Talk:Greece: Difference between revisions

semi-protected 2/dec/2011

this article is not semi-protected like similar articles form other countries

Edit request on 30 July 2012

In the article is written that Greece shares borders to the North with Republic of Macedonia. The UN official term is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Please make that correction since wikipedia is not a political body to make statements other than recognized by UN. Thank you

Christoskas (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a non-political entity which has its own rules and guidelines for naming countries and is not under the jurisdiction of nor limited by the United Nations. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia). Dru of Id (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Final Census

http://www.statistics.gr/portal/page/portal/ESYE/BUCKET/General/NWS_CENSUS_310712_GR.pdf

population is 9.903.268

79.167.11.152 (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Corrected.Nochoje (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the official data from World Bank, Greece's population is 11.304 million though, as of 2011.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_totl&idim=country:GRC&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+greece

How did Greece lose almost 1.5 million inhabitants in the course of a year?

Is there any logical explanation for this? It is amusing! --Blamestars (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on my understanding of ELSAT's press release, the 9,903,268 figure is the LEGAL population of Greece and does not include any illegal imigrants or any immigrants whatsoever (legal, EU residents, etc). It only inludes Greek citizens enrolled in each Municipality/Periphery of Greece. This is what I understand, someone else can comment further. If the community thinks this figure should be changed or further explained, so be it. Nochoje (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm Greek and I live in Athens. This difference between the estimated population and the census' results has nothing to do with illegal immigrants! They cannot be included in a census either way! It's because many greek people did not participate in the census! They did not open their doors in order to answer! They did that mostly as a form of protest against the government's economical measures. So, I don't understand why they don't just mention the estimated population which is about 11.3 million and of course is the true population of the country! The 9.9 million census result is totally wrong. Even the population of Athens' Municipality is given as just 467,000! It's crazy! Until yesterday it was 800,000 and now it decreased so much in a matter of days? As I said there was no cooperation by many people so the census failed! I hope they write back again the true population which is the estimated one. (Grecus_magnus) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.67.226 (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The cited number for the total number of inhabitants (9,903,268) is actually not the number we need for the Wiki-article. The table that was presented 31 July gives the de jure population, whatever that means. (My guess is that it only counts Greek citizens.) What we are waiting for is the final numbers of the resident population, that is the number of people actually living in Greece. This table is expected to be presented some time this year, but nothing more precise has been said. The provisional number given so far, is 10,787,690. It would be wise to wait for the final results in order to update Wikipedia! Regards! --79.160.40.10 (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

HDI update

The infobox states that the HDI in Greece is "very high". Doesn't this need an update considering the economin crisis in that country? Pass a Method talk 21:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, it's still listed as "very high" by the UN. Until it changes in the UN report, it stays like this here. Athenean (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. Greece remains a country with a "very high" Human Development, despite the recent economic crisis. Nochoje (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Edit Request

As I look at the image for the Greece Debt, I see they have $161 in debt, Do I get paid interest if I pay that off for them? lol jk. I believe an increment indicator (millions, billions, trillions) should be added to clarify.

Shouldn't this mention corruption as a major component of Greek culture?

Numerous commentators including journalist Michael Lewis have pointed out that corruption is a major component of Greek culture. Shouldn't that be in this article?

Journalists are free to believe whatever they want. Corruption is very high in Italy (its evidenced to be almost as high as in Greece), and other Mediterranean countries. But can the cultures of those countries also be blamed for the causes of corruption? Of course not. Corruption is mostly irrelevant to the culture of a nation or a region. It is clearly a political phenomenon, not a cultural characteristic. State corruption increases when political systems are not fighting it, and decreases when strong anti-corruption measures are taken. In the case of Greece, Bulgaria, Italy and other countries in the region, the politicians never showed a strong dedication to fight corruption in past. As a result, those countries today enjoy poor economies and are facing financial difficulties. Again I repeat: this has nothing to do with the actual culture of each nation. I hear many things from the journalists, and my advice to you: don't take them seriously. Journalists are humans after all, they may say things that are not true or correct. A good and reliable journalist could dig deeper in his research and find the actual roots of the corruption, rather than accusing generally a culture for the causes of the corruption. --85.75.147.183 (talk) 06:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Western Europe?

It is a historical category, from the Cold War era. The supplied source of 1966 was good for its time. Today it is time to put every country in its unique geographic place again. --E4024 (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Does anybody know when that ridiculous reference to "politically...western Europe" was sneaked into the lead sentence? The only sense in which "western Europe" even constitutes a political unit, let alone one of which Greece is part, is that of the Cold War, which simply no longer exists today. The place where Greece is is called south-eastern Europe. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think that the sourced reference to "western Europe" may, as has already been said, be an anachronistic Cold War reference or it is WP:FRINGE. I certainly don't think it is common or usual in the English-speaking world to consider Greece "politically Western European". I think we need to be careful to distinguish this from being part of "the West" in the global sense, which of course it is. Maybe that was what the editor who put it in thought he was saying.DeCausa (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. It was added to the article on Christmas Eve, at that time in an even stronger form. --79.160.40.10 (talk) 09:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

@Future Perfect: Also with some toe-holds on Asia: The islands in the eastern Aegean and the island of Meis in southeastern Mediterranean certainly belong to the Anatolian peninsula / or the subcontinent of "Asia Minor"... --E4024 (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Anatolian tragedy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I edited the part related to Greece's expansionist occupation of western Anatolia but my edit was reverted as "PoV pushing" when the only thing I was trying to do was to remove Greek nationalist POV from the article. For those who do not know very well, Greece occupied part of western Turkey in 1919, and caused a war between the two countries. As there was no reason other than expansionism for the Greek occupation and it was not provoked by any Turkish action, this was a micro-imperialist invasion. The Turks did nothing but only try to defend and recover their territory. Please look into the relevant part in the article and if you do not get the impression that it is the Turks' fault that Greece began an expansionist war and lost it, do not change the current edit as it is after my edition was reverted. --E4024 (talk) 16:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Much of this territory was heavily populated by Greeks, in case you didn't know that. But anyway I am satisfied with Future Perfect's edit, so this is closed as far as I'm concerned. Athenean (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

E4024, you really need to calm down. I agree the original wording was misleading but it really was premature jumping to an RfC after one revert and no talk page discussion. I think FuturePerfect's edit is good, seems to satisfy Athenean and,IMHO, should satisfy you. Furthermore heading this unnecessary RfC "Anatolian tragedy" is not helpful. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, can we just close this RfC thing? I think all parties have indicated they are okay with the current wording, so the issue of this particular sentence should be solved now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Intro and Economic crisis

At the end of the intro, it states: " Since late 2009, the Greek economy has been hit by a severe economic and financial crisis resulting in the Greek government requesting €240 billion in loans from EU institutions, a substantial debt write-off, and unpopular austerity measures". This was edited a couple of months ago by a user and I am surprised that this just came up. The aforementioned statement is 100% true. However it should not be on the lead. For two main reasons: The first reason is that NO OTHER country in crisis (Its not just Greece in crisis its also Spain, Portugal, Italy among others) has similar style in the intro. The intro is not about the crisis, it's there to give an introduction to the country. Greece, despite the crisis remains a country among the top in the world in regards to human development and quality of life. That's what is mentioned usually in the intro for all other similar countries. Now we have devoted a huge section (in my opinion its really too huge indeed and editing is required) about the Crisis. There is even a dedicated article for it. It's at least useless to put it in the intro AS WELL. If however a user wants to keep it, then he/she should also edit in a relevant way Spain, Portugal, Italy and why not Ireland articles as well. Nochoje (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a little astonished that anyone would challenge reference to the economic crisis in this lead. A couple of preliminary points: (1) "This was edited a couple of months ago by a user and I am surprised that this just came up." This was first introduced by me five months ago. It followed my updating of the economy section which had become hopelessly out of date - see this Talk page thread. It was subsequently modified by other editors. As it's been there for 5 months and has undergone editing, per WP:CONSENSUS it clearly has consensus support. It's not the case that it has recently been slipped in and only just been noticed. (2) What is in the Spain and Portugal articles is no precedent for what's in this article for two reasons. Firstly, each country needs to be looked at in its own circumstances. Spain and Portugal do not have the same circumstances as Greece. Secondly, because of that Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, treats each article separately see, for instance, WP:OTHERSTUFF. If Spain and Portugal are defective in not including references to the crisis in their leads (and I'm making no comment as to whether that is so), that is no grounds for making this article defective as well.

Moving on to the real issue: the economic crisis in Greece is not only massively important to Greece it is massively important to the Eurozone. It clearly is a dominant feature in understanding Greece at the moment as well as a key part in understanding the EU's most difficult challenge. It needs to be a very substantial part of this article because it is a very substantial aspect of Greece today. You say that there is too much on it in the article. That is quite an extraordinary statement. The Economy section is currently inadequate: there is far too much describing the pre-2009 and not enough post 2009. I updated it in May as best I could (it kind of stopped at late 2010/early 2011 at that point) as a stop-gap solution but the whole Economy section really needs a thorough re-write to reflect today's position properly. Then turning to the lead, per WP:LEAD it is inconceivable to me that the lead does not contain a sentence (only one sentence!) on something which has put Greece regularly as the top item of global news reports for the last two years and is such a major feature of understanding Greece today. DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts are pretty logical as logical as is that because this is your edit, you want to support it till the end. Although I disagree that "Spain and Portugal do not have the same circumstances" (actually Spain, being a bigger country has much worse circumstances if this continues the wrong way), the problem of placing "economic crisis" on the lead is quite simple: It exaggerates and repeats something that it is explained in detail (there is a dedicated article for this). It reminds me of when BBC or other media, over-react and exaggerate by saying that "Athens is burning" when in fact there used to be a few clashes in a square measuring 100 meters by 100 meters. It is the same exaggeration when people asked if there is "food on the shelves" in Greek supermarkets when in reality the cafes are full throughout the day and life in Greece more or less is pretty much the same. By adding this stuff in the lead, we over-do it, just like the BBC or CNN over-reacts. The only difference is that Wikipedia has no advertisement :)...Nochoje (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The issue is simple. The lead is a summary that should 'define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points'. The lead can't touch on every important issue for a given topic. That's what the rest of the article is for. If a crisis that threatens the very existence of the Euro isn't considered important enough to mention in the lead of the other involved nations and the EU itself, than it doesn't belong in Greece's lead. If it does and the other articles are 'defective', then mention should be added to all their leads.
the economic crisis in Greece is not only massively important to Greece it is massively important to the Eurozone.
Well, that's an issue for the Eurozone article.
—Sowlos (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

@Nochoje. I don't understand you first sentence. Could you clarify what you mean. The rest of your post is directed towards saying that the severity of the crisis is exaggerated: "By adding this stuff in the lead, we over-do it, just like the BBC or CNN over-reacts." Well, sorry yes, that is exactly Wikipedia's job: we must present it just as the reliable sources such as BBC and CNN present it, not as you Nochoje think it should be presented based on your own experiences. That is original research and we don't allow that.

@Sowlos. Maybe mention should be added to the other leads but that's not an issue for this Talk page.(I referred to the importance to the Eurozone because it demonstrates its overall significance as being not only domestic.) The fact is the economic crisis is the primary important economic (and political) feature of Greece at the moment. Of, at least, equal significance to the the other economic data in the lead. If that is removed and the other economic information is left in it then it doesn't reflect the article content as well as the actual situation.

DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed it per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NPOV. Also as I wrote in my edit summary: "Again, this is a country article. As such recent crises do not belong in the lead but in the body. Phrasing is too detailed + POV and ignores the other European countries" In other words there are additional problems with the edit other than recentism. The phraseology is POV, "hit with economic crisis"? This is a non-technical, unencyclopaedic description. There are also too many details for the lead. In addition I don't buy the WP:OTHERCRAP exists justification. This is a global crisis and ignoring the other countries is downright economic POV against Greece. For instance here we have the 2011–2012 Spanish protests, ongoing protests about the Spanish economic crisis now going strong for a year and also called the Spanish revolution but no mention of the stuff on the lead of Spain. Revolution? What's that? No big deal. Why mention a 21st century Spanish revolution in the article about Spain? Let's just concentrate on Greece and pretend that Spain and other Eurozone countries don't experience similar crises and forget about any mention of these crises in the lead of the other countries. It is as if PIIGGS does not exist. No, it's only Greece. Nobody else. What economic crisis? Everything is good. Now let's advertise it at the lead of the article on Greece, including all the minute number details while making sure that we avoid any mention of a larger crisis and even more preciously making sure that no other European country's article mentions anything like that on their leads while suppressing even revolutions. If only Greece didn't blow the whole European economy there would be no crisis. Is this any way of writing an NPOV article? Let's get serious. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting silly. It has nothing to do with denigrating Greece. What goes on in the other articles is not a subject for this Talk page. I have no desire and I am not part of any conspiracy to put Greece in a "bad" light and let Portugal and Spain "off". How can it possibly be "downright economic POV against Greece". That really is an unacceptable accusation which I would like you to withdraw. I happen not to edit those countries pages as I tend only to edit Balkan and mid-east country articles - not because I have any connection with those regions but because I have an interest in their history which has morphed into the country articles. My contribs will demonstrate that. If this discussion is going to be at this sort of level then this is not going to be a constructive discussion. This is is a very simple question: is the economic crisis of at least as great a significance as the 2010 economic data that is currently in the lead? The answer to any body who is neutral is that it obviously does. Does this require an RfC?

I have to say I am extremely disappointed in what appears to be an emotional rather than a NPOV response to this. I am equally disappointed that Dr. K has reverted the edit while it is currently being discussed. No matter how strongly the feelings, there is no reason to ignore normal Wikipedia processes and policies. DeCausa (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course. Play the "emotional" card against your opponent so that your arguments can prevail. This is a very unpleasant tactic and I hope you realise that. And spare me the talk of withdrawing my comments. If you do not realise that your actions, isolating the economic problems of Greece from the exact same problems the other PIIGGS countries face, amounts to economic POV against Greece, then this is your problem unfortunately and not mine. And to quote you: there is no reason to ignore normal Wikipedia processes and policies. I removed this blatant POV from the lead of the article exactly for the purpose of following normal NPOV, WP:UNDUE policies and making the article conform to higher encyclopaedic standards. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to that sort of unnecessary personal attack. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not responding to your comment either because I view it for myself the same way you view my comment for yourself. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we're doing a lot of responding that we're not going to respond to each other :) DeCausa (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed! A rare point of agreement. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that something which is still relatively recent should be mentioned in the lede. While each article is indeed unique, I don't see anything similar for most other countries, with the exception of Iceland. Athenean (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Wording for an RfC

RFC proposal closed following discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I'd like to agree wording for an RfC. I suggest as follows: "RfC: Should the lead contain a reference to the economic crisis? The lead for the article Greece contained the following sentence for the last 5 months until it was recently deleted: "Since late 2009, the Greek economy has been hit by a severe economic and financial crisis resulting in the Greek government requesting €240 billion in loans from EU institutions, a substantial debt write-off, and unpopular austerity measures." This was the only reference to the Greek economic crisis in the lead. Should the lead contain any reference to the Greek economic crisis? If it should contain a reference to it, should it be the above wording or other wording, if so what?" Comments please. DeCausa (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Unacceptable. See my comments above. And the reason I did not delete this blatant POV from the article earlier is that, believe it or not, I never read this article in detail. I just glance at it. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC) What is unacceptable? The wording or the fact of the RFC. If it is the wording, can you suggest an alternative please. Just to be clear: this is a proposal to agree the wording of the question to be asked (in accordance with RFC best practice) not the RFC itself. DeCausa (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Obviously the wording and the inclusion of this piece at the article. I will not propose an alternate wording until or if the other PIIGGS articles also include similar passages at the lead. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 12:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC) No, that's not what this is!!! I'm going to launch an RfC. To do so, a question with neutral wording is to be asked. I'm checking that those who oppose me agree that the question is neutrally expressed. It's not about the wording to go in the article or whether it should be in the article. DeCausa (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Unacceptable as well. I fully agree with Dr.K and also with Sowlos. No reference whatsoever should be made to the lead of this article in regards to the "economic crisis" for the reasons dsecribed above. Nochoje (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC) No, no, no. This isn't about the main issue! This is about whether the wording for the question is neutral ONLY. Can you pleae both check WP:RFC before posting again. DeCausa (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Ok. Give me some time to think about it but I am a bit busy at the moment. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I struck the part that should be left out and I highlighted my proposed wording. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I've moved your proposal down to here and restored my so the differences can be seen: "RfC: Should the lead of all so-affected countries (PIIGGS) contain a reference to the economic crisis? The lead for the article Greece contained the following sentence for the last 5 months until it was recently deleted: "Since late 2009, the Greek economy has been hit by a severe economic and financial crisis resulting in the Greek government requesting €240 billion in loans from EU institutions, a substantial debt write-off, and unpopular austerity measures." This was the only reference to the Greek economic crisis in the lead. Should the lead contain any reference to the Greek [placeholder country] economic crisis? If it should contain a reference to it, what should the wording be?it be the above or other wording, if so what?" I don't see how that can work since RfC's are article based. The nearest I've seen is the naming issue for the Anti- and Pro-Abortion articles where there were parallel RfCs in each of the two articles. What you would have to do, I think, is post an RfC worded specifically for each country on each of the countries talk pages. But you really need to find out first whether there is any objection to amending the lead as you would want. So you would need to go through the process of checking each article then if the issue hasn't been raised, amending the article, get reverted, take it to the talk page see if there's support and then raise the RfC...but I'm guessing. Also, that's raising a different question to the one I raised (which is fair enough) rather changing my question for nutrality. I think we would raise the questions separately. The basic point, of course, is what goes on in one article can't dictate the consensus and approach in another. DeCausa (talk) 17:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I understand that each article has to have a separate consensus but perhaps we can have a centralised discussion somewhere to avoid POV by omission. That was my intention in the first place. It would be utterly POV to isolate and target this article's lead without somehow centralising it for the other PIIGGS countries. Also in any case I think the phrase: contained the following sentence for the last 5 months until it was recently deleted. must go because how long the edit remained is of no relevance to the RFC. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC) I accept the removal of the 5 months. As far as the rest, I don't know whether that's possible technically: I've only ever seen article based RfC's. I would oppose it as a question in place of the question I am proposing, but I have no objection to it as an additional question - but I don't know how it can be asked. I'll ask at the Helpdesk. DeCausa (talk) 19:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC) That's fair enough. I'll accept their verdict whichever way it goes. Thank you very much. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Simple wording as a conditional compromise. Simply worded - In an attempt to not burden the lead with WP:RECENTISM, still give mention to a years long pan-European issue, and not use the potentially insulting 'PIIGGS' phrase, there could be brief mention Greece's economic troubles that links to the economy section and the debt crisis article. Like so: Since 2009, Greece has been hard hit by the European sovereign-debt crisis. The condition - I disagree that Greece should be discussed separately from the other affected nations. Wikipedia should seek to be consistent across articles. This discussion should move to WikiProject Europe, reframed as a PIIGGS-wide issue, to establish how to handle this issue equally and consistently amongst all affected nations. My suggestion should only be applied here based on such a consensus there. —Sowlos (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I also agree with your condition and with the reasons you bring forward to support it. Your idea of discussing it at WP:WikiProject Europe is a very good one. I firmly believe that because of the widespread phenomenon of the debt crisis with its deep social, political, international and economic dimensions, isolating the article of Greece and not informing the other articles similarly, in and of itself is an act of sociopolitical and economic POV. I also propose to modify your proposed text as follows: Since 2009, Greece, along with Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal and to a lesser extent Great Britain, has been hard hit by the European sovereign-debt crisis. I added the highlighted text to provide the proper balance and context to this phenomenon and not make it appear as if Greece is the only country affected by it. And don't worry; I used the term PIIGS only informally and for clarification purposes. Believe me I was not about to add it to the article. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I'm fine with that addition as long as there are no strong objections to it. Also, I'd like to add that WikiProject European Union may be better than WikiProject Europe for this issue. —Sowlos (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I don't see why anyone would object to the factual statement that shows that Greece is not the only country suffering the effects of the crisis. I am however open to removing Great Britain if the effects of the crisis are not as strong there. Also the EU project is an even better choice. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC) I agree with both of you and that was by initial concern in the first place to force me to start this discussion. Whatever it is decided it must treat the economic crisis as it really is, i.e. spread across the countries Greece, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Spain (and even Great Britain) or even across the whole Eurozone as we start to realize. We must have consistency and it is not acceptable to treat Greece as a special case as if Greece is the only country in the middle of the crisis. This impression was clearly given when someone adds in the lead references about the economic crisis and its "severity". Also let me point out that this wrong impressions is STILL given if you carefully see how the article about Greece is structured in regards to the Economy chapter. There is a pretty big paragraph on the economic (fiscal) crisis, where for similar countries like Portugal or Spain the references in the economic crisis for these countries are minimal. I think this gives again the wrong impression about the real magnitude of this crisis.Nochoje (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC) You are making some excellent points. I also believe you when you say that: There is a pretty big paragraph on the economic (fiscal) crisis, where for similar countries like Portugal or Spain the references in the economic crisis for these countries are minimal.. The thing is, as I said above, I don't read this article in its entirety. I just glance at it. And do you know the reason? I don't bear reading POV like the one you just mentioned. On the other hand now that we know about it let's try to fix this glaring inconsistency. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Because of Real Life commitments I won't be involved in Wikipedia for a while and will therefore withdraw from this. As I was the only one advocating my position, the rest of you can do as you wish. My last comment is that sources throughout the world, outside of Greece that is, regard what is happening/happened to Greece (and Iceland) as a different order of magnitude to the impact on the other countries. That may well not remain the case as the drama unfolds in Spain and perhaps Italy, but that is the position as it is today. It's a fundamental principle based on WP:RS that Wikipedia is not the place to correct injustices of perception (real or imaginary) but I don't think that principle is of any interest to you sadly. DeCausa (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC) The sad thing here is that you presume to know what my principles are or what my interest is. This, I know you know that, is not a good approach to have toward your fellow editors and is insulting. But here I will quote someone else at the help desk where you went for advice regarding this RFC: Multi-article RfC and an editor replied to you thus: That smacks of recentism and undue weight. How significant is the current event in the context of the thousands of years of history of Greece - or the other countries. It's just a single ripple in the timeline. This is an uninvolved editor at the help desk yet he encapsulated the essence of my arguments better than I ever exposed here. You should try to learn something from this instead of making personal comments about my motives. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Yes, I replied to that post. It's as recentist as citing the latest available GDP. Anyway, I'm done here. I doubt our paths will cross again - this and other recent experiences have taught me that when I come back to WP I'm taking the Greece and Turkey related articles of my watchlist. It's not a constructive area of WP for a neutral to be involved in. DeCausa (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Nothing like a parting barb about neutrality to tar the opponent. What can I say other than I am disappointed about the quality of these tactics and to tell you the truth I did not expect them from you, at least at this level of persistence. Meanwhile I am still trying to remove the tar from my shoes and with a little bit of luck and an industrial-strength solvent I may just get lucky enough to remove it. By the way "neutrality" based on background, nationality or ethnic origin is just a myth. I am not Irish, for example, but does that alone guarantee my neutrality toward Ireland-related articles? Absolutely not. So please don't use the neutrality-based-on- background argument. It's useless and many other things but I will not elaborate further. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 20:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Since we are on the topic of neutrality based on ethnic origin, perhaps another example would help: Let's consider the article on Germany and related topics. According to the ethnicity argument, Germans must not edit German topics because they are, well, German and therefore non-neutral. However Germans also have recently pissed off most of Europe due to their fiscal policies related to the eurozone. So that automatically disqualifies most, if not all, European nationalities as prospective neutral editors of Germany-related topics. The African nations are mistrustful of any Westerners due to their colonialist policies in the past and Germany is no exception; that precludes any editors from Africa. The Americans and the Europeans were at war with Germany in WWII so definitely they cannot be trusted to neutrally edit these articles either, especially WWII-related articles. In addition the Americans don't like the eurozone that much and that's an additional negative toward their Germany-related neutrality. Forget about the Brits. So the question arises, if background is a valid criterion for neutrally editing articles, who can be safely allowed to neutrally edit German topics? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Let us all avoid personal attacks, please. —Sowlos (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Are you in any way referring to my comments? Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 13:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Partly. I apreciate your need to defend yourself, but that's the problem with personal attacks. They create self-perpetuating cycles that need not always be fed with outright attacks after they start, but always draw the discussion off-topic. Back to the intended subject of this thread: I've brought this to WP:EU, as per my suggestion. DeCausa (talk · contribs) may have withdrawn, but the issue is still not quite resolved. —Sowlos (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC) No I don't think you do. If someone tells me quote: but I don't think that principle is of any interest to you sadly. and then I reply to them quote: The sad thing here is that you presume to know what my principles are or what my interest is. This, I know you know that, is not a good approach to have toward your fellow editors and is insulting. This is not a personal attack. It is a civil and factual statement and I simply exercised my natural right to factually respond to spurious allegations. I will not further analyse my extremely civil responses in a similar fashion because I think that any fair-minded person can see that they are fair, civilised and to the point. However I would like you to retract your statement that I made personal attacks because it is misguided, insulting and unfair. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC) To direct an criticism at an editor, as opposed to the content of their edits or propositions, is by definition an attack on a person (argumentum ad hominem). There are several examples of such throughout this discussion. One does not need to engage in abusive personal attacks to continue the cycle created by personal attacks. It is a tit for tat phenomenon with rising and falling levels of agression. Statements such as I don't think that principle is of any interest to you sadly followed by the sad thing here is that you presume to know what my principles are followed by I'm done here. ... It's not a constructive area of WP for a neutral to be involved in followed by I am disappointed about the quality of these tactics (et cetera) perfectly exemplify this cycle and its propensity to never end. Stating the facts are not enough in human communication. How one says it is equally important. All have the right to defend themselves against attacks and correct mischaracterizations, as I said before, but this must not become the focus of an otherwise unrelated discussion lest others (involved or looking on) be dissuaded from participating in the future. I have said all I am going to say on this subject. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the validity of mentioning the sovereign-debt crisis in the lead, nothing more. I have moved the question to the relevant WikiProjects and we will see if anyone else has anything to say. I still support my possitions above, but an important issue was sill raised and I would like to see it fully settled. —Sowlos (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC) I don't need lectures on conversational dynamics from you. The fact remains that you want me to submit to a code of discussion which conforms to your distorted sense of what a civil response is. This will not happen. I realise that you want me to artificially and superficially suppress my arguments to please your social ear. I find this ridiculous. By the way criticising a fellow editor about civility without good reason is in itself an uncivil act. I have no time for your haughty attitude. I asked you to retract your offensive criticism and all you did was to give me a long lecture on BS. I have no time for this garbage. I am finished with you here. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Social consequences of the economic crisis

This report which shows the social dimensions of the Greek Economic Crisis could be useful to understand better the situation and also to expand the relevant section of this article as well as the one on Greek government debt crisis. --E4024 (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

This proves exactly what I've been saying all along. Over-reaction and exaggeration. The situation is Greece is NOT reflected by a Daily Mail article about increased suicides. Have there been more suicides since the crisis started? Possibly yes. Are these suicides an "epidemic" because of the crisis. NO! Greece remains a country with some of the lowest rates of suicides in the Western World. And thats from official statistics, not Daily Mail articles. By the way, the article from Daily Mail is so much "credible" that a photo actually from Egypt (!!) is used to describe "Greeks protesting on the streets"...Pathetic! Is this the kind of information we want to include in Wikipedia?Nochoje (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the Greek Minister of Health, when saying that the suicides increased 40%, in the first months of 2011 in relation to those months of the year 2010 and that "they were related to the financial crisis" was not exaggerating like the press. Here BTW he uses the term "financial crisis" like a considerable part of the international press. --E4024 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to start including suicide rates in country articles? This is more for sociological studies and related articles, not country articles. For example, the suicide rate of Turkey is higher than that of Greece, even with Turkey's booming economy. Should we include that in the article about Turkey? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

@Nochoje and Dr. K: WP:DNFTT, please. There is absolutely no need or reason to engage. Fairly obvious what is going on here. Athenean (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit warring between Avaya1 and Nochoje

This is a warning to both Avaya1 (talk · contribs) and Nochoje (talk · contribs): you both need to stop revert-warring, now. If I see any more reverts from either of you, before you have worked towards a consensus here at talk, you are both off to WP:AN3, where it is very likely that both of you will end up blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is at least unfair, to put me in the same position with Avaya1 (talk · contribs), when this user started reverting without consensus, a status which had received consensus and even more he/she didn't take it to the talk page when I repeatedly asked for it and advised him/her so. I really dont understand where exactly my fault is. I think it is totally unfair. I am not the one who should bring this in the talk page under discussion, because I am not the one who started the edit war.Nochoje (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)