Talk:2015 Greek bailout referendum/Archive 2

Article tag discussion
The article has been tagged for references. Perhaps the tagger and others would like to discuss the issues here? Jus da  fax   19:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Certain sentences are tagged for needing sources. Since it's not adequate enough for others to see, I added the big tag to help readers notice. --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Currently there's a maintenance tag requesting further references, and no fewer than eleven [citation needed] tags. Until these are fixed, I cannot see how this is ready to be featured at WP:ITN.  To be fair, we don't really need to "discuss" claims that aren't referenced, we just need to "reference" them.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the generic and unspecific tag at the top as we already have inline tags that provide much more useful hints as to what information is contested. Just as there is no need to SHOUT in discussions, there is no need to distract readers from the article with visually distracting tags. -- ELEKHHT 23:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I re-added the tag because I don't want the article to be featured ITN with more sources needed. Medeis is correct on this, so discuss the statements that is tagged with "citation needed". George Ho (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you changed your argument. I'll repeat what I wrote at ITN: You can also read Template:Refimprove: "Please consider marking individual unreferenced statements with Citation needed instead of placing this template" (my emphasis). Overall 90% of the article is referenced and uncontested. One could simply move the contested sections to the talk page, and post the news. - ELEKHHT 01:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can support moving the contested sections. One could argue that the ongoing insistence for a tag is a violation of WP:POINT given the above. I agree that the article is very largely well referenced. The insistence that every single sentence be specifically referenced or a tag has to be applied at the top, effectively disfiguring it, seems to verge on the disruptive. Remove the tag. Jus  da  fax   03:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Wording in overall results table
It appears to me that it would be better to go with the default language for, which is just "No" and "Yes". The current wording, "Not Approved / NO" and "Approved / YES", needlessly clutters the table. Furthermore, the default wording would mirror both the infobox on this article and the result tables used on numerous referendum articles elsewhere on Wikipedia. – Zntrip 01:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is enough space in the table for it to don't look cluttered. The wording of the answers was clear: "Not Approved / NO" and "Approved / YES", and the full results table should reflect that. Btw, the infobox also reflects this wording; just only in a different way (it is formulated alongside the referendum question). There is no need for this referendum to look exactly the same as others if the answers' wording was slightly different; each referendum/election has its own characteristics. Impru20 (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Not Approved" and "no" mean the same thing. It's simply redundant. There is no need to slavishly mimic the language as it appears on the ballot itself. – Zntrip 17:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Just check the ballot: "Not Approved / NO" and "Approved / YES". Using WP:RELIABLE is not redundancy; this was what voters did have to choose about. In the infobox it makes more sense to avoid redundancy as it's a summary, but I don't see such a need for the full results table, specially when there's plenty of space for it. Can't see the issue. Impru20 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the ballot language. I'm saying that we don't need to repeat the language exactly the same way for the purposes of the results table. Everywhere else in the article, the options are shortened to "yes" and "no": this is the format used in the infobox's table, the introduction, and the opinion poll section. The article itself lists the entire question posed to the voters and has a facsimile of the ballot itself, so there is no confusion for a reader if we abbreviate to "yes" and "no" in the results table. – Zntrip 17:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course, but because in those sections either you can't modify the options by default (such as the infobox) or space extremely limits what you are going to write (the opinion polls table). Also, elsewhere in the article, it would be redundant if you are refering to the "No" or "Yes" votes to repeat the "Not Approved/Approved" expressions, but not in a table which is precisely purposed for full detailed results (including the full extention of the question's answers) and has no text context where it can be redundant. Again, just check the ballot and the Greek results page, which shows the full versions of the answers. And I really don't know what the confusion would be, since it's actually neither difficult to understand nor extremely long expresions: again, there is more than enough space for those to appear there without causing any problem. Impru20 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Palmos poll (again)
After four days I have not received a reply to the OTRS ticket that prompted me to make this edit. I expected the person who wrote to challenge the source's reliability and provide a separate citation if appropriate, but apparently they decided not to. I was going to reinstate the entry, however the article has changed so much since then and there is plenty of additional polling information so I will leave it to the regulars to decide whether or not the source was reliable to begin with (per our standards) and restore it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Systematic bias on the English Wikipedia (in favor of DC (not so much in London)) desires
I was going to edit more precise results on the Spanish WP, but that WP is more advanced than your ridiculous WP, here. I've edited enough, more than enough, actually on the completely biased English Wikipedia. I'll edit about something else on the Spanish WP, which is my place, not the English WP, which has become ridiculously biased, sorry to say that, but it's true. Bye!Viet-hoian1 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? Which sections seem biased? --George Ho (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * DC = David Cameron? You mean his opinions are given too much weight? They are currently mentioned in one single sentence. Paul B (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By DC I mean Washington DC. Yes, there is systematic bias in the English Wikipedia. It may have 4 million articles or more and be more deep in some articles than the Spanish WP, for instance, but since it's biased I prefer a more concise WP like the Spanish or the French one, for instance, rather than the disinformation that there is here on WP English, either if it relates to Greece, Ukraine or any other countries concerning to which USA (DC to be more precise) has geopolitical, economic, etc. interests. It's highly biased and I don't recommend it to anyone, since so-called unreliable sources that favour Washington's position are very welcome in this WP while the so-called unreliable sources that don't favour Washington's positions are rejected outright. Just look at the page about the current Greek govt, the parties and the politicians that participate on it... completely biased... Same for what concerns to the War in Ukraine issues. Nevertheless, concerning to scientific or technological articles, for instance, I think the English WP is quite nice and complete.Viet-hoian1 (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it occurred to me that you might have meant that, but it's an odd way of identifying the US government. English language editors will inevitably use English language sources for the most part, which for a current event such as this will be largely journalism. Rather than accuse the whole of en-wiki of bias, find acceptable balancing sources. Yes, there will always be some biased editors who will try to exclude anything that challenges their POV. That's inescapable. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand you really and I'm sorry that English WP has become so ideologically biased concerning to political issues. It may hurt not only the credibility of the political issues on English WP (which are clearly biased) but also, as a consequence, other articles in English which are brilliant and not subject to any bias on scientific and other areas (until now, but beware because Christian fundamentalists may take over about some issues on sciences). Anyway, I've switched from mainly editing on English towards editing on Spanish, not because my knowledge on Spanish is particularly better than on English, but because the Spanish WP is more balanced (in my opinion) about political issues and it's quite more stimulating since it's the 2nd most read Wikipedia and a lot of articles there are still missing, particularly about my country. Well, anyway, from time to time I edit something here, though mostly on the Spanish WP. I hope the English WP finds some way to get unbiased, but as long as it will be essentially edited from only 2 countries (US and Britain) that won't happen. The countries contributing to the Spanish WP are quite more varied. Nice to speak with you and good night! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reactions to the referendum result
It seems appropriate to have a section in the article that summarizes the reactions to the referendum result. I would expect another (main) article may be started on the topic, but it seems this article might fairly summarize the high level reactions of the Greek state, citizens in the street, European creditors, banks, etc. Some things to watch for are a new temporary currency (IOUs that the finance minister has been talking about), increased capital controls, difficulties in consumating (international and/or domestic) financial transactions, problems in the payment system (paying for medicines, fuel, fertilizer, etc.) are just a few I've been reading about in various sources.

Any objection to starting such a section, and then adding a {main} template pointer once a better article comes up? N2e (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * N2e yes I think too a reactions section would be good Gts-tg (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ I've stubbed out a new section, with a single source for now.  Needs more sources, as well as much more information on the ensuing post-referendum events.  N2e (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Citation tag
Does an article with 50 citations need a "citation need" tag. Obviously we know that Wikipedia articles in English have a massive effect on referenda in Greece. So emotions were clearly running high as the vote approached, but there's no talk page discussion of lack of citations, rather warring over competing citations. There are a few tags in the article, but not many. The overall article, if anything, has maybe too much on the European Commission's views. Viet-hoian1's view that it's somehow biased towards Washington DC is unintelligible to me, given the tiny number of comments about the US. Clearly EconomicsEconomics's apparent attempts to impose neoliberal orthodoxy on the article have been perceived as a problem by several editors, but that's got nothing to do with the number of citation. Paul B (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, "neoliberal orthodoxy", having a bad day and showing that? To denote others without reason of being political, seems to be a message from those editors being political themselves, in this case obviously strongly left-wing. I never understood why a typical behavior of left-wing people is to urgently introduce left-wing sources in WP article (why not), and then fight like hell to hide any reference that these sources are of extreme left wing authors (are most left wing people ashamed being left-wing?). I have already remarked that this WP article is limited to the skill level of these political people having a limited understanding of basic economic relationships. You seem to like to keep the article that way.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Blah blah blah blah blah. Right, so where did I say anything about "left wing" sources? Your paranoid ranting about trying to hide extreme "left wing authors" reveals your own preposterous bias and conspiracy battleground mindset more than anything I could say. Paul B (talk) 09:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying "impose neoliberal orthodoxy" is typical communist talk, especially if you support Marxist-near editors like you do.--EconomicsEconomics (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Historical references to Ohi Day?
Considering that Ohi Day (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohi_Day) is a National holiday in Greece and the fact that Schäuble is regulary presented with a Hitler Mustache I can't imagine that the historic reference didn't play at least an important symbolic/propagandist part in Greek perception running up to the referendum. That there is literally nothing about any such connection being made by Greek sources (especially ones advocating for an Oxi vote) in this article seems highly suspect to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:1E00:125C:C5C8:78A9:F63B:9307 (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)