Talk:Greece/Archive 10

Population de jure, resident, de facto
Several different numbers for the total population have been given from the 2011 census. The number used so far in the article has been the resident population (10,815,197). The number now introduced (10,939,727) is the de facto population. The de facto population is the number of people actually present when the counting was done. It is the resident population number that gives the most correct picture of the population, as the press release from ELSTAT says: "It should be noted that the De Facto Population refers to a different concept from that of the Resident Population. On 28/12/2012 (Gov. Gazette No. 3465/Β/28-12-2012) ELSTAT announced the results regarding the Resident Population, as defined in the European Regulation 763/2008 in order to be used in population censuses in member states of the European Union." I will therefore revert the introduction of the de facto number back to the resident number. --T*U (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Its human development Index in 2011 was also rated 'Very High", although at 29th in the world, it was the lowest in the European Union ??
In the intro we read the above. This is wrong of course. It's not the lowest in the EU. There are plenthy of countries with lower HDI rankings (e.g. Portugal, Malta, Cyprus, Slovakia, etc.). Please correct this inaccuracy. 62.1.101.1 (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 September 2013
heyyo yo yo lol

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.205.39.225 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 September 2013
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: nonsense. Nici  Vampire  Heart  15:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Disgusting photos
User Thiagoreis leon replaced some nice photos that were around for quite some while with some disgusting ones, particularly that of Syros. Can someone please revert back to the stable version? Thanks. 178.128.248.160 (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  20:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! Appreciated!178.128.248.160 (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. Thank you for the great suggestion. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  21:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The images were generally out of control, far too many had been added, causing spillovers of images from one section into the next. Some had also been enlarged far too much.  I have tried to remedy the situation to the best that I could. Athenean

(talk) 00:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Additions to the lead
Not sure about the latest additions to the lead. What is a "competitive string of republics and monarchies"? "...was ended by the Greek military junta of 1967–74, which saw a a republican constitution enacted by the junta adapted by plebiscite, following the restoration of democratic government" is horribly complicated and confusing to those who are not familiar with the events, as is "it has consistently been the only country with the term in its name to bear the rank." What does that even mean? I also don't think the 2012 elections should be mentioned in the lede per WP:RECENT. Thoughts? Athenean (talk) 00:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. We need to simplify the lead. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  00:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello there, I also agree. Just to point out the following: It is said that Greece has a "relatively" high standard of living. The standard of living in Greece is not "relatively" high, it is absolutely high, when compared with the world average. When a country is ranked as no 21 in quality of life (ref Newsweeks 2010 assesment) and no 22 in Quality of Life index out of maybe 180 countries, then i think the term "relatively" must go. It should say "high standard of living" as it does for instance in other countries like Portugal or Spain with equal if not lower living standards. Thank you.91.217.243.37 (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Rebel Rousers: Wikipedia is no Playground for Political Views...
It is rather hard to explain, but fairly simple to correct. The Title of the Section is:'Cities'. Somebody placed an 'Anti-Obamacare'-GIF Image there. Under any circumstances the placement is utter rubbish and should be replaced IMMEDIATELY.

Emdeelf (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the notification. This was a piece of vandalism sneakily added to a piece of template code that was automatically included on this page, and not very easy to spot for this reason. It's been fixed now though. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Small question about the lede
Hello everyone. I've been browsing through the Ancient history articles recently and something struck me about the first line in the third paragraph in the lede.


 * Modern Greece traces its roots to the civilization of Ancient Greece, which is considered the cradle of all Western civilization.

I note that the Ancient Greece article largely focuses on matters after the Greek Dark Ages and seems to skip over the Mycenaean period. I was wondering if anyone editors more au fait with the subject material could let me know if this was this deliberate? Dolescum (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Emerging Market
This is not controversial anymore, 4 indices (MSCI, Standard and Poor's, Dow Jones, and The Economist) have classified it as such. I don't see anything wrong with this since the richest country in the world (China) is an "emerging market".--Theparties (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You produced a synthetic edit. The RS call the economy "advanced" and "high-income", then you interjected "emerging", but "emerging" refers to the "market" not the "economy", so this is synthesis. In addition this detail is WP:UNDUE for the lead of the country article, but given that you have two sources perhaps you can add this detail to the economy of Greece article. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  05:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Market" and "economy" are clearly two words for the same thing. And if you look at the article for developed economies, pretty much half of those demoted Greece as well. . --Theparties (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No they are not. They have two different articles, cf. Market, Economy; and they refer to different concepts and procedures. As far as your personal attacks, I removed them and while reminding you about WP:NPA, I also wish to comment that attacking other editors is both useless and unconstructive. In a wiki noone owns anything. This conversation is wide open to everyone and things are done by consensus. If you disagree with me you don't have to attack me or edit-war. You can wait for other editors to comment or seek other means of dispute resolution. So, hold your horses. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  06:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please don't attack me. Threatening only makes matters worse. Market and economy deal with the same thing: the trade of goods and services. The nuances are there only to confuse people. I really don't want to argue with people who don't understand so this is pretty much my last comment here. I doubt there's gonna be consesnsus.--Theparties (talk) 06:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Where did I actually attack you? Could you please elaborate? All I did in my reply above, was to tell you to be patient because this being a wiki can provide us with external advice to help resolve the disagreement without resorting to ad-hominems or uncivil behaviour. This is not an attack or threat as far as I can tell. FYI, I have asked at WP:3O for their opinion to help this dispute move along. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  06:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This!. Honestly, I'm backing out. --Theparties (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think a standard template is a threat. Rather, it is standard information about 3RR, how to avoid it and what available options exist under those conditions. In any case the matter is in the hands of 3O and I will abide by whatever their verdict is. This is a wiki after all. But I think I mentioned that before. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  07:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with Δρ.Κ. on this one. Actually a user continuously changes the Developed market and Emerging Market articles and, without sourcing, excludes Greece from the Developed market listings of various organizations, while including them in the Emerging market listings of the same organizations. He also included "nice" sentences like: "Grece was kicked out of developed market in 2013"....Now as far as I know only MSCI has actually downgraded Greece. But as Dr.K says, it is irrelevant. Downgrading from such an organization doesnt of course mean that the economy of Greece is not a developed, advanced one. Astarti34 (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I agree with you . Thank you for taking the time to comment. The references for the economy of Greece being developed and advanced come from the World Bank and the IMF, two very strong and reliable sources. Also to put this downgrading at the lead of the article of Greece is POV and WP:UNDUE. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dr.K I would appreciate if you could also pay attention to Developed Market and Emerging Markets articles, as per above. Thanks. Astarti34 (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Astarti. I'll have a look as soon as I get a chance. Best regards. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  20:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2014
This page has been significaly changed over the years from people from the republic of fyrom altering the truth as it feats them to present minorities i wish to restore some maps to the way they where till 2009 and add some more discoveries.

EleutheriosBenizelos (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Where exactly is the problem in the article? --Philly boy92 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hellas vs Greece
Hellas as used by Homer seems to have indicated a region in the Greek mainland, possibly near Phthia or in Phthia. Currently a search for Hellas in English wikipedia leads to an article on modern Greece, without disambiguation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skamnelis (talk • contribs) 15:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and possibly here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2014
there are extremely important mistakes in this page that need to be corrected in order to prevent racism and discrimination. The term Greece has to be changed to Hellas or Elada and the term Greek has to be changed to Hellenic. It is extremely inappropriate to say Greece and next to it in brackets to misinterpret this in the Hellenic Language and state that it is pronounced by the indigenous people as Elada. This is inaccurate and I would be more than happy to correct this whole text.

Iatros1 (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Per WP:COMMONNAME, the name to be primarily used in the article will be the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. If you would like to suggest specific changes to the article, feel free to do so, but suggesting that the name of the country be changed wholesale throughout the article will not happen. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Demographics
The demographics section is outdated. All the sources cited in the infobox and most in the article, have the 2001 census as its primary source of data. According to the 2011 census results Greeks are 91.6% of the total population, Albanians are 4.4%, Bulgarians are 0.7%, Romanians are 0.4% and so on. I suggest that the demography article sections get updated acccording to the most recent census.Hansi667 (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Albanians include those that have Albanian citizenship. If we exclude ethnic Greeks of Albanian citizenship then we have the number of ethnic Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Censuses in Greece do not count ethnic affiliation, but citizenship. That means that Armenians, Albanians or even Germans that were granted the Greek citizeship are counted in the census as Greeks. On the other hand, as you said, there are ethnic Greeks that hold Albanian, Russian, Armenian or Georgian citizenship and not Greek. These people are counted as Albanians, Russians, Armenians or Georgians respectively. People that have dual citizenship (Greek and another) are counted as Greeks. This is the case in the 2011 census and this was also the case in the 2001 census.


 * The numbers given in the infobox are those of the 2001 census, and thus they are outdated since there is a census carried out in 2011. What I say is that the numbers of the 2001 census should be replaced by the respective numbers of the 2011 census. Your statement has nothing to do with the previous. It says that any Greek census gives no figures for ethnic affiliation, which is true, but if we accept this, we can use the neither the 2011 census data nor the data of the 2001 census. Any suggestions? Hansi667 (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox numbers
It appears that the 'ethnic groups' section should include the correspodent numbers. For example if a community belongs to ethnic group X, but at the same time are holders of citizenship Y, then in the section 'ethnic groups' they should be counted as X. Moreover, the fact that ethnicity data is based on the previous census (of 2001) doesn't mean that they should be removed from infobox.Alexikoua (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * However, I wouldn't object alternatively the addition of a footnote inside the infobox, provided that the 'ethnic groups' section is renamed.Alexikoua (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The question still exists why an "ethnic groups" section shouldn't have data about ethnic groups []. In fact this isn't clear, on the contrary it's simply wrong.Alexikoua (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Your arguments seem reasonable. But you should provide with data from a reliable source that gives numbers for ethnic groups in Greece. This could prove a tricky quest since Greece doesn't give figures for ethnic groups in its censuses. Yet you can't mingle data from from 2008 with data from 2011 and create new data. This is violation of No original research. Apart from this, by adding ethnic Greeks with Albanian citizenship with the figures given for Greek citizens in the 2011 census, to find the numbers of ethnic Greeks, overlooks the fact that there are non-ethnic Greeks that are Greek citizens and thus are counted as Greeks in the census data. Just to name a few: Predrag Đorđević (ethnic Serb), Milan Tomić (ethnic Serb), Vlantimir Giankovits (ethnic Serb), Dušan Bajević (ethnic Serb from Bosnia), Branislav Prelević (ethnic Serb), Anna Prelević (ethnic Serb), Andrej Kravárik (ethnic Slovak), Theodoros Baev (ethnic Bulgarian).
 * Official data from the Greek Ministry of the Interior show that from 2011 to 2013 65,853 people acquired the greek citizenship. 44,699 of them were ethnic Greeks that previously did't have the greek citizenship. 13,519 were non-ethnic Greeks. The rest is 7,653 could be either ethnic Greeks or non-ethnic Greeks. An article in Kathimerini (a greek newspaper) states that from 2008 to 2010 the greek citizenship was given to 30,347 people. 28,462 were ethnic Greeks. Given this data the number of ethnic Greeks residing in Greece and don't have the greek citizenship has most possibly fallen to 115,000 people from 2008. But such a statement is original research and it is violating WP:NOS. Although suitable for the talk page, it can't be in the article.
 * In my opinion the footnote in the infobox clearly states and disambiguates that the numbers given in the ethnic groups cell give figures for citizenship. It would be bright though to change the cell name from ethic groups to citizenship. Another solution would be to completely remove the ethnic groups cell from the infobox, as it is the case in the article for France and Italy.
 * PS. I' d like to thank you for making me search and find all of this this data. Hansi667 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2014
In the beggining, you are saying "shares land borders with Albania to the northwest, the Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria[...]" it is not Republic of Macedonia but F.Y.R.O.M.

84.205.231.43 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

❌, please see WP:NCMAC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Greece
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Greece's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Harris":<ul> <li>From New Testament: Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.</li> <li>From Greeks: </li> <li>From Goldman Sachs: </li> <li>From Italy: Har, Michael H. History of Libraries in the Western World, Scarecrow Press Incorporate, 1999, ISBN 0-8108-3724-2</li> <li>From Byzantine Empire: ; ; .</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

"high standards of living"
The "high standards of living" blurb in the Greek economy synopsis is straight out of the wikipedia article circa 2007. As if the economical crisis had no devastating results in the standard of living in Greece. Moreover, a bad faith editor presumed to delete a single passing reference to the country's 26% unemployment rate, supposedly because "the Greek crisis is discussed in another paragraph". What kind of logic is that? So the summary on the Greek economy will show outdated 2007 information about "high standards of living" and "developed country index" while the OECD has downgraded the country to "developing", and the standard of living has gone to the pits? Please keep your partisan "new democrat" political glasses out of editing. I will wait for some kind of justification for the 2007 summary on the Greek economy, and unless given one, will reedit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.12.123.57 (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality of life in Greece
I don't feel like the following sentence is accurate for now because of the horror that is Golden Dawn: "...a high standard of living and a very high Human Development Index." Was this addressed before or not? Did anyone ignore the chance to do so because they did not pay enough attention to the recent Greek protests? }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 20:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there abound little νεοδημοκράτικα trolls editing away any mention that disproves their la la phantasy of a "thriving Greece" under Samaras. They've gone so far as to delete a mention of the unemployment percentage in the economy summary, in order to leave an outdated description which paints a laughable picture of "high standards of living" in current Greece! Disgusting κομματόσκυλα. 46.12.123.57 (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

EU accession in infobox
Somebody has been pushing hard to get the date of the EU (or EEC) accession into the list of historical steps in the "Formation:" section of the infobox in this and other country articles. (As far as I can see, they have been the only editor to insert these entries in all those articles, silently, without any discussion anywhere; in some articles it has stuck so far, in others it was reverted. Here at Greece they stubbornly re-inserted it three times at least).

I'm not convinced the entry should be there. The section is headed "formation" for a reason; it means the steps that led towards the creation of the state as it is constituted today. The entry into the EEC in 1981 didn't turn Greece into a different state from what it was before.

Views? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should be easy to resolve. This either goes for all EU states or none. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 20:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes exactly. And today, Greece has lost its complete sovereignty and is constituted in a different way than before 1981 because of its accession to the EU. Furthermore I wasn't the first one to add this entry in the "Formation". I first saw it in the article of the Republic of Ireland and some others and added it to the other ones. And I'm sorry for the edit war. -- Atoine85 (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Atoine85. If it is found in the other EU states, then this is good enough for me. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 22:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's found in the other articles because Atoine85 put it there. This shows him newly adding it to 26 of the 28 member state articles, if I didn't mis-count. So, Atoine85, which "some other" articles beside Ireland had it before that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't remember. I'm positive Ireland had it. I didn't randomly add it. I saw it there and thought it made sense so I added it on other articles. I'll try to check which articles had it. -- Atoine85 (talk) 07:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to check all of Atoine85's contribs but, from a limited sample, I see he was reverted at United Kingdom and Denmark‎ but his contribution has remained at Spain. So it seems there is no widespread consensus. As with all edits attempting to change similar information in multiple articles, I would suggest Atoine85 obtains wider consensus before any other attempts at implementating this edit. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 08:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My first contribution on Republic of Ireland. I just added "the". Indeed I was reverted there (at UK and Denmark; notice they are two eurosceptic countries). Yet I really think this information should remain. I completely agree with the fact that "Formation" means the steps that led towards the creation of the state as it is constituted today, and today, these states are EU states, therefore they are constituted differently because of the EU (let's take for example the euro, or EU legislation and so many other examples). -- Atoine85 (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One problem with that argument is that, at least for the early members (founding members and those that joined before the Maastricht treaties), the joining date didn't really mean much of such a change in soverreignty status. Back at that time, joining what was then the EEC did not yet mean sharing a significant portion of a country's sovereigntly rights, at least nothing comparable with what it is today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes of course. Yet the accession to the EEC then led to the de facto accession to the EU in 1992 (and therefore a lost of sovereignty). -- Atoine85 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)