacation days". Greeks have on average fewer vacation days than most EU workers (including the German and French). MattUK (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy about media coverage - Point by point - "Greeks retiring early"

As previously added I propose providing the average retirement ages and rewording the paragraph.

Current paragraph: "Greeks retiring early".[446][451][453] ( a somewhat erroneous argument based on focusing on specific groups which &ndash like in many countries – enjoy early retirement). The average retirement age (both official and effective) for Greeks is close to that for Germans, and, more importantly, effective retirement age is higher than this in countries like Austria, France, Finland and Belgium.

Proposed revision: "Greeks retiring early". The average retirement age (effective) for Greeks (61.9) is close to that for Germans (62.1), however the effective retirement age is higher than this in countries like France (59.7), Finland (61.8) and Belgium (59.6), but lower than countries such as the UK (63.7), Ireland (64.6) and Portugal (68.4), with the OECD average being 64.2).

(a somewhat erroneous argument based on focusing on specific groups which - like in many countries - enjoy early retirement). The average retirement age (both official and effective) for Greeks (61.9) is close to that for Germans (62.1), however the effective retirement age is higher than this in countries like France (59.7), Finland (61.8) and Belgium (59.6).

http://www.oecd.org/els/emp/ageingandemploymentpolicies-statisticsonaverageeffectiveageofretirement.htm MattUK (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy about media coverage - Point by point - "Spendthrift Greek governments"

The current paragraph is below: "Spendthrift Greek governments". Government expenditures as a percentage of GDP in Greece have been near or below EU average and certainly below these in Germany, Netherlands, Finland, France, Austria, and Belgium. The problem lies mostly in the revenue side of the equation, not in expenditures.

The revised paragraph citing facts and figures. "Spendthrift Greek governments". Greek government expenditures as a percentage of GDP in Greece (51.9%) have been roughly in line with EU averages (49.8%), Netherlands (49.8%), Finland (55.1%), France (56.1%), Austria (50.5%), and Belgium (53.3%).

Removal of the last sentence because it is irrelevant to the expenditure, expenditure is covered elsewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#As_a_percentage_of_GDP — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattUK (talk • contribs) 10:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy about media coverage - Point by point - "Greeks living beyond their means".[

The current paragraph is: "Greeks living beyond their means". While the rise of private debt, consumer, household, financial or other, during the boom years, might indeed constitute a serious problem (especially when combined with other problems), private, household and total (private and public) debt-to-GDP ratios in Greece are actually among the lowest in the Eurozone. However Greek public debt as a percentage of GDP and of government is the highest in the EU and Eurozone and Greece has received over EURO 400 billion in subsidies from the EU during it's membership.

Proposed revision: "Greeks living beyond their means". While the rise of private debt, consumer, household, financial or other, during the boom years, might indeed constitute a serious problem (especially when combined with other economic issues), private, household and total (private and public) debt-to-GDP ratios in Greece are actually among the lowest in the Eurozone. However Greek public debt as a percentage of GDP and of government revenue is the highest in the EU and Eurozone. During the periods in question and Greece has received over EURO 400 billion in subsidies from the EU which helped masked further issues with structural deficits. MattUK (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy about media coverage

I've re-written this somewhat, and added a whole bunch of in line citations, added qualifications (eg added values to amounts that are described as "large", "small", "similar" etc. I've removed the huge POV bias in this section and the repeated use of "Actually" which seemed to be there to discredit the previous statement. Where some of the claims were against facts I've corrected these and added citations to qualify these.

The only part I was unsure of was the previous last paragraph which seemed tacked on and to add nothing other than to try and push a specific agenda as they don't state a controversy nor address one, copied below.

Greek public debt-to-GDP ratio was essentially stable prior to the 2008–2009 international crisis, averaging between 1995 and 2007 (including all recent Eurostat revisions) 99.8%, compared with 110.5% in Italy, 106.8% in Belgium 65.1% in Austria and 62.3% in Germany.[56] Relevant arguments include those expressed by Paul Krugman:

Ever since Greece hit the skids, we’ve heard a lot about what’s wrong with everything Greek. Some of the accusations are true, some are false — but all of them are beside the point. Yes, there are big failings in Greece’s economy, its politics and no doubt its society. But those failings aren’t what caused the crisis that is tearing Greece apart, and threatens to spread across Europe.

—Paul Krugman, Greece as Victim (June 17, 2012)[57] In general, when quantified and qualified, the true relative position of Greece has been shown in a number of issues, including external debt (gross, net and Net International Investment Position) and corresponding thereto current account deficit,[31][58][59] state borrowing (measured by public debt to GDP as shown above), tax evasion,[60][61] bureaucracy,[62] etc.

MattUK (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Referencing the reversions by user Thanatos666 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Thanatos666 what is the basis for this revert? The information was all factual, cited and correct, you've just reverted a whole section back to a heavily POV writing style for no apparent reason?MattUK (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about these reverts by Thanatos666. This is no place for POV rants. Cleaning up cherrypicked economic factoids, and highly selective use of sources, and removing text that contradicts reliable sources are false, is not "unjustified content removal". bobrayner (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss any changes, any maybe some of the paragraphs need further re-wording but they were significantly POV before and many of the previous "facts" were actually inaccurate when I came to add citations to them so those were corrected as I went along. I understand that some people have a strong opinion on this so I was especially conscious to not add anything without making sure I provided the citation. MattUK (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(editconflict)

@ MattUK

Undid both your IP edits.

• Part of the relevancy of the Krugman quotation for example is in short that there has been a bombardment claiming x while according to at least his view the real problem is y, i.e. that the media and pundits have been or are being, to say the least, a bit wrong...
• Another example, among the many, of why I've reverted your edits can be found at the "The need of (lazy) Greeks to work harder" and your adding in a supposedly counterargument to it by adding in productiveness. Well productiveness, competitiveness etc. are important (they are also complex issues) but this does not constitute a counterargument to the rebuttal of the accusation/claim, at least not necessarily. Greeks for all practical purposes have been accused, among other things, of being lazy scum that could or would save themselves if only they worked harder/more. Well let me just say that an Greek worker, overworked or underworked, cannot change for example that he/she's not producing Mercedes premium cars when he/she's working.
• Also discussing such a major change before making it would be nice...
  PS On the other hand remove, if you must, for example, the "actually"s. Just please don't go from saying that you're removing instances of "actually" to reaching a point where you've removed or negated whole sections.
  PPS @bobrayner I will disregard for now the rant accusation but bear in mind that my patience is running thin, out. To say the least, characterising something as a factoid etc does not automatically transform it into one... Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Krugman quotation seemed to be just “floating”, it’s not relevant because it has no context, it’s just pasted in at the end of the section almost on the basis of “if you disagree with the facts presented above, here is someone’s opinion”.

In the "The need of (lazy) Greeks to work harder" section only one element of how “hard” someone works was presented, which was the amount of hours spent “at work”. I added the information of productivity per hour worked precisely because it was a complex issue, it can’t be boiled down to just one statistic (hours in work) and by presenting the full facts people are able to come to their own conclusions. Your opinion, just as mine, on whether Greeks have been called “lazy scum” is irrelevant, citable facts are what counts on Wikipedia.

I made the changes because the section was so blatantly POV that it couldn’t stand as it was, the changes as per WP guidelines wouldn’t be called major, I removed weasel words, added (cited) facts and deleted some seriously POV comments. You claim that I said I just removed the repeated “actually’s” but my edit summary was in fact “Removed POV wording, weasle words, repeated use of "Actually" added balance including citations to various sections, corrected grammar, spelling and punctuation”. Also you claim that I “negated” whole sections, but how can presenting facts, being that Wikipedia is supposed to be factual be regarded as negating anything, the only thing I negated was POV!

Additionally as the POV had stood for some time and not been removed I took action as per the “Be bold!” policy, I made the change to remove the POV and created a section on the talk page so that any minor issues could be worked out afterwards. That would seem to be a perfectly sensible and rational course of action to take. MattUK (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The section below was removed with the comment below by YeOldeGentleman: “however this is countered by Greek workers being some of the least productive, with only three un-modernised Eastern Block nations being less productive.

"Firstly, bare links are bad! Secondly, it is not germane: hours worked is in context of disproving "lazy greeks"; the fact that they have to work hard because of lower productivity is beside the point.)"

I don’t understand why linking to the data is bad? “Hours at work”, is not a solid basis for proving, or disproving “hard” work, it’s one metric in a larger measurement. Maybe the wording is wrong but in the context of the discussion I feel that it’s highly relevant. MattUK (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you meant by "bare link", but I hardly think that necessitates the removal of the section, surely the solution is to annotate the links? Especially when virtually none of the links on this page are annotated. MattUK (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Further reverts by YeOldeGentleman with the comment below

Point about productivity's irrelevance stands. See OECD's basic 'Measuring Productivity': "productivity only PARTIALLY reflects… capacities of workers or the intensity of their effort.")

You seem to be missing the point, hours at work can not be used as the sole arbiter of how "hard" someone works, it can not be used to prove or discount "laziness", how hard someone works is a measure of a range of factors, how long they are at work, how much they produce while there etc. I'm trying to present relevant facts, I've stated reasons why I think they are relevant. You are deleting them by claiming that a single measure can't be used to prove effort, but you have now twice deleted an additional relevant metric, when only one was there before.

I am attempting to "assume good will", however I can't see a valid reason, nor have you been so far willing to present one as to why cited relevant facts should be deleted from the article.

MattUK (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict again)

The Krugman quotation seemed to be just “floating”, it’s not relevant because it has no context, it’s just pasted in at the end of the section almost on the basis of “if you disagree with the facts presented above, here is someone’s opinion”.

Well that's you view and the onus is on you to substantiate it. For example

Ever since Greece hit the skids, we’ve heard a lot about what’s wrong with everything Greek. Some of the accusations are true, some are false — but all of them are beside the point

(emphasis mine).

• First bolded part is the media frenzy. First point of relevance.
• Second bolded part is the false accusations; Second point of relevance.
• Third bolded part is the whole point; all of this media frenzy, including the accusation, is irrelevant cause it's besides the point, at least according to Krugman.

Also, the passage has value in the greater context of the article. Also by removing it you've removed one of the few places in the article where a widespread, different opinion on the causes, nature, etc. of the crisis is expressed at a time when we're having a huge debate here at the talk page (look up... :) )

Need I continue?

In the "The need of (lazy) Greeks to work harder" section only one element of how “hard” someone works was presented, which was the amount of hours spent “at work”. I added the information of productivity per hour worked precisely because it was a complex issue, it can’t be boiled down to just one statistic (hours in work) and by presenting the full facts people are able to come to their own conclusions. Your opinion, just as mine, on whether Greeks have been called “lazy scum” is irrelevant, citable facts are what counts on Wikipedia.

Well facts, be they truely facts or not, are by themselves useless; you must exactly place them inside a context (a thing you're claiming to be editing and arguing for). In what way is productivity for example a counterargument to laziness, i.e. the accusation? High or low productivity does not mean, is not equivalent to laziness, at least not necessarily. Also put in another way, productivity is a function of many variables, one one of which is working hours, hours spent working. Again Greek workers, be they hard working or not, cannot simply make their job produce high added value stuff, it's hard for the Greece as whole to do it, let alone for Greeks as persons, as workers, especially but not exclusively in an overvalued for the economy currency.

I made the changes because the section was so blatantly POV that it couldn’t stand as it was, the changes as per WP guidelines wouldn’t be called major, I removed weasel words, added (cited) facts and deleted some seriously POV comments. You claim that I said I just removed the repeated “actually’s” but my edit summary was in fact “Removed POV wording, weasle words, repeated use of "Actually" added balance including citations to various sections, corrected grammar, spelling and punctuation”. Also you claim that I “negated” whole sections, but how can presenting facts, being that Wikipedia is supposed to be factual be regarded as negating anything, the only thing I negated was POV!

That's you opinion. I disagree with most of it and with most of these changes you've done. For example how is "Greece has received over EURO 400 billion in subsidies from the EU during it's membership.[477][478]" relevant or even a counterargument to the accusation or rebuttal thereof of "Greeks living beyond their means"???
Note:Aside from the apparent imo irrelevancy, at least directly, many countries for example in the EU have received subsidies (including the northern ones). The subsidies were and are given for some reasons; for example by joining the EU and by susequent decisions thereof, Greece and other countries have lost a great deal of their productive base to the high tech etc north.

Or let's take a look at another change of yours: how is this

The key issue with the Greek deficit is that it was at nearly 10% in the decades running up to 1999, droped below 3% for one year to meet admission criteria and the rose significantly on entry

1.a counterargument to the relevant accusation, i.e. "Greece cheated its way into the Eurozone (did not truly meet admission criteria", 2.where are the sources backing it up?, and 3. how isn't itself, be it true or false, a false context or cherry picking accusation itself in the light of e.g. this?

You're claiming to be fixing stuff when in reality...

Note: I've used "actually" as a shorthand for some of your claims. Which btw still have to be substantiated.

Additionally as the POV had stood for some time and not been removed I took action as per the “Be bold!” policy, I made the change to remove the POV and created a section on the talk page so that any minor issues could be worked out afterwards. That would seem to be a perfectly sensible and rational course of action to take.

And now I'm asking you to discuss first and try to find a consensus. Reverting a reversion of a bold move on a once much argued and since very steady section without first discussing can easily start a edit-war, especially during times of of a another (fierce) war (scroll up). PS Well it seems that yet another war has started already, so... Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I’ll answer your points one at a time as I get the time so it might take a while. In the “lazy Greeks” section what I’m arguing for is the inclusion of a range of information that allows people to evaluate the statement properly. Hours at work on its own is not enough, neither is productivity per hour worked, however combined they can allow people to begin to interpret the available data.

You are arguing for the removal of productivity per hour because it doesn’t prove or disprove the effort of a Greek worker, but neither does the amount of hours at work, in isolation both are worthless statistics, together they could begin to mean something.MattUK (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanatos666, you're talking about an "edit war" as though other people, rather than you, were hammering the revert button. That is not a helpful line of discussion. Similarly, I am struggling to understand your revert complaining about inadequate discussion, before you even commented in the thread that I'd previously started. bobrayner (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes right, it's me that isn't talking and is reverting without first discussing, not you, despite the fact the reversions are on a different topic from yours, a thread I haven't even managed to see or read yet or one about which I might not even be interested in joining the discussion. I'm supposed to see and comment in 1000 different things whilst you can simply revert on everythingsomething I've provided real arguments and points about, and on something the only comments, be it here on inside the edit summaries, you've made is me supposedly ranting etc? Right... Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You disagree with most of the changes I made, that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t tie up with what is trying to be presented here, which is the presentation of factual information relevant to the case at hand. The statement "Greece has received over EURO 400 billion in subsidies from the EU during it's membership.[477][478]" is relevant because it shows that the Greek economy has been subsidised by the EU that is important when explaining about “living beyond ones means”. Also the sentence: “The key issue with the Greek deficit is that it was at nearly 10% in the decades running up to 1999, dropped below 3% for one year to meet admission criteria and the rose significantly on entry” in relation to the accusation that Greece gamed the system to get in is relevant. How relevant is up to the reader, but the information is as factually relevant to the claim that Greece was under the limit when it applied as the criteria are supposed to apply for ever, not just for one year. Your comment below: “Note: I've used "actually" as a shorthand for some of your claims. Which btw still have to be substantiated” My “claims” are factual information, reliably cited, as far as Wikipedia is concerned that qualifies as “substantiated”. MattUK (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

“And now I'm asking you to discuss first and try to find a consensus. Reverting a reversion of a bold move on a once much argued and since very steady section without first discussing can easily start a edit-war, especially during times of of a another (fierce) war (scroll up). PS Well it seems that yet another war has started already, so...”

You haven’t asked to try and find a consensus, you started an edit war with multiple reversions to reliably cited material. The section might have been “steady”, but it was hugely POV and so shouldn’t stand as per WP policies. In this case YOU started this particular edit war and the separate edit war is actually irrelevant to the case of part of an article being POV or not.

You’ve reverted four times now and Wikipedia has the 3RR, see edit warring...

Well if you like to go legalistic on me then the two first reversions are really one divided into two and the last one was one to an editor that is not agreeing with you, not on your side. But yes, I had tried to prevent an edit war requesting a discussion but you and Bob continued the former while I was replying to you so as I've already indirectly stated in a previous post scriptum of mine, if you want an edit war, OK let's have it... Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"OK let's have it..."

I don't want an edit war, but you seem to be set on one unless you get your own way. You keep reverting to the version you want against the fact that everything is cited and according to WP policies is correct while replying with a spurious narrative that, and I'm paraphrasing "you can't use that measure of how hard people work, us this one, and don't include any others". I created the section on the talk page, which you ignored while making multiple reversions. MattUK (talk) 21:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

MattUK (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I see Thanatos666 has made yet another revert whilst imploring other editors to discuss. bobrayner (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that you still haven't tried or managed to really discuss, i.e. provide actual arguments etc.... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I've provided quite a few arguments, and citations in the article, so far you've ignored them on the basis that only your chosen method (hours in work) can be used to measure how hard Greeks work. All the time while you indulge yourself in an edit war. MattUK (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

First of all that was a reply to Bobrayner, not you... Second, in such a context productivity among other things is a not a very helpful metric; the claim and accusation, the slur manyatime against Greeks is that Greeks among other things are lazy, don't work enough, not that the value of what is produced by their work is low or high. Hours worked is admittedly not the best or the only metric or variable one has to account for on laziness or other stuff but citing productivity let alone in such a way is even worse and besides the point of the accusation; or put another way it's an argument for the Greeks, against the accusation!!! ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

@Thanatos you keep deliberately missing the point, that you feel that Greeks are being "slurred" or "insulted" has no impact on this point. I agree that productivity ON ITS OWN is no measure of effort, but neither is hours in work. I'm arguing for the inclusion of multiple metrics to allow people to properly evaluate the information, you are arguing for the removal of any information that doesn't fit the POV that is currently in the article. MattUK (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy about media coverage - Point by point - Moreover...

This section doesn't address any specific points, it's more of a collection of opinions that are thrown in at the end for no obvious reason, recommended amends in italics below if this section stays at all, which is debatable.

The current mess at the end is below:

Moreover, a lot of references to problems after Greece’s entry into the EU and the Eurozone (increase in public spending, lower competitiveness, over-regulation, corruption, "protected" professions, tax evasion etc.) are often made without quantification or comparison with other EU countries, possibly creating an impression of an "inevitable" Greek debt crisis (independent of external factors). However, Greek public debt-to-GDP ratio was essentially stable prior to the 2008–2009 international crisis, averaging between 1995 and 2007 (including all recent Eurostat revisions) 99.8%, compared with 110.5% in Italy, 106.8% in Belgium 65.1% in Austria and 62.3% in Germany.[492] Relevant arguments include those expressed by Paul Krugman:

Some of the problems after Greece's entry to the EU and Eurozone are made without direct comparison to other EU countries, however comparing individual statistics in isolation is difficult due to the wide differences of how each EU country has structured it's economy and budget.

Ever since Greece hit the skids, we’ve heard a lot about what’s wrong with everything Greek. Some of the accusations are true, some are false — but all of them are beside the point. Yes, there are big failings in Greece’s economy, its politics and no doubt its society. But those failings aren’t what caused the crisis that is tearing Greece apart, and threatens to spread across Europe.

—Paul Krugman, Greece as Victim (June 17, 2012)[493]

(Does this even add anything to the article? It's an opinion piece rather than any presentation of fact.)

In general, when quantified and qualified, the true relative position of Greece has been shown in a number of issues, including external debt (gross, net and Net International Investment Position) and corresponding thereto current account deficit,[467][494][495] state borrowing (measured by public debt to GDP as shown above), tax evasion,[103][496] bureaucracy,[497] etc.

(This section is entirely POV, it adds a strong POV narrative which isn't needed if the facts are presented.)

MattUK (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Krugman has a Keynes' agenda meaning he will almost always propose (and "analyze") that the state with its fiscal expenses and the central bank with printing money will solve any problem, independent of the specific environment and the specific situation.

Krugman has not really been open in his long career to the changed world. Many countries are more globalized than decades ago (internet, communication, global travel/trade, global brands and global consumer behavior, global taxi services like 'uber' an so on), and Keynes national recipes don't really work well in the open world economy.

Late in his career, Krugman didn't want to learn that, e.g. that short-term income and consumption is not correlated as it used before, with inflation and employment the same (because the central banks cannot fool people so much as in earlier times with printing money, as everybody can read it on his smartphone before the printing machines even start) and so on.

If you don't know how to solve your problems or don't want to do structural reforms, you would always refer to Krugman or Keynes, as they says, structural reforms are overrated, just throw (state) money at the problem (which obviously doesn't work, everybody threw money at Greece for decades, even being the reason they have no efficient structures; why collect taxes if you can get money from the EU and ECB?)

That is the reason Krugman is not asked by the EU how to solve the crisis.

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy about media coverage - Point by point - "Goldman Sachs helped Greece cheat its way into the Eurozone”.

Current Paragraph:

"Goldman Sachs helped Greece cheat its way into the Eurozone”. Also a surprisingly widespread erroneous (inter alia antedating) statement, since by 2001, the year of said Goldman Sachs deal, Greece had already been admitted into the Eurozone.

Proposed revision:

"Goldman Sachs helped Greece cheat its way into the Eurozone”. The Goldman Sachs deal didn't take place until 2001 by which time Greece had already been admitted into the Eurozone.

MattUK (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe to add the sentence: "It is unknown if the 2001 Goldman Sachs deal was already being negotiated when Greece was in the process of becoming part of the eurozone without really fulfilling the Maastricht criteria."

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you think to: "The Goldman Sachs deal wasn't completed until 2001 by which time Greece had been admitted into the Eurozone. It is unknown if the deal was already being negotiated when Greece was in the process of becoming part of the Eurozone without truly fulfilling the Maastricht criteria." MattUK (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is anyway worth mentioning this topic even broader because there is also an obligation of the eurozone countries to stay within convergence criteria after the entry (especially deficit and debt; not anymore inflation if I remember correclty). And GS also wanted to "help" until 2009 but the Greek PM refused to mask the figures any longer. --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy about media coverage - Point by point - "Profligate Greek welfare state".

Current Paragraph: "Profligate Greek welfare state". The Greek social safety net has historically ranked low or lower than many other countries in Europe and moreover it is very dependent on kin or familial contribution and expenditure, characteristic of the Southern European Social Welfare model.

Proposed revision: "Profligate Greek welfare state". The Greek social safety net has historically ranked low or lower than some other countries in Europe and moreover it is generally dependent on kin or familial contribution, which is characteristic of the Southern European social welfare model. MattUK (talk) 10:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. bobrayner (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A two day moratorium on edits?

How would everyone feel about a two or three day moratorium on edits, the article stands as it is now (07/06/2015 @ 19:22 UK time) for a period of two or three days while we on the talk page try and get things progressing in the right direction? That give us time to remove the huge amounts of POV in various sections and reach even a provisional consensus on the most contentious sections of the article. If that fails then I can see this needing a request for dispute resolution specifically related to people who keep reverting to POV material in the article and seem to oppose any changes whatsoever. If the everyone agrees then I think it could really help, however it needs to be a team effort otherwise it will just crash and burn. MattUK (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure you propose this with the best of intentions, but the article has serious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, and so on. Pausing edits means delaying fixing those problems. Stopping to talk is a fine idea, but the cause of these problems is not a shortage of talkpage kilobytes. bobrayner (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm just looking for a solution because there are a couple of people who seem to oppose any changes whatsoever and they seem to be pushing POV, my hope is that 2 days might give them enough breathing space to calm down, and if they don't then the issues can be dealt with by dispute resolution. Unfortunately I feel it will end up in dispute resolution regardless and the 2-3 key POV pushers probably need a topic ban, but that's not for me to decide. I've already started preparing a comprehensive case for dispute resolution, hope for the best, but plan for the worst! MattUK (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

+1 I would support it with the hope it changes the editing culture from blocking to constructive (two weeks ago I started an approach to have at least a more systemtic lead using the talk section ">100 pages, but still main points missing?"; a few editors can effectively block almost any improvements if they want) --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's my thinking, if those editors still continue to block and disrupt then we can have them dealt with, if not and they come round to NPOV and start being reasonable then the problem is resolved, it's a win win regardless. MattUK (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well it looks like that idea is dead, Dr K is making disruptive reverts on cited materials, Plan B, Dispute resolution here we come! MattUK (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Well it looks like you forgot to assume AGF and were too quick to condemn me. I just replied to you above discussing the edit in good faith and you come to this section which I didn't even read to attack me with baseless accusations for reverting dated facts inaccurately presented in Wikipedia's voice. Please assume good faith and discuss my point above. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have a very selective view of what is acceptable to Wikipedia and your various edits cherry pick to suit what seems like an agenda, if you truly are editing in good faith then you won't have anything to fear from a dispute resolution, because it will come to the conclusion of what is accurate and factual, rather than what is POV. MattUK (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You keep your attacks going although in my edit I implemented your proposal verbatim. I used your terminology and then just added where the info came from. What dispute resolution are you talking about? Remember I did not participate in any other dispute thread, except the one calling Greece the most corrupt country in Europe and I am not interested in any other dispute at the moment. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll draw up the full case for dispute resolution and post it tomorrow night, I'll hold off on any edit's on the article myself until then. MattUK (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

IMHO there is no need to enforce a two day moratorium for all edits to the article in its entirety, although I agree it perhaps could be relevant/helpful to consider a moratorium, if this moratorium only apply specifically for the Controversy about media coverage chapter. All our above debates from nr.10-23 (except debate 22 - which has been solved), is about the Controversy about media coverage chapter. Personally, I posted my own WP:SYNTH concern about the way content is displayed by this chapter, in the above #Proposal to correct the entire "Controversy about media coverage" chapter from WP:SYNTH debate. I will leave it to you and other editors, to judge if additional more drastic dispute solution methods (other than talkpage debate) shall be launched, for the purpose to settle a remaining dispute about the content in this Controversy about media coverage chapter. As for all other potential disputes in the article, I think we have a positive track record for the talkpage debate being capable to resolve such disputes (letting the strongest argument win), without the help of external WP administrators or moratoriums being needed. Danish Expert (talk) 11:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is not only with the sections concerning "Controversy about media coverage", the major problem is that many major points about the Greek debt crisis are missing in the lead and the article, even though it consists of >100 pages. This is addressed in

• section #4 - ">100 pages, but still main points missing?"
• section #5 - " Why did Greece need fiscal austerity in the midst of its crisis? "
• section #6 - " POV / LEAD debate "

Two weeks ago, I proposed in this section #4 to have the main points at least in summary style in the lead (as important ones are not even in the article)

Just let's only take the first point listed in #4, being joining the Euro without sufficient financial convergence and competitiveness in the summary list of causes for the Greek debt crisis. It is the major single and early root cause for the Greek debt crisis. Without this root cause Greece could technically not have had this debt crisis because it could always have printed itself out of every debt volume as they did before with the drachma. But this cause is missing in the 100 WP pages and in the WP lead. The current lead only lists normal problems like "structural weaknesses" and "recessions" (even though it is clear that Greece faced those normal problems for decades and always solved them with high drachma inflation if needed) - so without naming the root cause there is no cause for the Greek debt crisis.

What happened after I proposed to have the main points in the article (at least in the lead as a summary) and also invited everybody to add/change/delete from my proposed the main point list? There were strong opponents working in a coordinated action, threatening to fight any significant change, saying one can not summarize a Greek debt crisis, saying "Greek interests [need to have] a prominence") when describing the debt crisis in WP, saying they will not let other editors summarize it, and so on. So we have almost 100 new pages in the talk section, and main points about the lemma not in the article (like it was during the last 5 years)

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Greece is the most corrupt country in the EU? Not.

I reverted an edit claiming in Wikipedia's voice and without attribution that:

Tax evasion is widespread, and Greece is the most corrupt country in the EU.

The problem is the source is from 2012 and since then the statement that Greece is the most corrupt country in the EU is no longer true. The new 2014 survey has Greece in a tie with Italy, Bulgaria and Romania. This kind of careless use of outdated sources speaking in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution and without checking the validity of the outdated facts looks like an effort to prove a point and is unacceptable. Please be more careful with your facts in the future. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Technically it still is the most corrupt country in the EU, it's just tied in that position with three other countries, like in a horse race, the four of them are joint last. That being said I would re-write the paragraph based on the 2014 data to something similar to what is below: "Greece, together with Italy, Bulgaria and Romania are the four joint most corrupt countries in the EU, all scoring 43/100 on the Transparency International index." Remember to assume good faith in edits, information was added that was sourced, unfortunately this information was out of date, the information, where relevant, should be updated rather than removed in its entirety. MattUK (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith when someone gets sloppy like that with the facts and also reverts despite being told that the statement is inaccurate and dated. Your formulation is better but it is still too definitive because even the source used talks about perception of corruption not an actual fact. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources discuss rampant corruption in Greece, but Dr. K removes any mention of this, with spurious reasons. First, arguing that the source is too old (a source which is three years after the crisis started); then complaining about "attribution" - which is bullshit, it's perfectly OK to use wikipedia's voice to say what reliable sources say - then going back to the "old sources" fiction and lying about my motives, even after I added a much more recent source. Dr K's extraordinarily high (and ever-changing) standards for sourcing appear only to apply to content which are honest about Greek economic problems - I note that Dr. K hasn't edit-warred to remove the swathes of synthesis and badly-sourced content elsewhere. Previously we had no mention at all of Greek corruption, but we did have coverage of German corruption, citing a source that wasn't about Greece at all. Dr. K, do you understand Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, synthesis, and verifiability? If you do, can you give a meaningful explanation - don't just repeat your last excuse - for removing any mention of Greek corruption from a topic which, reliable sources say, is heavily influenced by Greek corruption? bobrayner (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I see Dr. K. has readded my content - with some extra framing, which is a start. I'll overlook the attacks in Dr. K.'s latest edit summary, since we should be focussing on improving content. Dr. K., for future article improvements, would you agree that we need more coverage of Greek corruption based on the many reliable sources, and less synthesis about other people's corruption? bobrayner (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Your rhetorical question does not impress me. I find it amazing that you still stick to an outdated source from 2012 which calls Greece "the most corrupt country in Europe" and you willfully ignore the fact that that statement is no longer correct. I don't think you have a problem with English so can you explain to me why you insist on something that is patently misleading for the reader? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

To what extent do you feel the reduced levels of Greek corruption in 2014 - which you have now emphasised in the article - alleviate Greek responsibility for economic problems in preceding years? My last comment wasn't a rhetorical question, by the way, it was entirely genuine; would you agree that we need more coverage of Greek corruption based on the many reliable sources, and less synthesis about other people's corruption? bobrayner (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I have not emphasised anything. I provided accurate information and corrected patently misleading facts based on expired sources. As far as your second question, my initial reply was focused on the particular edit I just performed and I thought you were calling it synthesis. But if your question is more general than that, then it is too vague for me to address. However I must say that if other peoples' corruption is related by reliable sources to the Greek corruption then it should be included in the article because it can provide needed context without which the article will become a one-sided POV piece on Greece. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The article covers a crisis with a timespan from 2009-2020, so removal of any content believed to be "misleading facts based on expired sources" from the earliest years in 2009-13, is highly inappropriate. Such removals shall be restored immediately. When appropriately sourced problems or facts develop over time, WP depict such developments by mentioning both the data from 2012 and 2014 (based on both of the two sources). The oldest source will per definition never expire, and remain to be valid for ever. The 2012 corruption source help depict how big the corruption problem was at the beginning of the crisis, and if it then gradually improved across the subsequent years such finding will also be relevant to note (to depict that the problem started gradually to improved in the midst of the crisis). Adding a "2014 fact line", can never remit removal of the "2012 fact line", which explained how big the corruption problem was in 2012. Danish Expert (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You do not own this article. I suggest you adopt a more collaborative approach and refrain from making declarations such as "shall be restored immediately". Please note, wikipedia is a collaborative project, thank you. Athenean (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Athenean: My above reply here at the talkpage presented a sober neutral argument valid to all WP articles, namely that as long as all other content criteria is met (i.e. WP:RELIABLE, WP:NOTABLE and being inside the content scope and time scope of the chapter/article's topic), then such content remain to be valid and will never expire. If applying Dr.K's invalid "expired data" argument on the article's content in general, we could only depict 2015 data for the 2009-2015 Greek government-debt crisis, without describing how the data progressed during the course of the crisis, which really proofs my point why a sudden enforcement of this "removal of expired data argument" is highly inappropriate. Danish Expert (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However, do keep in mind that it is just an opinion and other people may disagree with that opinion. In any case, I think the matter is settled now. Athenean (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Even not considering your user name, Athenean, I assume you may have a basic understanding of main points of the Greek debt crisis, including that its causes started latest in 1999/2001 when Greece entered the eurozone without being fiscally and economically convergent to the eurozone criteria, including that corruption is one of the main causes so many things went wrong for such a long time (and are only being really addressed through international pressure when the debt crisis erupted). Everybody having this basic understanding would normally ask to enlarge the 2012/2013/2014 corruption data with appropriate sources at least up to 1999/2001 to get the full picture relevant to the debt crisis - but you (alongside with others obviously having a WP:CONFLICT) do the opposite and try to demotivate any editor to contribute at all to this article.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Danish Expert: Such removals shall be restored immediately. I don't think you have read a single comment I wrote about the removal or the justification for it. You argument The oldest source will per definition never expire, and remain to be valid for ever. is of course nonsense when the source refers to an outdated poll about corruption perception from 2012. You are also off the mark when you say I removed the sources. Have you seen my edit where I restored the source after I fixed the misleading phrasing of the sentence? Or would you have preferred that wrong, outdated information remain uncorrected in the article? So leave your imperious instructions Such removals shall be restored immediately. for someone else because they do not apply to me. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Somehow you entirely missed my point, which was declared in full to my above follow-up reply to Athenean. I will not repeat again, but refer you to read my previous reply to Athenean. After having revisited your changes of the disputed line and 2012 source, I can see that you indeed kept the source visible in the article (which was good), but that you decided to rephrase the line into what you refer to as a formulation reflecting "correct info - replacing expired old data" (which was bad). What you did was to replace below phrase 1 with your own phrase 2:

• Phrase 1: "Tax evasion is widespread, and Greece is the most corrupt country in the EU."
• Phrase 2: "Tax evasion is widespread, and according to the 2014 Corruption perception index, Greece, together with Italy, Bulgaria and Romania are the four joint most corrupt countries in the EU, all scoring 43/100 on the Transparency International index."

My reply in this talkpage debate, was simply to highlight, that for a debt-crisis having a duration at least from 2009-2015, it is highly relevant the article does not limit itself only to display the latest data, but on the contrary feature data and info also to mention how various factors developed both ahead and during the crisis. I salute your add of the second more updated reference, featuring data for 2012+2013+2014. My point however was, that instead of enforcing your Phrase 2 (which completely ignore how data were for Greece back when its debt crisis erupted), it would be far better to let the line display how his "corruption" figure developed during the course of time. On this basis, my proposal is that we now replace your "Phrase 2" (which did not reach consensus here at this talkpage), with this new "Phase 3":

• Phrase 3: "As of 2012, tax evasion was widespread, and according to Transparency International's Corruption perception index, Greece, was the most corrupt country in the EU by a score of 36/100. Due to the effort by the Greek government to combat corruption - as part of meeting one of the conditional terms in its bailout program, the corruption level improved to a score of 43/100 in 2014, which was still the lowest in EU, but now up at the same score as being measured in Italy, Bulgaria and Romania."

I hope you all can accept the above counter-proposed "phrase 3" (being a compromise between phrase 1 and phrase 2). Thanks for a good constructive debate. Danish Expert (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@Danish Expert: Thank you DE. I agree with your proposal and have implemented it with a few minor grammatical copyedits. Your proposal is more detailed, technically proficient and more accurate historically. Keep up the good work. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr.K. now picked the only option that is blatant WP:SYNTH ( "Due to the efforts of the Greek government to combat corruption - as part of meeting one of the conditional terms in its bailout program, the corruption level improved to a score of 43/100 in 2014" ) - this is totally made up - and anyway not very believable if one has read the press the last years. Also again a very astonishing double standard of Dr.K. who has tried with his other edits on this talk page to make everybody believe he would fight WP:SYNTH (even if there was no WP:SYNTH.). (Learning: one should only negotiate with other editors about good WP content if they are free of WP:CONFLICT )--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

and it is even intentional deceit by Mr.K. as the title of the Dec 2014 source is the opposite: Corruption still alive and well in post-bailout Greece, detailing: "In fact, if anything, people are now so squeezed they have fewer inhibitions about taking bribes than before the crisis.", and: "Five years on, Greeks are still cheating, bribing and evading their taxes – spurred on by the lack of punishment meted out to offenders" - I don't trust in no word anymore from Mr.K., if I ever had.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONFLICT accusation

@EconomicsEconomics: Kindly keep your aspersions regarding my username and motivations to yourself. It's thanks to various "experts" such as yourself and others that is article is an massive, convoluted unreadable wall of text. And now you and the other "experts" want to make it even more convoluted and unreadable. You do realize there is no one who can read the article in its present form. Even the lede is tl;dr territory for most of our readers. Think about that for a while. Athenean (talk) 09:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please kindly accept that "username and motivations" are not irrelevant to WP:CONFLICT, even the opposite.

You also missed the point that I started the talk section " >100 pages, but still main points missing? " and proposed to have 1 page with the main points in the lead. I also proposed a structure to ensure the article would not be something like "massive, convoluted unreadable wall of text" as you call it, but that it be understandable and accessible. But the accounts Dr.K and Thanatos (and with part-time support of some others) were not interested to cooperate and opposed - as you do above - any reasonable change. It is clear to me that accounts having a WP:CONFLICT won't admit it, so I preempt your protest. --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Please kindly accept that "username and motivations" are not irrelevant to WP:CONFLICT, even the opposite. Can you quote a policy supporting that remark or is it just the product of your proven propensity for ethnicity-based discrimination? Why are you targeting Greek editors who are properly defending Wikipedia against your SYNTH while hiding your own details behind an anonymous account? You could have any type of anti-Greek agenda or conflict of interest hiding behind your mask of anonymity and lack of details of your ethnic background. Or do you think your lack of transparency gives you the right to adopt a holier than thou attitude while at the same time discriminating against those who have openly declared their ethnic background? Leave your ethnic-discrimination theatrics out of Wikipedia. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 11:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dr.K. , you know it better:

(so why the show if you hate long discussions?)

I am not "targeting Greek editors" but I proposed (after very frustrating and blocking discussions with Greek editors) to Greek editors having a WP:CONFLICT (Thanatos666 himself said that his agenda is to have "Greek interests" represented and that "Greek interests etc.[need to have] a prominence") that they should refrain from blocking the article improvement. You strongly supported Thanatos666 in blocking everything. What are you trying to convince me? That I'am blind?

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I had taken a break - something I'm thinking of repeating because if this is what wikipedia has become, I certainly need more of it, much more - because I had simply gotten tired of these long "debates" but evidently this has gotten totally out of hand, gone beyond reason, good faith and any hope of a compromise, consensus building through discussion and reconciliation. Cause the more you keep at it, the more you keep "discussing", the deeper into shit you go, spitting out more and more, worse and worse lies. You're quoting me totally out of context, you're quote mining in such a ludicrous way, absurdly misrepresenting what I had actually written.
This is (part of) the proper context and exchange, something easily verifiable; for the full picture and the verbatim discussion, anyone interested can simply scroll up and read (are you by any chance relying, in order to lie so blatantly, on the probability that very few people will actually do this fact checking? ;-)):

you: If the eurozone makes it an easy way to default on credit contracts and to get bail-outs, it would be bad for all eurozone states because of moral hazard problems, it would probably kill the EU as an economic community. Let's assume this easy way would be in Greece's interest, why should Greece's interests (being 2% of the EU) rank higher than the general agreed principles in the EU and eurozone, is that not introducing a strong POV?

me replying: 1.Whether it does or it doesn't is irrelevant with respect to whether the program was/is indeed a rescue of Greece. 2.If talking about what Greece has to say on the rescue of Greece and/or Greek interests in a story about the Greek crisis is a minor, secondary POV, well... (An other answer could be that the main POV is about the interests of whoever is much more powerful over who is weak. But that would mean that the article is mainly about a Power Game and not simply about real or made up structural deficits numbers or made up known-from-the-beginning-to-eventually-end-in-failure solutions to made up or real but irrelevant, secondary, problems.

then later you again: I find strong POV in all your views and arguments as explained above. But you are trying to "accuse" me of POV even though you did not show me one single POV point in my "bullet point summary" (preceding para) or maybe you didn't tell me clear enough which point it was. Anything else relevant for WP or NPOV? Otherwise it would be a good time to improve the summary.

and then me again replying: 1. Perhaps you should go check again wiki NPOV policies (just like you should check confict of interest policies or using racist slurs against other national groups of wikipedians and nations in general policies) and realise that this is an article about the Greek crisis, therefore Greek interests etc. might have prominence? I'm accusing you among many other things of trying to push a single POV when they are many. Moreover I and other editos have argued that it would be difficult, futile, misleading etc. to summarise for example in such a simple or simplistic way the crisis. Or again for the nth time, do the actual work on your sandbox and come back with the results. Also, others are free to override my objections deciding by majority vote. Now I repeat, I have spent more than enough time. End of story.

I was just saying (among other things), stating the obvious, that the article is about the Greek crisis therefore writing about, presenting in the article the Greek interests etc. is of major importance and certainly not a secondary, trivial or minor issue/POV (this stands for Point Of View btw, in case you've somehow don't know or forgotten) while you're falsely paraphrasing me shamelessly claiming in essence that I supposedly wrote and/or meant, supposedly having and pushing an agenda, that in the article, facts and the truth must be bent, changed, hidden, sacrificed so that Greek interests would be served.
You're such a presumptuous, such an audacious liar... I pity you... Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Thanatos666 and Dr.K. are not "pushing an agenda", why should they? What agenda? It's obvious for everybody that they are being neutral about this article, and constructively cooperating to get improvements in the article, too. If there should be POVs and SYNTHs kept/introduced because of their actions, it would be pure coincidence, thanks to them it is a really good article, I insist. --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me a diff which supports that [I] strongly supported Thanatos666 in blocking everything.? And if you have a problem with Thanatos what do you think gives you the right to indiscriminately extend it to other editors of Greek-background and harass them about COI? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just read again this talk page beginning with section ">100 pages, but still main points missing?", you have been very involved, so you might remember. And to remind you again: I suggested to Greek editors having a WP:CONFLICT to refrain from blocking the article, be it alone or in a coordinated behavior; or be it with your method of continuously changing your standards (sometimes WP:TLTR, sometimes you invoke and like long unnecessary discussions, and so on) --EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

...you have been very involved, so you might remember. This is the usual nonsense I have come to expect from you. "Being very involved" in a dicsussion does not equal "blocking" a discussion. You have to provide a diff or diffs supporting your ridiculous assertion. You have also been "very involved" in this discussion and often you have been pushing walls of text supporting SYNTH. Yet I did not accuse you that you have an agenda or insinuated anything about your background. You should try to offer the same courtesy to the editors who disagree with you. You also keep spouting your baseless, ethnicity-based harassment despite my level-2 warning on your talkpage: I suggested to Greek editors having a WP:CONFLICT to refrain from blocking the article, be it alone or in a coordinated behavior.. You should stop your harassment of the Greek editors. Consider this your final warning. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You definitely have too much spare time.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

On moving forward

I have posted a possible solution for moving forward here which involves several editors that are currently editing this article. Let's see if we can get this back on track.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Blimey I get called away for a week with work and the whole article has changed, I'll have a good read and see if I can help/contribute. Reading through the ANI I can't actually that a conclusion was reached? Thanks for your help Berean Hunter. MattUK (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Do not merge

Do not merge Greek economy referendum, 2015 here. This article is too long already and if the referendum is being held it deserves its own article, a national referendum is notable, in particular with such wide implications. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 00:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The conversation is ongoing at Talk:Greek economy referendum, 2015 and has more participants there. Please can people comment there and not here. Cheers, Number 57 00:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Debt-relief proposed

One week ago, the Greek government received a Troika proposal for a new set of conditional bailout terms, which included the following 9 action points: Fiscal consolidation plan (Primary surplus 1% in 2015, 2% in 2016, 3% in 2017 and 3.5% beyond), Social fairness package, VAT reform (two rates of 23% and 11%), Pension reform, Tax administration reform, Improve public financial management, Safeguarding financial stability (solving the current NPL challenge), Competitiveness enhancing reforms (labor market reform, product market reform, privatization, liberalizing the energy sector), Public sector reforms (improving public sector administration, judical fairness, anti-corruption, statistical accuracy).

No specific promises were made in the Troika proposal about potential debt-relief, although it shall be noted the current second program took note back in November 2012, that if Greece completed this second program while its debt-to-GDP ratio was forecast to be higher than 124% in 2020 or 110% in 2022 - then the Eurozone had pledged to implement a debt-relief with a big enough size to guarantee this target would be reached. The Greek government around the same time of receiving the Troika proposal, replied the Troika by submitting the following two counter-proposal documents, which included a specific request for debt-relief.

• 47 page draft for a technical staff level agreement
• Ending the Greek crisis: Debt Management and Investment-led Growth

Best summary of the debt-relief proposal outlined by the two above documents, was given by this Financial Times article.

In short, here is the debt-relief package proposed by the Greek government

1. ESM should pay a €27bn non-conditional long-term maturity bailout loan to Greece, so that Greece can repay the €27bn pile of the short-term maturing SMP bonds held by ECB. This would not lower the debt-to-GDP, but solve the short-term liquidity problem in Greece, by delaying the date of debt-repayments. Two of the ECB-held bonds come due in July and August, with payments totaling €6.7bn, so figuring out a way to deal with these is a matter of urgency.
2. IMF holds €20bn bailout loans, of which Greece proposed to repay the first €9bn with shortest maturitity - immediately. However, this repayment should not be financed by Greece but by the €9bn reimbursement of accrued interests on the €27bn pile of SMP-debt held by the national central banks in ECB. As part of a debt-relief agreement reached in December 2012, eurozone governments already agreed to give up their €9bn profits on Greek bonds purchased by the ECB, but only conduct it as reimbursement drip-wise on the moment they received debt-service payments from Greece. The new Greek proposal would require them to reimburse "future profits" in advance, so that Greece could benefit from this straight away. Repayment of the remaining €11bn IMF debt carrying high interest rates, could perhaps also be swapped by new ESM bailout loans featuring a lower interest rate, although such an additional swap might not necessarily be needed.
3. Individual eurozone member states hold €53bn bilateral loans (Greek Loan Facility) as part of their first bailout to Greece. Interest rates were lowered and maturity extended last time Greece received a debt-relief in December 2012. First proposal by the Greek government, is to transform this debt into a so-called “perpetual bond” (standing debt, which is never paid back, but has 2.0-2.5% interest payments that go on forever). If the concept of "perpetual bonds" conflict with borrowing rules within the eurozone, the Greek government proposed the alternative of extending the maturity (date for repayment) for all GLF bailout loans to 100 years. A third proposed alternative could be that all existing GLF bonds were swaped to some new “GDP indexed bonds” (with variable maturity and repayment dates decided by the amount of GDP growth being measured in Greece during the course of time, with repayment only happening when certain minimum thresholds are surpassed).
4. EFSF holds €144bn in the current 2nd programme. Those loans are at already very low rates, with very favourable repayment schemes. But the new Greek plan offers something far more radical. It would break the EFSF loans in half, with one half of the outstanding debt being restructured into a loan paying 5% interest (double the 2.5% currently paid) and the rest essentially being written off. The argument for this plan is, that the annual interest payments made by Greece would remain the same (5% of half the loans is the same as 2.5% of all the loans). But by writing off half of the original loan total, Greece’s overall debt load is cut substantially. The write-off would occur in phases under the Greek plan. At first it would become a zero-coupon bond (essentially an interest-free loan), which would gradually be cancelled.
5. Total impact of the above four proposals would be, that the debt-to-GDP would decline from 180% in 2014 to 93% in 2020 and 60% in 2032.

As the above debt-relief proposals now can be sourced by primary sources, I am not opposed we perhaps at some point of time (when the renegotiation phase has ended) perhaps can add this info into the article. Reason why I abstain from doing it straight away, is due to a concern that it at present time will conflict with WP:NOTNEWS, because it might only be interim proposals subject to change - being presented in a not yet completed renegotiation process. But let me know, if you disagree and think it should be added ASAP. Danish Expert (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

This is good, but the situation can change quickly. Spumuq (talq) 12:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

OR/SYNTH/Polemics

The text being added in this edit is clearly non-encyclopedic. It's a synthesis and a WP:COATRACK cobbled together to push a particular point of view. That point of view might be wrong or right but this section clearly violates WP:NPOV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Controversy about media coverage - Point by point - "Greece cheated its way into the Eurozone (did not truly meet admission criteria)"

Current paragraph: "Greece cheated its way into the Eurozone (did not truly meet admission criteria)". This is a widespread yet debatable, if not controversial, statement about a complex issue; moreover, it is many-a-times extended to Greek people being cheats in general.[482] It refers predominantly to one of the five Eurozone entry criteria (as the rest, if not all, had been met or as on many countries, had in essence been waved off, not strictly applied),[483] the year 1999 budget deficit, which should have been below 3% of GDP. Although Greece has been the worst, though not the sole,[483][484][485] violator of the Eurozone convergence criteria after its entrance, it has been argued that it actually fulfilled all criteria for admission including the 1999 budget deficit (even with all later corrections, within a margin of about 0.07% of GDP, as per the most recent AMECO -the official Annual Macroeconomic database of the EU commission- data) according to the accounting method in force at the time (ESA79). Even the highest ever alternative estimate for the 1999 budget deficit (in 2004, using an unorthodox accounting for military orders, later corrected, coupled with retroactive application of the current EU accounting method, i.e., ESA95) did not exceed 3.38%. This claim most commonly lacks context, qualification or comparison to other countries; for example, according to the AMECO database statistics, the deficit data (Excessive Deficit Procedure) for year 1997, the year other initial member states were assessed on for entry into the Eurozone, show other countries exceeding the 3% of GDP mark too: in 1997, France, Portugal and Spain ran a government budget deficit of 3.308%, 3.688% and 4.006% of GDP, respectively

"Greece cheated its way into the Eurozone (did not truly meet admission criteria)". This is a widespread and hotly debated subject and has become complicated issue.[484] It refers predominantly to one of the five Eurozone entry criteria, the year 1999 budget deficit, which was required to be below 3% of GDP to qualify for entry. Greece has been the worst, though not the sole,[485][486][487] violator of the Eurozone convergence criteria after its entrance. it argued that it actually fulfilled all criteria for admission including the 1999 budget deficit at the time of admission (even with later corrections) according to the accounting method in force at the time (ESA79). The highest alternative estimate for the 1999 budget deficit (in 2004, using an unorthodox accounting for military orders, coupled with retroactive application of the current EU accounting method, ESA95) was 3.38%. (Excessive Deficit Procedure) As a comparison for 1997 (although not a qualifying year, the year other initial member states were assessed on for entry into the Eurozone, show other countries exceeding the 3% of GDP mark too: in 1997, France, Portugal and Spain ran a government budget deficit of 3.308%, 3.688% and 4.006% of GDP respectively, however in the year of joining they were all below the 3.00% limit. The key issue with the Greek deficit is that it was at nearly 10% in the decades running up to 1999, dropped below 3% for one year to meet admission criteria and the rose significantly on admission. MattUK (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This is all original research. It wasn't just one year's budget, it was several years of budgets. And it wasn't barely above 3% it was significantly so (after all the revisions 16% IIRC). Somebody's engaging in original research and advocacy here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of the Greek rescue

Not even sure a section devoted to an analysis of the Greek "rescue" is needed, as analysis should be integrated throughout the article. Regardless, this section is problematic for the following reasons. It is one sided, given that every single source quoted is criticising EU policy (not one criticising the Greek response). The selection criterias of the sources are unclear, as the sources hardly seem authoritative (most of them being editorials in media instead of scholarly sources). I would actually propose to delete this section and possibly start from scratch. Maybe http://voxeu.org/ would make a good source, as they have dozens of articles on the Greek debt crisis, by scholars representing a wide range of viewpoints. Varianceinvain (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Not even sure excessive long quotes are needed, unless these quotes are in themselves notable. Varianceinvain (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll sort this section right after I'm done squashing the 'Criticism of Germany' section.

As for your complaints about the sources: Nouriel Roubini? The director of LSE's Hellenic Observatory? Robert Reich? James Mackintosh, investment editor of the world's leading business paper, drawing attention to an estimate by JPMorgan Chase? John Whittaker of Lancaster University? Bloomberg? Jens Sondergaard, senior European economist at Nomura? You are seriously claiming these are unacceptable sources? I fear WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

I'll slice it down to size, but starting over is a non-starter, certainly on the basis you have suggested. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Learn to read, I did not say these are unacceptable sources. I said that this is an indiscriminate collection of voices (or rather, an indiscriminate collection of voices with a specific POV). Hundreds if not thousands of very notable economists, newspaper editors, or bank economists have written something about the Greek debt crisis in the last few years, we cannot include them all, and hence there should be a selection criterion (being widely cited, for example, or the analysis being published in a peer-reviewed journal). Varianceinvain (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is you who needs to learn to read, friend.

You complained that the section is "problematic" to the point that we need to "delete" it. One of the two reasons you gave for this assessment was "the sources hardly seem authoritative". What is the problem with Nouriel Roubini, the head of LSE's Greek Observatory, and so on? You then ask for articles by "scholars", presumably because they are "authoritative". Either Roubini et al. aren't scholars, or they aren't authoritative, or they are neither. Which is it? Here's a source, authoritative, who thinks the section shouldn't be deleted:

I think it is appropriate to examine the question as to whether the money going to Greece is being spent on Greek workers, or repaying loans imprudently lent by banks that supported the lending, by that I mean banks in Germany and France. (Lawrence Summers)

VoxEU: it's mostly just "policy analysis and commentary from leading economists"—stuff that, if it appeared in the FT or wherever, you'd decry as mere "editorials in media". You also might like to take your own advice and read Vox: "Most economists, and even many EU leaders, now think the Eurozone's handling of the Greek Crisis is a tragedy of poor policy." So according to your suggested "scholarly" source (incidentally, you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word; a paper in The American Economic Review, or an academic tome published by Cambridge University Press, would be a scholarly source; commentary on Vox is not a scholarly source, even if written by a scholar—it'd be like calling Krugman's blog a scholarly source) the section is simply the mainstream outline of what an utter farce and disgrace the whole thing has been.

The section needs trimming, and I will do so—and I will make sure that section's lead sentence begins like this: "Most economists now think…"

Still, at least the fretting Americans aren't complete fools.

My profound wish is that Greece votes no and exits the euro, then jumps into bed with the Russians and the Chinese; Spain leaves; the euro totally unravels; and, finally, the ghastly Cancer Chancellor Merkel of Germany gets the exchange rate she has long deserved. Never going to happen, but one can't help wishing.

From your edit history, I submit that you are a blatant sock. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to correct the entire "Controversy about media coverage" chapter from WP:SYNTH

I agree with MattUK, bobrayner, Economics and RoadWarrior445 in the above Controversy about media coverage and This is WP:SYNTH debate, that the entire Controversy about media coverage chapter suffers from WP:SYNTH. When reading it from top to bottom, a lot of concerns pop up.

• First point of concern, is that the scope for the chapter seems solely to build at a singular secondary source: the article of Sonja Joku, without checking/mentioning how her personal view fits with findings by other sources into this subchapter about "Controversy about media coverage".

• Second point of concern, the validity of featuring the list below of "incorrect citations by various media", of which the majority of the citations were sourced by links to cartoons and statements made by John Stewart in The Daily Show, can also be questioned. At least it needs to be put into context. Point here is, that the editors compiling this subchapter made the WP:SYNTH mistake to bridge a hypothesis posted by Sonja Joku ("that inaccurate media stories about Greeks, could be the root cause why private investors suddenly decided to ask their continued lending to be conditional of sky high interest rates above 6% - starting from January 2010"), with a bulletpoint list below of comedy citations made by the comedian John Stewart (implicit suggesting professional investors made their lending decisions to Greece based on a handful of John Stewart statements).

• As for the first bulletpoint statement (which opened up this specific talkpage debate): "The need of (lazy) Greeks to work harder", there also is a heavy concern into the fact that we lack appropriate primary sources for this citation to be widespread/present in other media outside of how a few Comedians/Cartoons might have depicted the Greek crisis back in 2011. The first "source" (being a satirical cartoon) actually did not even feature the cited words, as it in fact only depicted that Greece received bailout funds from Germany without doing anything in return (other than stressing out at the beach). The second "source" is the John Stewart video clip, which does not play for me in Denmark, but again I heavily suppose his words if really being "The need of (lazy) Greeks to work harder", should not have been interpreted how this phrase is being interpreted when standing alone out of the rest he said in the clip. Cutting out pieces of word from a joke, and utilizing it this way as a bulletpoint to bridge a niche hypothesis made by Sonja Juko (an external doctoral candidate at a German university faculty for political science), is as WP:SYNTH as anything can be.

I am not opposed to keeping having the subchapter as part of our WP article, but some of us really needs to read it carefully through from top to bottom (while reading all the attached sources), and then correct all of the present WP:SYNTH issues being present in the chapter. Danish Expert (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a broader problem. Reliable sources say certain things about the Greek economy, which certain editors disagree with, so this section is maintained as a way of undermining those sources. We should just report what reliable sources say, instead of building an immense pile of synthesis to explain away the bits we don't like. bobrayner (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

there is an even broader problem: if Apple employees or their family members would obvioulsy block the improvement of the Apple article (having an obvious agenda to make Apple look good even if it means tweaking reality; block-reverting almost everything not compatible with their agenda; mainly active to block/delete and not to contribute; opposing any change of obvious POV/SYNTH/and so on; filling lengthy unnecessary discussions but not specifying what they really want or oppose; not even contributing to the article with their special Apple knowhow and sources), they should probably refrain from editing this article because of obvious WP:CONFLICT; is that different with the Greek debt crisis?

Or better wait until every (competent and willing) author is fent away?

--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Shall we remove the section, then? bobrayner (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any good reason not to remove the section? bobrayner (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Done. bobrayner (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. Taking such a drastic step when among other things, we were going through an ANI, when relevant editors were evidently abstaining from edits in order for things to cool down or due to said ANI, when there has been no real consensus or discussion on e.g. removing the section (talking to yourself back and forth does not count, at least not in such circumstances...) between opposing parties, is to say the least a bit problematic... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 10:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I tire of this tendentious editing. There is clearly no consensus to include the content, and there's a longstanding discussion in which various editors raised concerns about the section; but you automatically reinstated all the problematic content, without addressing any of the concerns, whilst saying "No real discussion or consensus". Quit it. bobrayner (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes right; I'm also getting very tired of having to repeat myself over and over. So the only thing I'm gonna repeat is that there is no consensus either to take such a drastic step, i.e. to remove this "garbage". Thanatos|talk|contributions 10:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is terrible, it is not neutral, why did you insert it? Spumuq (talq) 12:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is wonderful, it is neutral (see what I just did?), I just re-inserted something removed without consensus or any real discussion.
For the last time: no consensus (or even discussion, just claims and talking to oneself) on taking such a drastic step on such an important issue and a heavily sourced section.
PS For the love of god, it feels like I'm inside a Theatre of the Absurd play... Google for example "Greeks are lazy"!!!
Thanatos|talk|contributions 14:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that such a section is everything, except neutral, it is not even good for a mediocre blog.

Basic logic has been twisted here, language is very fuzzy: Like "arguments [have] shown to be inaccurate" but it doesn't say which arguments. E.g. "work harder" would be proven to be inaccurate (?), because "Greeks on average spend 8 hours a day at work". To show the flawed logic: Everybody knows that in a communist country there is 0% unemployment, 100% are working, like 8h days. Does it mean everybody works hard in communist countries? Nobody would say that. If everybody works hard the question would be why there so not sufficient output in the economy. Just flawed.

Because of earlier aggressive behavior, Thanatos666 was just demanded in the ANI process by a WP admin not to modify the article until he has found consensus for his ideas on the talk page. There seems to be no learning curve of Thanatos666, harming the article development, making it very complicate for the editors.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

1.It seems you're unable to learn from experience. I won't ever bother this time to use 'french' against you; it has become very boring considering the real life stuff. 2. Some of us editors are actually living through all this and it's very difficult, if not impossible, to spend e.g. the time necessary to deal with people pushing their POV and ideology at wikipedia. I just return here at times to check whether people have pushed their POV (only regarding this section; I don't have time for more...) and remedy the situation. Real life stuff, you know. 3.See sources. Fully sourced. End of story. Thanatos|talk|contributions 21:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is Thanatos666

- infringing the admin demand in the recent ANI (not to modify the article until he has found consensus for his ideas o the talk page) and

- returning to his aggressive behavior by edit warring?

Why can Thanatos666 not understand that he has no talk page consensus in putting this [1] in by edit warring? There is absolutely no consensus about the very vague statement that "many outright inaccuracies and debatable arguments that have been made" and everything that is listed after this statement. Point.

The WP:CONFLICT of Thanatos666 concerning this article must be huge considering his continued aggressiveness to overrule recent admin demands and other editors reasonable arguments.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Greek Indiegogo Bailout Fund Project

Someone needs to edit this in:

Indiegogo website for Greek bailout SlashingBrain (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC) SlashingBrain

Why it seems like a minor detail. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not? It seems pretty symbolic for something like this to happen, and is being covered by notable media. SlashingBrain (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC) SlashingBrain

A symbolic, interesting, popular red-herring. I guess I'm on the fence. WykiP (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I gave my €5 yesterday! Only €1.6 billion short… but still 4 days left! We can do this… --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Too long and still growing.

This article has grown about 3% (or 10kB) since 1 June. It is truly way, way too long to read (about 360kB where 50kB is the recommended maximum). Even the introduction is that long that the unwary readers may think they are reading the full article. We need to warn people before they spend their time. For that reason I have tagged the article. Please leave until all 3 issues are solved. Arnoutf (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

We already debated this length issue several times, last time only two weeks ago. I suppose you now want to restart this length issue debate for the umpteenth time. While I can respect your call for a shorter article, its really not constructive to achieve such goal by posting a general warning box along with posting absolutely no suggestion for potential solutions, while ignoring previously posted arguments for why the current structure and length of the lead section was justified. If you want to be constructive about this length issue, then as I repeatedly wrote here at the talkpage, we need to deal with such call or desire "section by section" throughout the article. Launching this general debate about length issue for both WP:LEAD and WP:SIZE + WP:IINFO for the article in general will lead to 0 improvements, because it will only result in a muddy debate.

I agree with you, that we have a WP:SIZE problem to be solved, and proposed we deal with it through a more specific "section-by-section" debate (i.e. we could start debate/consider if we need the second "Overview chapter" to provide a summary of the later "evolution chapter", while we also could debate whether the length/existence of the "Germany criticism" and "media coverage" chapters are appropriate). However, I still disagree we have existence of a general WP:LEAD + WP:IINFO issue to be solved. Also disagree on your opinion that all article changes made since June 1 suffered from being too long. Did you even check why it grew by 10kB? The main kB were not related to text being added, but instead the add of around 25 references. So should we stop adding references just for the purpose to save kB? The biggest (only major) text-change since June 1, was that I wrote a 3 paragraph summary for the empty chapter Speculation about a third rescue package. Do you consider that summary to be too long? Or could this section when considered in isolation be approved according to your call for appropriate length?

If some of you wish we should continue the debate about the length and content of the lead, I think its best not to do this in this general length issue debate, but up as a continuation of the still open debate: >100 pages, but still main points missing? - or in the alternative if you want to start from fresh then at least move on by creating a new separate "Lead length" talkpage debate to debate such issue in detail (personally I wont repeat my arguments in this section to avoid being repetitive, as for the explanation why the lead has been structured to be a short summary of all major key phases in the six-year long "crisis evolution"). Danish Expert (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for shortening article:

Criticism of Germany's role is 11 pages!

Causes is 10 pages long here and extremely repetitive. WykiP (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So, after like 20 pages...

i guess we just blame the Germans....like 15% of this article is a German hit piece....223.198.78.105 (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

That section in particular needs massive trimming. It's 11 pages on my browser! WykiP (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Separe article for criticism of Greek "rescue"

Apparently the thoughts of Nobel Prize-winning economists, leading experts on monetary union, the OECD, the US Treasury, the IMF, leading economics commentators, and so forth, are not fit for inclusion on Wikipedia. I know, I know: anyone with functioning brain cells would deem them relevant and authoritative sources, but there are those who lack such things.

It is difficult to trim down parts of the Germany section without losing the thread of the thing, so I propose shunting it into its own article. Perhaps Criticism of Greek bailouts or some such.

By the way, I believe Volunteer Marek is crying about a previous incident where we crossed swords (this was months and months ago). Apparently, he's been spoiling to have another cry ever since, which should tell you everything you need to know about what a sad little man he is. Cheers. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

First... what in the hell are you talking about? What "crying" of mine, are you specifically referring to? I didn't actually remember you (until I checked) although your user name seemed vaguely familiar.

Second, I did look you up and then I had the "oh yeah" moment. You're the account who up until recently had the following on their user page:

"I am a fascist. I am openly fascist, both here and in real life. There is no category for Wikipedians who are fascists. This grieves me." [2].

You then changed it so that now " I'm a Leftist. But then, anyone is anything they want to be on the internets!!!" Right.

Third, this comment of yours, as well as the one right above is a clear personal attack. Consider this a warning.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

American perspective

The Americans are trying, really trying! Now they have tried again! Well, the International Monetary Fund has tried now, but the IMF is "basically an offshoot of the U.S. Treasury department", so it's actually the Americans again. Please, everyone stand. The Yanks are helping to save Europe from the Germans once more. :'-)

I'd like to include a very brief mention of American involvement and the reasons for it. And I mean brief. Any objections if I put a line or two together and post the result here for criticism before adding it to the article? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It does show the global interest in this. I am a bit skeptical about your IMF link though. But the Obama speech does seem notable enough to me for a few lines. I am not sure in which section I would best fit though. Arnoutf (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair comment about the source, though I'm sure you agree that the statement of US dominance at the IMF ("the IMF's most powerful member"; "American power extends into the operational decision-making surrounding the Fund's most important policy instrument [i.e. loans]. American policymakers use this influence to pursue financial and foreign policy objectives.") is uncontroversial—hence American mourning over AIIB.

OK, so here's what I was going to put in the relevant section:

The United States showed significant interest during the crisis of June–July 2015, with President Obama, along with the IMF, which the US dominates, calling for Greece to be given a softer deal.<ref>source 1; source 2</ref>; sources 3 and 4 as I typed in the first paragraph of this response.

Is it brief enough? Are there any other criticisms people would make? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Generally fine, but I would leave out the phrase "Which the US dominates". It may be true, but it adds nothing to relevance to this specific article (besides implicit criticism on the close US-IMF ties - but that is not relevant here in my opinion). Arnoutf (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I hear you. I will leave my suggested addition here for a day for others to drop by and add their comments, then rework it as necessary and add to the article. Regarding dominant US influence at the IMF, my intention was to indicate to readers that the IMF calling for Greece to be treated less brutally is an indication of how seriously the US is taking things. I guess the fact that Obama himself has spoken on the matter indicates that, but could this be rephrased so that it doesn't sound pejorative, but rather just a statement of fact. I mean, to say that China will dominate the AIIB is not controversial, but it is possible to phrase the fact in an NPOV way. If not no worries; like I said, Obama himself is enough to make the point. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

this paragraph is unnecessary imo. the article should be structured clearly along the lines of: what is it - cause - solutions and effects. solutions beeing bankrupt+keep euro - exit euro - the contract currently there - and maybe others. the effects is who does not get money back. if obama says "soften the deal so greece would pay back the 1.4 billion to the US dominated IMF" so if there is an "american perspective" at all it is "let us get our money back before the others". which i guess is everybody's perspective. your link for IMF calling for 60bn additionally, repayable within 50 years is in the same lines. if you really mention the germans and world war, there are a couple of links you might consider studying: London Agreement on German External Debts, a 50% haircut. Marshall Plan to support mainly britain and france, but as well germany. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Clumsily written -- too many commas. Not terribly interesting or relevant. Lastly, "dominates" implies much more power than an 18% voteshare. WykiP (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree it is poorly written. Can we agree at least to remove the American date formats: the first contributors use international formats, e.g. 5 August 2010, then US contributors added August 5, and then August 5, 2010 type formatting. In a European article this is distracting. It smacks of rubber stamping a discussion on a European topic, as being a US perspective ignoring anyone else, because the contributor cannot even be bothered to follow Wikipedia guidance on dates or respect the national aspect of this discussion. This is a European Article, the first major contributor used European (International) date formats, so does anyone object if all the dates are changed to the same format in accord to avoid this distraction? 85.240.36.60 (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Iceland filed for Bankruptcy?

'"In fact, Iceland made a dramatic recovery after it filed for bankruptcy in 2008, taking advantage of the devaluation of Icelandic krona (ISK)."

Firstly, this is nonsense. Countries can't file for bankruptcy. Therefore Iceland could not have done so. Secondly, although Iceland was faced with not being able to fulfill its future debt commitments as it responded to its banking crisis, it was neither bankrupt (in the layman's understanding of the word) nor was it in default.

Finally, using the word 'dramatic recovery" is unsubstantiated POV and gives a false impression. Iceland is still in recovery: its financial system a shambles and is still heavily controlled (controls put in place during the crisis), foreign investment in the country and important economic indicators have not reached their peak pre-crisis levels.

That line in the article should be re-written or removed entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.31.160 (talk) 09:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with that. Also the Iceland case, which seems to be mainly due to overextended foreign activities of its banks is very different in causes and solutions to that of Greece. So the relevance of Iceland may be doubted altogether here. Arnoutf (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

history of greek crisis

some articles for the history are here:

• http://orf.at/stories/2288769/2288076/
• http://qz.com/440058/the-complete-history-of-the-greek-debt-drama-in-charts/
• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/greece-overspending-defence-wages-taxation-economic-crisis?CMP=share_btn_fb

--ThurnerRupert (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

New source

Varoufakis interview:

• http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/07/yanis-varoufakis-full-transcript-our-battle-save-greece

--NSH001 (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC) (surprised that Varoufakis is only mentioned once in the article)

YeOldeGentleman's Proposal of New Page

@YeOldeGentleman: Hi YeOldeGentleman. You proposed the creation of a new article in order to make this one more concise here. Did this article ever get created? If not, we should try to add some of the content that was removed back into this article as much of the content was useful and pertinent to the issue. Thanks. KevinLiu (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that "much of the content was useful and pertinent". It was a big mess. This does not necessarily apply to the content recently restored by User:Farcaster [3], where the relevance of the material is at least debatable.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@YeOldeGentleman: Waiting for your reply before any action is taken to restoring this content. Other editors feel free to chime in as well whether removed content is significant enough to insert back into article. Thanks. KevinLiu (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@KevinLiu: Sorry, old chap! Been doing a few other bits I wanted to do.

I'm not really interested in what our especially conceited personality-disorder—sorry, supreme intellect of all time, Marek, thinks. Maybe he's that sock puppet I spoke with above; maybe he's still griping because of a previous engagement; or perhaps he's crying because he saw I decried his butchering of DanishExpert's hard work "in such an unappreciative, ignorant, and stupid manner." I can only guess—but who knows, and who cares?

I can only repeat that if he's too ignorant to understand the "pertinence" of Germany with regard to this human catastrophe, and can't fathom the "pertinence" of the IMF, the OECD, leading banks, Nobel Prize-winning economists, leading economics commentators, the world's leading business papers, leading authorities on monetary union, academic papers and the like—well, then he has the problem, not I.

Anyway, I simply do not have the time to make a separate article, and I'm not sure its really worth it. Instead, I was going to really scythe down and update what was originally there (people can always read the sources cited if they want more info), and then restore it. If CoxcombMarek doesn't like that, then he's just going to have to learn to try and control himself. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)