Talk:Anti-austerity movement in Greece/Archive 1

Very patronizing title
They are Protests. You are patronizing both the Protesters and Greek Politicians they are against. i.e. Therefore you are patronizing the whole Greek People. Who are you not Patronizing? The non-Greek readers. This is a disgrace. At least rename it to violent Protests. --195.74.254.99 (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really think it should be named riots either as it is very unlikely we will see a repeat of the 2008 events and in any event we haven't yet so the title as is is misleading. I would suggest the article name be changed.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You're taking the semantics a little too seriously. You need to give a little thought to how the situation has evolved, and you should probably not worry about the ultimate naming of the article until the incident has concluded. The protests/riots clearly derived from annual, peaceful May Day demonstrations, unlike the 2008 riots, which were never peaceful. It may be helpful to remember that all riots are protests, but all protests are not riots (kind of like how all Anarchists are Socialists, but not all Socialists are Anarchists). Also, refer to May 1968 in France. It is clearly designated a protest in the introduction, despite the violent riots that would occur.Father McKenzie (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The incident around the Bank can be more detailed
There are infos lately that the Bank did not have proper Fire Exits or proper Ventilation; one can research that, there may be sources about it now or shortly (on google.news potentially). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.254.99 (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded. A letter from an employee at Mafrin Bank speaks about the conditions of the building and how the workers were threatened with losing their jobs if they joined the strike and how their request to leave at noon was refused. http://www.occupiedlondon.org/blog/2010/05/05/an-employee-of-marfin-bank-speaks-on-tonights-tragic-deaths-in-athens/ and the Bank Workers Union is striking as a result. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/greek-bank-staff-strike-after-firebomb/story-e6frf7jx-1225862832147 (Lenerd (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC).


 * Finnish papers have published photos of rioters removing fire extinguishers from the bank before torching it. Thes 'letter' distributed by pro-rioter activist pages should not be presented as a fact.--128.214.182.110 (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if information about the lack of fire exist, ventilation and that workers were threatened against not joining the strike, it should be added as soon as possible. If anyone can find a source, please add it. Also, in my edits I think I might have damaged a source in the article by mistake, no.9, if anyone can fix it that would be appreciated. Best wishes ValenShephard 10:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

"the Socialist government"
That's a 'catch phrase' of the BBC that is picked up by other non-Greek Media; the Party has 'Socialist' in its name[since the 70s] but it's nowadays clearly an at best 'Centre-left' pro-Market Party. It [the phrase] is technically correct but repeating it blindly and so frequently implies it's 'very socialist'. The very measures passed now are nothing but. I'm sure you can find sources to see how 'Socialist' it is; make Wikipedia deeper in info. --195.74.254.99 (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed to the party's actual name - Panhellenic Socialist Movement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In Greek media, it's usually just known by the acronym (PASOK). --Delirium (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is removing the deaths from the intro paragraph and 2) why is the front page of wikipedia "Killed" alone.
A) Don't hide the truth. (from this article to be easily shown in a tl;dr fashion) B) The front page of Wikipedia is again sensationalist 'killed' alone while technically accurate implies someone did it on purpose. This is most certainly an accidental kill by reckless youth throwing molotovs 'to pwn teh noobs'. The Police itself said it was 'youngies'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.74.254.99 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the fairest summary will be the unrest has led to 3 deaths and further down in the article all the details of what those deaths are, are included, which are indeed shockingly bad. ValenShephard 11:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

The economics in the background section is too brief and misleading
The background section on the protests is too brief and misleading. It claims that Greece was hit especially hard by the GFC but this is factually untrue- the economy had actually contracted less than other European nations. The deficit problems are largely a result of a low tax take (widespread tax avoidance, tax exemptions) and the governments effective cover up of the spending gap through deliberately opaque financial reporting. see http://socialisteconomicbulletin.blogspot.com/2010/02/eu-calls-on-greek-population-to-tighten.html

Kieranlatty 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranlatty (talk • contribs)

I have made an edit to fix this up. Kieranlatty 03:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but a blog pushing a socialist POV is not a reliable source for this information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, but now there is no reference and inaccurate information, as opposed to accurate information and a low quality source. You will find the same claims in the blog made elsewhere, in the FT etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kieranlatty (talk • contribs) 14:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Renaming the article?
How about renaming it "Greek anti-IMF protests" or "Greek debt crisis protests"? Protests against the austerity measures and the involvement of the IMF are still taking place and the riots of the 5th of May are just part of a broader movement. I think you should change the title, because it's misleading and maybe add a section about the 5th May riots —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnymanos arc (talk • contribs) 13:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is still May, is it not? The article is not intended to cover onlty theMaty t5 events or else it would be called "May 5 protests" instead of "May protests" --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The movement hasn't begun in May. There were demonstrations and strikes against the IMF intervention in April and even earlier (as a reader has already mentioned above). So, I guess it would be better if the article was renamed, maybe into "2010 Greek protests"

What's the deal with the current events page? The people in charge have been calling this the Greek Uprising and the link winds up here, where the June events have not even been mentioned. This article needs a thorough revamping, the PM has reshuffled his government, as if that would do any good, and the whole thing may very well get even worse. Same thing in SpainEricl (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * At 2011, important and influential things have happened like the Arab Uprisings, so the 2010 Greek protests should be on another article. Some June events ARE mentioned. For June 15th, we shouldn't do the mistake of the big channels like Al Jazeera and CNN that covered mostly the limited riots.nickmeet (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

merge
There have been many pan-European protests/strikes due to austerity measures. I think we could merge this with the French strikes (and if there is european one, we can include that too). All related and bear same context.Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Although France and Greece are indeed both in the European Union, they are officially different, independent states. The strikes may be related, since they are/were both about retirement reforms and such. Only the reforms aren't exactly the same, and so is the general context. If we start an article say "European strikes on retirement reforms", we'll just have a huge article with a sub-title for each European country, and each sub-title would have to explain each different context and proposed reform, which is never the same. So I think every new law in different independent countries should have their own article, no matter how related they are. Munin75 (talk) 12:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All have the same background as being a reaction to "austerity measures" in the wave of debt problems and consequent bond sales, which also threaten to lower their credit ratings and cause more potential harm. (a la Spain)Lihaas (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a correlation between the origin of each law, but each strike consists of a different group, protesting in a different manner, for a different reason. I think it would be a mistake to merge these articles, especially as the French protests are still developing. When these strikes become a matter of history, rather than news, it might be wise to merge it all into a jumbo article concerning the European Debt Crisis. It's too soon for now. --Forzan (talk) 07:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm agree. :) In France, the reform about the retirement is not perceived as linked with the austerity of the others European country. Here the deficits of retirement fund is presented like a structural demographic problematic. I think the reform would be proposed with out the debt crisis. --Nouill (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the French also have a long and distinguished history of protest. In any case, the protests are not really related (despite a marginal relation through "austerity"). 3 million French marching in protest, egged on by the labor unions and Socialist Party, joined in with rioting youth, some of whom certainly couldn't care less about the issues at hand, certainly paints a different picture than whatever happened in Greece. ☢Pufferfish101⑨ 18:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well i guess we can take off the merge tag. But is there some template to merge the links together or would "see also" suffice?Lihaas (talk) 03:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the point in merging. And I'm pretty sure "see also" would be enough. Argymeg (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[outdent]
 * definitely OPPOSE the proposed merge of May/Greece and October/France protests. While they have some similarities, they are entirely different events, caused by different initial events.  N2e (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

what a strange proposal!. i also OPPOSE.--Eduen (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose Inappropriate merge. Polyamorph (talk) 13:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Greek Revolution is the most common name for the riots
and it also is more descriptive since the level of violence obviously tenfolded twice if you do not belive me please do a google search, Philly boy92 said its olny used on twitter which is wrong since its used also on facebook and this is a facebook revolution read the intro it says "organized entirely using social networking sites" ie facebook Kids4Fun -  T A L K ☺☺★★ 12:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you could provide any reliable source where this is described as a "revolution", I would be willing to consider naming the article the "Greek Revolution". However, all media - including the Greek ones - refer to this movement as the "indignants" or in Greek "αγανακτισμένοι". Taking into consideration that this is a Greek protests, no one in Greece uses the term "Ελληνική Επανάσταση" ('Greek Revolution') for any other purpose than the Greek War of Independence. Thus, I believe that naming the infobox the "Greek Revolution" is both an exaggeration and misleading. This is not an uprising, it is a series of protests that started in 2010 and was further influenced by the Arab Spring and the Spanish protests. Please do not revert my edits again until we have reached a consensus on this talk page, thanks. --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You want "reliable sources" ? Sure here are some 1.http://www.facebook.com/pages/Greek-Revolution-2011/175885402466826 2.http://www.realistnews.net/Thread-the-second-greek-revolution-three-live-streams-from-syntagma-square, and anyway no one calls them "2011 protests" i have now given you sources please give yours or else stop reverting my edits , i mean if you say that i should give sources you must do it too Kids4Fun -  T A L K ☺☺★★ 15:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "sources" you have given do not abide by wikipedia's standards. The first is a facebook page with 1,200 likes, and the second is a non-reliable forum. Meanwhile, a quick search in major news sites and search engines about this reveals:
 * Google: no relevant results
 * BBC: no relevant results
 * Mega TV: no relevant results
 * Skai TV: 1 relevant result (Mikis Theodorakis' speech)
 * Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation: 1 relevant result (May 29 was set as 'European Revolution' day)
 * CNN: no relevant results
 * Al Jazeera: 1 relevant result - no mention of a "revolution" in the article
 * Meanwhile, searching for 'Greek protests' or something relevant brings actual results:
 * BBC
 * Mega TV
 * Skai TV
 * Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation
 * CNN
 * Al Jazeera
 * Also, Google News results for Greek Revolution: 315. For Greek protests: 2370. Do I need to post more search results to convince you? You are also overlooking the fact that the infobox is not just for the 2011 protests. --Philly boy92 (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it so important for you that the article to named "2011 Protests" ? you should also remember that wikipedia is not just about the sources, WP:TITLE for example says that "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." and please dont revert so many times lets just wait until someone has THIRD OPINION. Kids4Fun -  T A L K ☺☺★★ 21:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but in what universe is "Greek Revolution" more recognisable to users than "2010-2011 Greek protests"? 99.99% of the times any English-speaking person will search for Greek Revolution it will be for the Greek Revolution and not the current protests. --Philly boy92 (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Philly. Until the crowds storm Parliament or Maximou or whatever else, there's no revolution. The social, political and financial status remains unchanged and the same imbeciles govern today as did a month ago. Violent protests have been held in Athens at least every other month for decades now, but we don't live in a state of permanent revolution. Let's not get carried away by television images or by some Facebook fad. Constantine  ✍  23:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

How is the Indignant Citizens Movement turning more violent?
Also,the junta was never brought down by large demonstrations. The power was handed over to the politicians by the military. Such misleading information can easily be interpreted as disinformation and can prove damaging since the events are ongoing.Guy Debord (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Bread-Education-Freedom – the dictatorship didnt fall in '73!" The Junta fell in April 1974, If you don't know you're own history, then you lose the respect of those who you're trying to convince!Ericl (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously a reference to the Athens Polytechnic Uprising in 1973. --Philly boy92 (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

To Eric: The regime changed in the 23rd of July 1974. This is also the official Democracy restoration holiday. And what about my head question? Won't anybody answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy Debord (talk • contribs) 07:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The 2008 Greek riots are connected to the ongoing protests in Greece.
There is a separate page for the 2008 Greek riots but many of the issues are overlapping and relevant to the protests more recently. For example... in the last paragraph of that page it clarifies that those protests were NOT merely about Alexandros Grigoropoulos getting shot. What it says is this: "While the unrest was triggered by the shooting incident, commentators[8] described the reactions as expressing deeper causes as well, especially a widespread feeling of frustration in the younger generation about specific economic problems of the country (partly as a result of the global economic crisis), a rising unemployment rate among the young generation and a perception of general inefficiency and corruption in Greek state institutions.[9][10]" Therefore... I believe the pages should either be merged or, at the very least, this page should provide a link to the other. Both protests were related to economic conditions (which have been worsening for years) and the movement did not start on 5 May 2010 as this article seems to strongly suggests (since it doesn't offer much of a historical context). Nihilozero (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree as to the fact that the two are connected, but I oppose merging. Quite simply, these a re two different incidents, in scale, in participation and in motivation. The social and political malaise has indeed been known/felt by the Greek population at large, but that's it. If we start connecting the dots between social and political protests due to there being the same underlying reasons, we'll get back to Ancient Egypt before we're done. Otherwise I fully agree with your comments, and the Background section needs work. Constantine  ✍  06:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Article outdated no one updated it for weeks
the latest information is from may, its the end of june now Kids4Fun / T A L K 14:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Duly updated. --Philly boy92 (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Make that months. The largest demonstrations are to be in mid-October, and no one seems to have noticed but me.Ericl (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"Adoption of a new constitution, written by the people and not the members of parliament"
Anybody care to make a better translation of the original source or otherwise clarify what this is supposed to mean? Who are 'the people' and why does the representative government not count as 'the people'? Is the new constitution to be written in chalk on the sidewalk by random pedestrians?


 * I believe it is meant that the people will have a say in what goes in the constitution, and not a constitutional committee without consulting with the people. The representative government does not count as "the people" because it has the support of 11% of the population, while the opposition only has 6%. --Philly boy92 (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Setting aside for a moment the fact that it *is* the government elected to represent Greek citizens, could you point to a source substantiating the "11% support" claim?


 * There have been several big surveys the past month: Public Issue June 2011 - PASOK: 11%, ND: 6% (Poll on the support of party's policies) Public Issue June 2011 - If we had elections tomorrow who would you vote for? PASOK: 33.5%, ND: 27% Public IssueJune 2011 - Are the government's policies correct? 7% yes, 87% no Public Issue June 2011 -- Is our democracy functioning correctly? 11% yes, 88% no Public Issue June 2011 - Are you satisfied with the major parties? PASOK: 8% yes, ND: 10% yes, PASOK: 92% no, ND:90% no Public Issue June 2011 - What is your opinion of the major parties? PASOK: 76% bad, ND:72% bad Metron Analysis March 2011 - Are the government's policies correct? 12.6% yes, 82.3% no Metron Analysis March 2011 - If we had snap elections, who would you vote for? PASOK: 22.7%, ND: 19.8% I can go on, but the point is the people are generally dissatisfied by the political situation. The demonstrations and demands made are an obvious indication of that. Also it seems to me that your objection is the the indignant's demand that the people write the constitution and not the MPs - this is not what this talk page is about. --Philly boy92 (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't put words in my mouth or assume I don't know exactly what talk pages are for. The article could still use clarification for what is otherwise a pointlessly vague statement.  It's like saying "the government shouldn't govern – the people should!"  What the hell does that mean? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Requesting translation for source # 125
It's very difficult to verify the sourcing for this article as it's almost entirely in Greek. One source, in particular, includes claims that are especially likely to be disputed: specifically, claims that police randomly attacked non-protestors, used "unnecessary violence", tried to prevent ambulances from assisting heavily wounded people, etc. Can somebody please find a published translation, or make one himself? Thanks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This article is rife with source misrepresentation, POV-pushing, etc.
Could use some help cleaning it up, especially by someone who can read and translate Greek. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Where exactly is the POV occuring? Some of your edits could very well be POV as well, for example your assumption that the protesters are violent, which most of them arent, as there have been over 37 days of peaceful protests and 3 days of violent protests since 25 May. --Philly boy92 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * By using the word "rife" I indicated that there appear to be POV problems throughout the article. My own edits were to achieve NPOV.  I also didn't make any "assumption" about the protests; pictures of burning cops and masked protestors standing next to burning vehicles covered with graffiti confirm that violent protests are, in fact, occurring.  It doesn't seem so remarkable that the rioting has not been constant. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Rioting has indeed occured, but it certainly is not the "norm". Simply because the foreign media have chosen (perhaps deliberately) to show pictures only of the rioting, this does not mean that the protests are violent. It means that some of the protests were violent. As I said, there have been protests since 25 May 2011 and the only violent incidents occured on: June 15 (or 16, I don't recall), June 28 and June 29, while protests after that continued to be peaceful. You also did not answer my question: where is the article POV-pushing? I have done most of the article on the indignant protests, so it may indeed have some instances of POV, but I don't appreciate your tone if you give no evidence to support your view that this is indeed POV and not fact; I always cite my edits, and they are from reliable Greek and international websites. --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I *did* say where the article is POV-pushing: everywhere. The "evidence" you demand can be found in my edit summaries; practically everywhere an English source is used, it has been misrepresented, quotes selectively edited, details fudged and omitted, etc., to eliminate possible negative impressions of the protests and protestors.


 * And, I shouldn't have to say that your feelings that the media put too much emphasis on riots, vandalism, burning buildings and cars, etc., are of no relevance here. As I said, no "assumptions" are needed to see that these demonstrations have not all been peaceful love-ins and hunger strikes. I'm not sure where you want to go with this...?  You can't really force other editors to have the same views as you.  Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken is you believe I am trying to force my views on you. First of all, the May 2010 part is not mine, therefore the "ommitted quotations" were not written by me. Secondly, you are blatantly misinterpreting my point about the media. My point is that there is little, if any, coverage of events prior to the violent protests of June 28, primarily on Euronews. I also don't appreciate your condescending tone. You can edit the article without acting like a schoolteacher.
 * You are also mistaken if you believe that I view the protesters as some sort of a hippie movement. I am full aware of the fact that there have been torching of cars, throwing of stones and all that, and have included citations to articles about it. In any case, I am not going to explain myself to you, and I would advise that you inform yourself about what is considered the norm in Greek demonstrations. Simply because citations don't exist in English about something doesnt mean its not true or -as you so often tag- WP:OR. --Philly boy92 (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that YOU were the cause of all the POV problems.. not sure what to make of your comment. Also not sure what to make of your comment about my "blatant" misinterpretation of your comments about the media; it's still not clear what your point is, and even less clear how my misinterpretation, of whatever nature, was "blatant". Again, nobody's thoughts about what there is too much or too little news coverage on are of any importance on Wikipedia.  Finally, my tagging of things as OR/SYN has nothing to do with whether sources are in English or Greek.  It has to do with the Reliable Sourcing guidelines.  Again, I'm not sure where you are going with all this? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You misinterpreted my point about the media in that I was refering to the fact that media coverage of the events in non-Greek sources lack prior to June 28, whereas you passed it off as an opinion. I really don't see how I could have dont this any clearer. Additionally, some of the content you have dismissed as OR/SYN was actually sourced with reliable sources. The loss of sovereignty for example was from BBC, CNBC, Skai etc. Additionally, I would like to ask, in all honesty, why edits such as this are considered POV. May I remind you, also, that big changes to articles are to be discussed on the talk page if members disagree, something you seem to think is irrelevant. --Philly boy92 (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're getting way off-topic and need to calm down. It doesn't matter whether it's a lithographed fact, or merely your opinion, that mainstream media coverage has been skewed or biased in some way.  It matters even less whether I think you're right or wrong.  None of this matters: Wikipedia is a vehicle for reflecting, not criticizing and questioning, what reliable sources say about topics.


 * None of what I removed as OR/SYN was sourced to reliable sources, so I'm not sure what exactly you're talking about. Yes, the loss of sovereignty was covered by BBC etc.. that doesn't mean you can just randomly insert an editorial cartoon that you believe reflects those topics; that's OR/SYN.  And where the cartoon is drawing a clear parallel between the IMF and Hitler's invading Nazi thugs, you can better believe it's likely to be challenged and you'll need to back it up with reliable sourcing. Regarding the last edit you mentioned, that was one of my own edits and it wasn't POV-pushing; not really sure what you are talking about.  Finally, as regards talk pages, no editor needs to ask for Talk Page permission to enforce basic 5 Pillar stuff like misrepresentation of sources and removing unsourced stuff that is controversial or likely to be challenged. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, you do not need to tell me to calm down -or continue your condescending tone. You either have trouble understanding my English or you are selectively chosing to not understand what I am saying. You flagged that edit as "Eliminated selective presentation of quote that omitted the words "and particularly violence that leads to murder" by the Prime Minister in a suspiciously POV way" - I fail to see how that was POV (not by you, by the person who had previously written the quote) when it clearly stated that the PM spoke about violence. An explanation of what you consider to be point of view and not WP:PARAPHRASE would be much appreciated, in the interest of avoiding such discussions in the future. --Philly boy92 (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to respond to the on-topic part of your comment and ignore the rest. Generally, when editing an article on a controversial subject, or wherever else there is risk of introducing bias towards one "viewpoint" or another, it's best to avoid editing quotes or other material in a way that tends to increase (or decrease) the extent to which the material casts a favorable (or unfavorable) light on one side or the other, as compared to the way the material was presented in the actual source.  Instead, it's preferable to leave the quote intact or make a paraphrase as near-verbatim as possible while still observing other rules (e.g., rules on plagiarism).  Thus, for example, it's best not to take a source which says "protestors firebombed a bank branch" and cite it as instead saying that "unknown individuals firebombed a bank branch", even if you happen to know that the identities of the protestors are unknown and thus that they are, technically, "unknown individuals".  On the same note, when the head of government of a nation relevant to the article topic issues a scathing condemnation of some action, as we saw here, it's best not to edit that quote so that it sounds dramatically less scathing.  Does that make sense to you?  If not, I'd be happy to discuss it further. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Doctors at the infirmary . . . said the police had attacked them using stones and pieces of marble."
The only material I can identify in the cited source refers to rocks and molotov cocktails being thrown by protestors. Can somebody identify and translate the text (if any) that substantiates the claim that police attacked doctors running an infirmary? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry that was from this article, I will fix the references. It says:
 * "Ο Γιώργος Βήχας από το πρόχειρο ιατρείο στην Όθωνος κατήγγειλε ότι αστυνομικοί πέταξαν πέτρες και κομμάτια μάρμαρα στους γιατρούς και τους τραυματισμένους."
 * which means:
 * "Georgos Vihas from the infirmary on Othonos complained that the police threw stones and pieces of marble at the doctors and those being treated at the infirmary".
 * For future reference, you can use Google Translate. --Philly boy92 (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Google Translate was what I used to inspect the source which turned out to be the wrong one. Thanks. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Balancing the current presentation of "harsh" austerity measures.
I've noticed that some commentators have argued that the allegedly harsh austerity measures may not be so harsh after all. For example, among the cuts in 2010 was a reduction in the salary paid to public-sector workers; they previously received 14 months of pay for every 12 months worked, but the austerity measures reduced this to 13. Another cut raised the age at which workers could retire with a pension... previously it was 53 years old. One economist writes of the austerity measures: "they really say more about how profligate the tiny nation has been than about the goals it is trying to achieve." Has anyone else come across sources saying similar things? Does anybody have any comment on a project of including these counterpoints to provide some balance to the current presentation of the austerity measures, which seems to describe them as draconian, more or less? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The "14th salary" is merely the bonuses, Greeks don't get a 14th salary and bonuses, they just get their annual bonuses as a salary. A quick search gave this article on CNN money: The snag in Greece's salary solution
 * "The 14th salary works like this: Greek workers get their annual salary in roughly 14 installments. On top of 12 monthly payments, employees receive double their paychecks in December, right in time for Christmas consumerism. They also receive half of their monthly spending in the spring to shell out on goods for Easter. Then they get another half-salary boost in July, before their traditional summer vacation.


 * But the 14th salary system isn't the problem with the Greek economy, says Elias Papaioannou, an expert on international economics at Dartmouth College, "it's just an alternative way to distribute."
 * and
 * "There is a difference between Greece's 14th salary system and special allowances given to some government employees -- the latter helped bankrupt the Greek economy. But many government employees don't have disproportionately high salaries, says Papaioannou. Greek families plan their spending around the 14th salary, and they have for a long time. The Greek Ministry of Labor officially launched the program in 1945 after the Nazi occupation ended in Greece."
 * This certainly is not a "Greek invention" as nations such as Austria get 14 salaries as well.
 * Additionally for the austerity BBC has a concise presentation of the measures. Also, please find sources to accompany your claims, the average Greek retirement age is 61. Topped with the fact that Greeks are the second-hardest-working people in the OECD and the first in the "western" world, they work 2,052 hours every year, as opposed to the Dutch people's 1,391. --Philly boy92 (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is that it's not basic salary that's being cut.. but, as you say, bonuses that are paid out and expected to be used for non-essential spending. Regardless, I now notice that while there are a lot of reports saying things along the lines of the cuts being "not tough enough" and talking about letting the country go bankrupt, complaining about wealth redistribution, etc., there only seems to be one WaPo columnist  and some assorted bloggers suggesting that the cuts have been "not tough" (without the "enough"). So, not so notable as I thought. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't overdramatize the situation
I'm Greek, and I don't like the tone of the article. Of course, there are demonstrations, pay cuts, hostility towards politicians, and the standard of living has fallen. But Greece isn't Zimbabwe, Haiti or Libya. When a reader with no knowledge of Greek affairs comes upon this article, he/she will think that Greece is a dangerous warzone. I urge the people that work on this article, especially Greeks and those familiar with Greece, to help tone down the wording. After all, people still drink frappé, go out at night, and generally try to have fun, despite the worsening of the financial situation. The article in its current form is simply inaccurate. I don't know if this is so because of the revolutionary fantasies of certain Greeks, or the anti-Greek agenda of certain other people. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 16:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * when a hundred thousand people are demonstrating in front of a Parliament, when they shut down an entire country, when the demonstrators start trying to KILL each other. It's very dramatic. Some may say that this is just something to entertain the tourists, but those who are injured, and the relations of the poor guy who died probably don't think so. Ericl (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ericl, I too think your edits are overdramatized. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and appropriate language must be used. Additionally, please use references in the standard Template:citeweb format to support your claims; any claim without a source will be speedily removed. --Philly boy92 (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course if you looked, I did indeed use proper templates. Also, It's pretty amazing that the major dailies in Greece aren't considered reliable sources....how about USA USA Today?, is that not considered a reliable source? How about Athens News? Both told of demonstrations that turned into a riot in which a person was KILLED. Why do you want to cover this up?Ericl (talk) 21:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, please watch your language. With regards to the killing, as I am sure you know there is an investigation going on in Greece on whether or not he actually died of the chemicals. I am also quite certain you know that the "rioters" were in fact agent provocateurs of the Police; a couple of days ago I read they found police IDs on them. Also, you are not using correct citation; simply using is not correct citation for any wikipedia article. Finally, my comment on reliable sources was in regards to your edits which were completely unreferenced (for example this). --Philly boy92 (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they do. If you believe the that the alleged sources that claim that it was agents provocateur, then put it in the article.Ericl (talk)


 * I'm the one originally edited out with "too inaccurate and sensational. Remember, this is Greece, not Somalia or Haiti" explanation, here, even to restoring a typo on "municipal". I've only just now come back; and glimpsed some of later edits and deletions. I will say that my contribution was a condensation of a footnoted Los Angeles Times article. I'm sorry the tone seemed unpleasant. I was coming at the situation from afar, I accept that. But I don't think the facts relayed by me were inaccurate or sensational. Open to adjustment? Of course. Major rewrite? Maybe. Wholesale deletion? Alas, I think that was an overreaction. And subsequent filling of the vacuum {sans footnotes, it seemed) may confirm that. To the situation: It does seem grim from afar, no comparison with other more desperate countries necessary; on the brink of default, with as someone above says tens of thousands in the streets, deaths, gasoline-bombed policeman, a global impact to a country's dire situation with several other countries arrayed behind and the feeling that the continent's political and economic structures are deeply imbalanced, unable to cope. I may get further (back) into this, but for now that's my impression of the situation in the country, and in this article.


 * I'll add that I'd encourage the "red-letter" editor to click on his/r name and create some sort of user page, however minimal. "Getting the red out" is a good Wiki goal amongst the many. Cheers; and here's to ... good dialogue ... and hopefully ... better days, eh?


 * And I'll ask: Is it really unreasonable to reflect on the not-that-distant history of the Greek Civil War, when we see the current, dramatic signs of dysfunction and civil conflict? The link I added to it was deleted with all else. Swliv (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And, without reentering the fray really, I'm glad to report back with this commentary on recent developments with the referendum: "Greece’s born-again democracy has lessons for U.S.". Swliv (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)