Talk:Athens Polytechnic uprising/Archive 1

Manufacturer and model of the tank
Anyone knows them, to include them in the article?


 * The tanks were the French-built AMX-30

Γιατι το AMX-30 ειναι το πιο εξυπνο τανκ? Γιατι μπηκε στο Πολυτεχνειο χωρις εξετασεις! LOL Mitsos 17:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A poor joke.. The military also call it "the student", because it made it in the polytechnic. A very bad joke.. The Tank however is actually kept inside the Centre of Training for Armored Unit Warfare in Avlonas (ΚΕΤΘ), in a small space designated as an armored unit museum, that is unfortunately not open to non military personel. They have also placed a relevant sign there, pledging the army's allegiance to the republic. I have seen it myself, so i took the liberty of correcting "reportedly kept". I was also the first to report on the type of the tank. I thought it was important because it seems many people believe it was a M48, US-made, Tank. I have heard that in the past young officers would be shown an M48, told it is the one, and order to attend to it, wash it etc. Military folklore I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.5.36.56 (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Collapse of the Junta
The Greek military junta was not really overthrown, but collapsed a little later under the weight of its unpopularity, incompetence, and, most important of all, its Cyprus failed coup attempt. It is arguable that the Polytechnic uprising quickened the junta collapse by dispelling the pretense of popular acceptance of the junta's democratization plans, which would probably have maintained an active role for the military in public affairs. Dianelos 07:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The Greek military regime collapsed after a "national disaster", just like the Argentine military regime and the Portuguese military regime. The respective "national disasters" were the invasion of Cyprus by the Turks in 1974, the re-conquest of the Falklands by the British in 1982 and the loss of the colony of Angola in 1974. (The latter involves the withdrawal of the Portuguese from the country, rather than a conflict, but the built-up radicalisation of the officer corps in the Portuguese army was the crucial factor in the overthrow of Salazar.) In so many words, the Greek military regime was quite powerful in 1973 and no "outside" force, such as student uprisings, politicians' protests, international condemnation, etc, could remove the junta from power. It is true that Papadopoulos was aware of the political impasse reached by his regime, and this is why he sought a "normalisation" of Greek politics through Markezinis. But, except for another military coup (as actually happened), nobody could remove him. Whether the Greek colonels were "unpopular" or "corrupt", and to what extent, is indeed irrelevant to the balance of power in 1973. The Gnome 11:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Peasants involved in the uprising
I deleted the word peasants. There were no peasants at the Athens Polytechnic uprising. The term "workers, peasants and students" is a cliche but looks too politicaly correct and most of all has nothing to do with truth. The fact is that the military junta had many followers between the peasants since the "donation" of all farmers loans.

Even if some farmers wanted to participate at the uprising that would be very difficult since there were no peasants in Athens and the events were really fast.

I think that there should be a seperate article on the junta of the Colonels. I can help, but my knowledge is rather limited. Or is there one already??


 * As the documetory films of this day show and the audio as well, in the Polytechnic School arrived representatives from the farmers uprising in Megara City as well as worker representatives from different unions -legal or illegal by that time. So, massive "peasants and workers" participation in the Polytechic School itself is not recorded but those days the whole country was on the move against Junda. Dkace 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Students of the Athens Polytechnic killed during the uprising
This is one of the most controversial topics regarding the uprising: although several civilians (some of them children and even the case of an infant!) are documented having been killed in the crossfire of the Polytechnic uprising, there is no documented reference to any actual students of the Athens Polytechnic killed at the time. Despite this, in popular opinion tens (or even hundreds!) of students of Athens Polytechnic were killed. This claim has occasionally appeared in the Wikipedia artice too. Yet, this is not the case, and it does not pay homage to the memory of those who were actually killed to fabricate ficticious victims. It is interesting to note that every year on November 17 wreaths are lain on a monument within the Polytechnic that inscribes the names Athens Polytechnic students who were killed while fighting for freedom -- not in 1973, as there were none then -- but during the resistance in the 1940s. If anyone can provide verifiable references to Athens Polytechnic students who were killed during the Polytechnic uprise, please post them and I will acknowledge my error. But please refrain from any ad hominem attacks, I am only trying to set the record staight. Rastapopoulos 08:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been no official enquiry by a commission appointed by the Greek government, subsequently to the 1973 events. There is no official list of casualties. On the other hand, there have been numerous claims about killings, by people who submit they were participants in the uprising, witnesses to it, or well-informed about the events. A number of books appeared, after the fall of the military regime, containing pictures and personal data of various persons presumed to have died in the course of the uprising, such as student Diomedes Komninos. The consensus, even among supporters of the military regime, appears to be that people have indeed been killed, but the actual number and the circumstances of their death vary. Nonetheless, some officers of the army were convicted for crimes perpetrated during the uprising, such as Brig. Gen. Nicholaos Dertilis for shooting Michalis Myroyannis who was running away from a group of policemen (his own driver testified against him), in the trials subsequently held. The Gnome 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * rastapopoulos: i dont think theres any well documented evidence on the issue. from what i know (i.e. what i ve been told, read in secondary sources etc) we can only be sure that some people were killed during the events (more or less what is written in the article)- whether these people were literally inside the polytechneio or not, how many they where etc i really dont know. when i return i ll search for more, but i dont think i ll find anything more than what is in the article. --Greece666 00:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It was never an issue whether the people killed in the uprising were students or not. The police was shooting to kill randomly in the streets of athens at that time, and this resulted in a number of deaths, although the exact number is disputed. That's a fact. The only reason to say that there was no student killed is to support the junta's official version that police was defending itself against 'anarchist elements' attacking police officers. This of course is a lie, as everybody knows that police snipers in nearby buildings were shooting to people at random. the article has few more problems


 * 1. "1973 found the junta under Papadopoulos having undertaken a "liberalisation" process of the regime, which included the release of political prisoners and the partial lifting of censorship, as well as promises of a new constitution and new elections for a return to civilian rule. This created a power vacuum for leftist and generally democratic elements to undertake political action against the junta". "Liberalisation" created a 'power vacuum'? in what sense?

The answer about the victims of the 17th of November 1973 can be found on the 14/10/1974 findings of the prosecutor Mr Tsevas who has been put in charge by the goverment, in order to find what happened that night. His report is full and complete in order to provide all the facts of that night along with the name of the victims.
 * Any links, please? Or, if the text is not yet online, any sources that can be cited? The Gnome 12:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have personally given links to both Prosecutor-tsevas(14-10-1974) findings, Chief of police George Sabanis (8-2-82)findings none of which is contested by anyone and both widely accepted, but never edited the article myself. Here they are again:   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.233.217 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If something is contested that is the number of not-proven deaths(Which according to word to mouth range in thousands). I can also provide links with pictures of the Ilenia incident if you plan mentioning it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.233.217 (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed
I would like to see some references regarding the following claims: 1. "According to a contested official invertigation..."- A source indicating (a) who it has been contested by, (b) on what grounds. Also, is there reason to believe that the views of those "contesting" the official investigation are being given undue weight? 2. "several civilians were left severely injured" - A list of these people, and a definition of "severe" would be helpful. 3. "...Ioannidis, a disgruntled Junta hardliner..." - A source identifying Ioannidis as a hardliner, and a source indicating that he was "disgruntled" (rather than, say, "overjoyed at the chance of assuming control"). 85.75.72.50 21:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am removing the first claim ("contested investigation"), as it has not been substantiated with a citation despite being challenged for over a year 79.129.249.116 (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. I agree. Thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 15:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

article needs cleanup and/or rewriting
i have just edited the article extensively. Not that it looks so much better now, but at least it doesn't spread the opinion of the greek far right and junta apologists. Let me explain myself:

1. "1973 found the junta leader Papadopoulos having undertaken a "liberalisation" process of the regime, which included the release of political prisoners and the partial lifting of censorship, as well as promises of a new constitution and new elections for a return to civilian rule. Opposition elements including Socialists were thus given the opportunity to undertake political action against the junta" During the so called liberalisation period, nothing really changed. Political parties were still banned, people were still tortured and in prison or exile and so on and so forth. Liberalisation in reallity was just words from the dictators, and maybe their reaction to the mounting international outcry against their regime and their atrocities. It is evident that, apart from Markezinis, almost nobody from the former democratic political regime colaborated with the colonels, cause they knew that it was a farce. So there is no logical connection between the uprising and the "liberalisation".

2. In the early hours of November 17, 1973, the transitional government panicked" Trantitional? in what sense? Nobody in Greece calls, or would call, the government of Markezinis as "transitional"

3. "Soon after that, Spyros Markezinis himself had the humiliating task to request Papadopoulos to re-impose martial law.[2]" Humiliating or not, that's irrelevant. And the refference link is not working, as most links

4. "According to an official investigation undertaken after the fall of the Junta, no students of Athens Polytechnic were killed during the incident. Total recorded casualties amount to 24 civilians killed outside Athens Polytechnic campus. These include 19-year old Michael Mirogiannis, reportedly shot to death by officer G. Dertilis, high-school student Diomedes Komnenos, and a five-year-old boy caught in the crossfire in the suburb of Zografou. The records of the trials held following the collapse of the Junta document the circumstances of the deaths of many civilians during the uprising, and although the number of dead has not been contested by historical research, it remains a subject of political controversy. In addition, hundreds of civilians were left injured during the events.[3]" Very problematic piece. It seems to support the popular far-right point that there was no actual massacre, but just few policemen firing cause "subversive elements" took advantage of the student protest to attack the police. But this is not true, of course. The police was just out of control shooting from rooftops against anybody. Also, Mirogiannis was not "reportedly" shot by Dertilis, he was actually shot and killed by Dertilis who was actually convicted of murder after the restorstion of democracy.

4. "Ioannides' involvement in inciting unit commanders of the security forces to commit criminal acts during the Athens Polytechnic uprising was noted in the indictment presented to the court by the prosecutor during the Greek junta trials and in his subsequent conviction in the Polytechneion trial where he was found to have been morally responsible for the events". This piece, together with the next, wants to support the other popular far right point, that Papadopoulos was the "good" guy, and Ioannides the bad guy. Even if this is actually written in the indictment, it is absolutely irrelevant.

5. "Others believe that the uprising was used as a pretext by Taxiarkhos Dimitrios Ioannides to put an abrupt end to the process of ostensible liberalization of the regime undertaken by Spiros Markezinis". These 'others' are only the Papadopoulos's apologists.

I also did some minor stuff. some more experienxed wikipedian should have a look. Thanx, Panos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.28.243 (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

i just saw that some Dr.K. immediately reverted my edits, without giving any reason. Well done mate! I am not willing to engage in an edit war, so i'll take the matter to other editors. Thanx, Panos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.107.13.0 (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Connection with the US Embassy?
The article currently states "The commemoration day ends traditionally with a demonstration that begins from the campus of the Polytechneio and ends at the United States embassy" under the Legacy heading. There is no mention of the US Embassy or the US at all in the rest of the article, which leaves me wondering what the connection between the uprising and the US is, and what would drive the commemorations to end there? Can anyone expand on this? 46.177.119.176 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Metapolitefsi
There seems to be no need for this section. it is linker earlier and if someone is wondering what it is they will go to the link. while this event did lead to the Metapolitefsi it would be silly to say that it was the sole reason or even really a big one. most would agree the invasion of Cyprus was a bigger factor. I nominate this section for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasattack (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Metapolitefsi
There seems to be no need for this section. it is linker earlier and if someone is wondering what it is they will go to the link. while this event did lead to the Metapolitefsi it would be silly to say that it was the sole reason or even really a big one. most would agree the invasion of Cyprus was a bigger factor. I nominate this section for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasnfbi1234 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Replacing historic events with badly-written English
I have restored some sanity to the text of the article by restoring historic and well-documented events. These events about the students calling themselves the "Free Besieged" and the events describing the legendary radio station of the students with the historic call "Etho Polytechneio" were blanked without even an edit-summary. To add insult to injury they were replaced by horrible prose in broken English such as I don't mind expanding the article, but 1. Do not touch the historic stuff as mentioned above. 2. Do not add material in broken and incomprehensible English and expect others to clean up after you. 3. Propose the material on the talkpage and let others help you clean it up, *before* you insert this broken English stuff into the article. Dr.  K.  01:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC).


 * "Etho Polytechneio" is not a Reliable Source. We need peer-review secondary sources in history-related articles.
 * Badly written English, is not a reason to revert. If you wish you can improve the article or ask for assistance.

So, unless there is a valid objection, I will revert to this version. Dr.K removed well-sourced text, here is the diff. Cinadon36 (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * is not a Reliable Source. We need peer-review secondary sources in history-related articles. Absolutely not. For a quote like this, a newspaper of the era is perfectly adequate. Go to RSN to find out instead of starting WP:EDITWARs. Badly written English, is not a reason to revert. If you wish you can improve the article or ask for assistance. Definitely not. I am not going to clean up after your nonsense English, neither are you allowed to deface the article with incomprehensible language. Dr.   K.  06:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That's irritative language. If you do not wish to cleane up an article, there is this project. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That's what I mean. "Irritative" is not a common form, "irritating" is better. "Cleane" is misspelled. You go to the guild to ask them for their help. Perhaps they have the time to give you a tutorial. I don't. Dr.   K.  07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You should write a letter to Merriam Webster explaining their wrongdoings. . So, next time, open a dictionary before lecturing. PS-I understand you performed a google search. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If you understood what I told you you would not be defending your clumsy terms. Your reply suggests that your learning curve has stalled. Dr.   K.  07:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You told me "Irritative" is not a word. . Anyway, bye. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't have to dig into the history of the page to find words that I corrected before you replied, just to prove out of spite that I told you something, although I did not. I repeat once again: "irritative" is not in common use. It's clumsy language. Learn something from that, instead of doubling down on ignorance. Dr.   K.  07:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is not clumsy. Being uncommon does not make it clumsy. Insisting on your mistake is not pretty clever (but I am not surprised here). We 've departed from discussing the article though, so have a nice day. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Mistake? Let me make it more clear then by repeating the same example from the non-English that you edit-warred into the article: Can you spot the atrocious syntax, spelling, and grammar? Can you correct it? If not, why don't you try testing Simple English Wikipedia? Because, as it stands, you are trashing en.wiki. And with silly comments like Insisting on your mistake is not pretty clever and sillier edit-summaries like this you think you are being clever, instead of what you are actually being, which is WP:CLUEless to say the least.  Dr.   K.  08:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Quite the contrary my dear. I 've added Kornetis analysis (Berghahn Books). You have added news247, neaselida.gr and lifo.gr. Spot the trash. Silliest comment on this thread is "Irritative" is not a word. Who thinks of him as WP's Dean is pretty clear. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * But you are not replying to my question, so I will copy and paste it from above, one more time. After that, I will revert that piece because obviously you don't understand what you are writing. So, one more time before I revert your nonsense non-English paragraph which you refuse to discuss: Can you spot the atrocious syntax, spelling, and grammar? Can you correct it or at least explain what you are trying to say? If not, why don't you try testing Simple English Wikipedia? Because, as it stands, you are trashing en.wiki.  Dr.   K.  09:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , i'll give it a shot with a copyedit, the content does expand the article but requires a fresh pair of eyes to make it readable. Just for the record i was asked on my talkpage to do a grammar/spelling overview. My edits to the article will relate only to that.Resnjari (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough Resnjari. However, next time, can you mentor this guy so that you correct him before he adds this crap into the article? I would really appreciate that. Thank you for your help in this. Dr.  K.  09:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , @Cinadon36 has his heart in the right place. Maybe use of their sandbox or at least running it through a spell check in a word document before adding to the article might be the way to go., i use a Firefox browser for the internet. It has a built in spell check that shows you spelling mistakes underlined in red. Like this when you open a Wikipedia page to edit, if you misspell words it will show you. It goes to some way to limiting headaches, although on grammar, a word document program like Microsoft word also shows you some grammar mistakes (not all) as well to correct (underlined in blue or something like that). Overall interesting article. Best guys.Resnjari (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you are very kind. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * All good. Happy editing. Best.Resnjari (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Resnjari, I don't think this is a matter of spelling alone. As my highlighted text shows, it is also a matter of grammar and syntax, that cannot be corrected by spell checking. For example, ...and youngsters and police utilize brutal methods- tortures among them- in order to confront the threat. seems to imply that both police and youngsters used torture to confront the threat. This is absolute nonsense. This person edit-warred this crap into the article, despite the warnings. He also engaged in WP:NPAs both in this section and his edit-summaries. That's WP:CLUEless WP:IDHT WP:BATTLE editing, and it is not sustainable. Dr.  K.  17:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I addressed the grammar and spelling issues as best i could. The sentence highlighted is no longer in that form and so on. I can't be involved further if the issue is about content. Its because i think then it would cross the line as i was not involved in editing this article and was asked only to make grammar/spelling edits which i considered neutral on my part and before i made them i was upfront and stated my position in the talkpage. The only thing i can say is if the source meets RS and refers to those things, then i guess it has a place in the article. How and what form that is to be, you guys need to work it out in the spirit of good faith. Best.Resnjari (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you Resnjari. But, of course this does not even start to describe the disruption caused because this person also repeatedly erased seminal aspects of the uprising such as their characterisation as "Free Besieged" after a famous poem by Solomos and also the legendary call of their radio "Etho Polytechneio". He also attacked RS and demanded only peer-reviewed papers as sources, something that is patently WP:CLUEless. He also used mocking edit-summaries about the RS. It was a real tour-de-force of editorial incompetence and WP:BATTLE. Dr.   K.  18:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * If this rude behaviour of Dr K. goes on, I will report him at ANI. . "Etho Polytechneio" source is not RS. But I do wish to go on with this flame. If someone engages with a rude and uncivil user for too long, he riskes turning himself into a likewise person. That's why rudeness is a problem. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Be my guest. But watch for a giant flying object coming your way. By the way I removed your PA. Do not reinstate it. Pointing your disruption is not an attack on you. It's a learning opportunity. Do not cast WP:CLUEless WP:ASPERSIONS. Dr.   K.  18:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No, you are being disruptive and have been all day long.Cinadon36 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * And another removal of your aspersions with a warning on your talkpage. Dr.   K.  18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks guys, just forget the other personal stuff and start again. Are the sources RS and are they relevant to the article, including their content? If so, how best does one convey that in the article. If you guys work your way from this angle, more will get done then wasting energies on other things. That's my take on it.Resnjari (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Res, you are probably right. Dr.K. sorry if I upset you. I will resist from commenting any further at this thread. Cinadon36 (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no need for more fake news. You have resisted me every inch of the way and your multiple WP:NPAs still litter en.wiki. No need to act contrite. I don't think anyone is impressed. Dr.   K.  03:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Undue
The previous edition had these problems: a. wrong dates for the deaths of protestors. b. anarchist pov that a group of 20(?) people was presented as the majority or of something with some– importance. So well done Dr k. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you . I agree that the coverage of the anarchists is WP:UNDUE. They were such a small number of people that mentioning them in two separate days is out of proportion for such a small group. I will tag the article accordingly. Dr.   K.  11:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Kornetis discuss the role of anarchist in certain extend so I believe there is proper due in the section. I do agree that they were a small group but they had supstantial infuence in various ways. Anyway, anyone who would like to have a look at Kornetis book, ping me and I will respond with a dropbox link. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

i haven't access in this book. I suppose you can help me. Send me an email if u wish. I fear that is totally synthesis and undue. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Check your mail. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Kotea
''kotea, Marianthi (2013). "The Athens Polytechnic Uprising: Myth and Reality". American International Journal of Contemporary Research. 3.''

In this paper the author didn't discuss anything relevant with the 1973 uprising except of two sentences that they are here.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The title of Kotea's peer-reviewed article is: The Athens Polytechnic Uprising: Myth and Reality.  Cinadon36 (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Its about the Public history of the uprising and its relationship with anarchists/ leftists/Exarcheia nowdays riots etc. It is obvious.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a peer reviewed article, so the link you provided does not actually fit the description. It does examine and polytechnic uprising within academic settings. It examines the history of Polytechnic uprising and provides us with a chronicle of the events. It is a valuable source. There are other not-so RS sources (to say the least) at the article, so why are we bothering with Kotea? Cinadon36 (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is a valuable source about the consequences of the uprising. This is the purpose of Kotea and she writes in the abstract of this paper. I won't answer again in this section except someone else will make a question.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It outlines the actual history of the uprising as well. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Anarchist's Role
Anarchists were a minority at the Uprising but had a substantial effect. Kornetis discuss their role in extent and explains why they were branded as provocateurs. Dr.K., since you are not respecting WP:BRD, may I ask, have you read the book by kornetis? Have a look at page 260 please.Cinadon36 (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Do you understand what WP:UNDUEWEIGHT is? The tiny paragraph in our article is very tiny, Kornetis's book is very big compared to that tiny paragraph in the article so it can accommodate tiny details without WEIGHT problems. The tiny paragraph in the article can't. Dr.   K.  05:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A)Kornetis is talking about 15th of November in 11 pages (with photos). Within those 11 pages, he discusses the anarchist role a lot. B)Since the paragraph is tiny, it is a better strategy to add more staff than to remove well-sourced sentences. This way WP will end with a proper paragraph. Cinadon36 (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it. That's why I gave you a Balkans discretionary sanctions alert hoping you will reflect a little more on your current path. Dr.   K.  06:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Kornetis's book is about the generation of 1960s not directly about the facts of the uprising. His aim is to present the facts about the generation and their feelings. In my opinion its just a weasel sentence just to promote anarchism participation. It is well known from other sources (also kornetis say so in some pages) that the anarchists were mainly leftists from Ekke, Omle, seke. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. Thank you Αντικαθεστωτικός. We can't convert this article into History of Anarchism, as the account who opened this thread is attempting to do by trying to weasel any tiny itty-bitty detail about insignificant anarchist groups into the Polytechnic article. This WP:POVPUSH is also driven by relentless, fast-paced edit-warring. If this attitude continues, I will seek arbitration enforcement against the account. Dr.   K.  07:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Kornetis book is the best available RS on how the events unfolded during those 3 days. Read some of its reviews: "...Besides offering a rigorous historical reconstruction, it presents an excellent analysis of the relationship between institutional and contentious politics through different regimes and periods". If you believe that it is not RS in context, we could issue a RfC or go at ANI and ask regulars there. Tribune articles from lifo and neaselida are used in the article, but it is a no for an awarded book that explains what happened? Seems ridiculus to me! Kornetis examines and explains the controversial role of anarchists during the uprisal in extend and hence their role should be included in the article. As the sentence It is well known from other sources (also kornetis say so in some pages) that the anarchists were mainly leftists from Ekke, Omle, seke."-->please provide those sources. As for POVPUSH, I wont answer to irritative comments. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Kornetis's page 260: "The anarchists role has long been contested by all sides, being alternately over- and underplayed. It is almost cetain that their role during the 1973 Polytechnic occupation was marginal but highly controvesial." So it obvious that Kornetis's opinion is that anarchists took a very small part during 1973 uprising and as i said before in his book he discusses about this generation who took part in this uprising and their feelings. I think, that the talking about anarchists and their doings in 15/16/17 November is for certain a POVPUSH (or if you prefer an attempt to overplay their role) to set marginal as not marginal. Why don't you add such staff in Anarchism in Greece?  Second, if i/(you/we) don't have confused i was talking mainly about the major fact that KKE members accused the first persons in the first day of the occupation in this building as provocateurs and anarchists. They are very well known people, and they were leftists. There is a small mythology about that about the infamous Πανσπουδαστική Νο8 look here, but maybe it is another discussion. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Kornetis is not taking side to the debate whether anarchists had a significant role or not (and neither should we). We should emphatically and clearly state that their role was/is controversial. We shouldn't downplay or overplay their role. It is not POVPUSHING since their role is highly debated and there is literature on this specific topic. We can/should clearly state that anarchist were few. (reminding: The sentence was "Anarchists, a small minority among protesters..." It is a matter of wording. But it has to be said as RS are discussing the specific issue. As for POVPUSHING, I 'd ask you to WP:AGF. My argument is based on literature examines their role. You can re-write the sentence if you wish. As for Πανσπουδαστική Νο8, yeap, we should mention it but I 'd prefer a better source than IosPress (hmm....since NeaSelida.gr, lifo.gr are already used, I guess we can use IosPress as well).Cinadon36 (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please, read again t is almost cetain that their role during the 1973 Polytechnic occupation was marginalΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you please paste the entire sentence? There is no full stop after the word "marginal".(it goes on "1973 Polytechnic occupation was marginal but highly controversial". And there are 5 paragraphs after this particular sentence, examining the role of anarchists. So, there is much controversy about their role and the WP article should reflect all opinions. 18:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "The anarchists role has long been contested by all sides, being alternately over- and underplayed. It is almost certain that their role during the 1973 Polytechnic occupation was marginal but highly controversial. The anarchists were accused of having a libidinal conception of politics that was harmful to the movement. Famously, one of their leading female figures, “Aretoula,” is said to have written on the walls of the Polytechnic, “Long live the orgies!” This bombastic demand for unlimited sexual pleasure was rejected as sheer provocation by all student groups' and was effectively appropriated by the regime in order to smear the student occupation as a pansexual fiesta. In such instances, the anarchists were immediately pigeonholed as agents provocateurs"
 * In my opinion there is a try to present the 1973 uprising as an anarchist-lead movement. I think that this is the aim of WikiProject Anarchism in which this article is included. So, even this source Kornetis talks about marginal role of anarchists in the uprising, there is a direct effort to present the uprising as an anarchist movement, or something where anarchists were something with importance. No it wasn't. The 300 well famous provocateurs who had an important role in the uprising only in the first day of the uprising are well known far-leftists, whom nowdays we know their names (as Dionysis Mavrogenis participant then of EKKE, see please a phd in Greek about this topic). It is a funny thing that in Greek i can't find anything with a similar claim about anarchists in 1973! Not from nowdays Greek anarchists, not from historians, not from anyone. Kornetis in his book talks about some students with anarchist or/and pansexual ideology and their doings in these days. This is ok. But to talk, about what a minor anarchist group did in 15/16/17-11-1973 is just for present the minor as the major. Also, i saw that Kornetis talks about all student groups against anarchists, but here it is presented only from KKE members for one reason. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


 * A)There is no attempt to present that anarchists were having a leading role. The sentence at the article was Anarchists, a small minority among protesters  B)Their importance was controversial and it we (as WP editors) should present the controversy. C) Kornetis book is much more reliable than a phd 30 years ago. I am not implying we can not use that specific Phd- to be clear. So, we can re-write the sentence: Anarchists, a small minority among protesters, whose significance at the uprising is disputed, were branded as provocateurs by other student groups, as they were expressing slogans not directly related to the student's demands (i.e calling for sexual freedom, social revolution and abolishment of the State). How about that?  Cinadon36 (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * According to Kornetis their role was MARGINAL(in Greek: περιθωριακός) not only disputed. I agree to mention anarchists in a paragraph where we can present all participants(we must do the same for far-leftists). But we must stick with what every source describes, not with our view. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Marginal but controversial. Kornetis dedicates many paragraphs examining their role and influence (or how Junta used the word anarchist to describe most of the students). It is the literature that should be guiding us on what to add or not. Certainly, a small sentence is not UNDUE. You can add what other leftist groups did. We should all be welcomed to add a piece and improve an article that needs expansion. Cinadon36 (talk) 07:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal
This article is included in anarchist Portal.I am thinking that there is not something related with anarchism in this article.

This uprising effected :

1. dictatorship, cause it caused a more strict dictatorship of Ioannides

2. Invasion of Cyprus

3. Social democracy parties lost their anti-communist speech

4. Communist parties became more liberal

5. terrorist groups (the most prominent was 17n revolutionary organisation)

6. Legalize communism in Greece

7. Songs, literature etc etc etc

I don't understand why it is included in anarchist portal. Anarchist activity was marginal and not important, and as everything was effected by this uprising also Greek anarchism had the same fate. I fear that i can add this article in at least 20 portals, but i won't do this. I think it's wrong to relate anarchism with this uprising. I fear that if we do so, someone who doesn't know maybe will think that anarchists has some importance during this uprising and this will be totally fault. Its  not a big thing but i suggest to remove itΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It is included in the anarchist portal because A)Anarchists were a small group, but had an important role according to some. As I have said above, Kornetis book discuss their role in extent. What makes a group important or not is not their numbers but how they influenced history B)What is more important, is that the Uprising had a lasting effect on anarchism in Greece. Anarchist see it as a reminder of our duty to resist to authority. Every year anarchists have a prominent role at celebrations commemorating the uprising. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not care much about portals, but in this case I think you are posing the wrong question. It is not relevant whether the anarchists were important to the Polytechneio; the reason for adding it to the portal would have to be that the uprising was important for anarchism in Greece. I have no idea if it was, but if it was, the portal is relevant. On the other hand, the addition of that portal to this page would not in any way indicate that the anarchist participation should be mentioned in more detail in the article. For that to happen, it would have to be shown that the anarchist participation had an impact on the events. When wishes to add that they were not just a minority, but a small minority, and when the source describes their role as "marginal", I see no reason to expand on the mention they already have. And Cinadon36: where is the source stating that they had an important role according to some. --T*U (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your Q, T*U. Page 260 of Kornetis book: The anarchist role has long been contested by all sides, being alternative over- and underplayed. It is almost certain that their role during the 1973 uprising was marginal but highly controversial. After that quote, the author discusses within 5 paragraphs their role and explains why they were branded as provocateur. The provocateurs were of big importance as both Junta, Communist Party (Youth) and many more, used this specific word in order to achieve their ends or justify their (in)actions. So, I 'd wish we, as WP editors, to add information to the article on how the events unfolded, who did what, who were these "provocateurs" and why they were named as provocateurs. Many sections of the article need expansion. I can share Kornetis book (actually just a chapter) if you are interested. (have a look here). Cinadon36 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * none of the sources says that they played an important role. Kornetis says they had a marginal role. Most sources ignored them. I wont get back to this. Polytexchneio had affected everything in Greece and of course anarchism. We can add every portal about greece here. I think we should not do this. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I think that's a misrepresentation of how Kornetis sees anarchist role. Anyone who 'd like to check it out, I can share the book. The claim that "most sources ignored them" is unsourced and apparently his own POV. Polytechnic uprising had huge effect on anarchism. Here is what Kotea says about the link between anarchism and the polytechnic: "b) the circumstances which allowed the historical event to become not only symbol of the struggle against dictatorship but also emblem for anarchism and for terrorism" (quote taken from the abstract of her article The Athens Polytechnic Uprising: Myth and Reality.American International Journal of Contemporary Research ISSN 2162-139X (Print), ISSN 2162-142X (Online) DOI: 10.30845/aijcr I think that this ends our discussion. Cinadon36 (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Kornetis says marginal. Kotea speaks only for symbolism. When you find something we can continue our discussion. Untill then I agree that we are in dead end. So please lets stay on topic about anarchist portal.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)