Talk:Greece/Archive 14

"strategically located", redux
About this edit: Personally, I am still very far from convinced the verbiage about "strategically located at the crossroads" should be there in the first place. But if we must have it, can we please at least not start trying to bolster it up with that ugliest of bad wiki-habits, overciting? Any phrase inside a sentence that has more than two footnotes in a row is always a certain giveaway there have been POV warriors at work somehow.

If this phrase means something concrete and tangible, then this (seemingly) very simple statement of fact ought to be able to stand even without footnotes, as its truth ought to be self-evident. The problem, as I see it, is just this: it's not clear at all what it is supposed to mean, and this vagueness is what gives it that apparent "peacock" quality that many readers (me included) have felt to be there. Seriously, a question to those who are in favour of inclusion: what exactly does the phrase "strategically located at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa" actually mean, to you? And, if you can explain what it means: do you really think the point is important enough that it must stand right at the beginning of that lead paragraph? Please note that all these questions are quite independent of whether we can find "reliable sources" that have said something like it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please, spare us the cheap theatrics. I have seen this method at work before: Step 1. Use a loud edit-summary accusing an editor by name of something fictitious: sorry, Dr.K., but can we please not start this kind of horrible over-citing?, so as to elevate your own editing skills. Step 2. Open up a discussion section where you compound the assault initiated by the edit-summary by accusing the target editor, or at least insinuating, that he is a "POV-warrior". Sorry, but I won't play this game. But first, let me disabuse you of these fallacies. First, I am fully cognisant of the fact that at the lead one does not add citations, because they should already be at the body of the article. Second, despite your exaggerations, two (2) references do not make for your horribly overinflated description in your edit-summary of horrible over-citing. Third, I only added these citations to help that IP who kept reverting understand that the term "strategic" is supported by RS. Sometimes, these IP editors don't understand the nuances of WP:LEAD, so I tried to help that guy along. Finally, your comment Please note that all these questions are quite independent of whether we can find "reliable sources" that have said something like it. is wrong. We go by what RS call the geographic location of Greece. It is not up to us to invent terms. If books and other RS call Greece's position "strategic", then that's where the buck stops. Any other approach as your comment If this phrase means something concrete and tangible, then this (seemingly) very simple statement of fact ought to be able to stand even without footnotes, as its truth ought to be self-evident. suggests is WP:OR. We are not after WP:TRUTH here. We are after WP:RS and WP:V. But I think you knew this all along.  Dr.   K.  17:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please don't use loud edit-summaries where, as you know, the target editor cannot respond. This is not a fair way to edit. Dr.   K.  17:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fut.Perf. that "situated at the crossroads" is a silly peacock expression. The sources using the expression are simply trying to show how important their subject is. Some simple googling will show you that lots of places are called "crossroads", e.g., Turkey (in fact, in one of the sources, it is "Greece and Turkey" that are at the crossroads), Sicily, Egypt , Cyprus , the Middle East , Bulgaria , the Mediterranean Sea, etc. --Macrakis (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fut.Perf. that "situated at the crossroads" is a silly peacock expression. Actually, FPaS had more of a problem with the "strategic" descriptor and FPaS never called the expression "silly"; even his "peacock" was qualified: ...apparent "peacock" quality. So I can't see how you can agree with FPaS on something he has not said. I think that the "crossroads" description is obvious enough, and it is well-supported by RS. As far as your opinion that the expression is silly and peacock, that's your OR and POV obviously. I remind you that on wiki we go by what reliable sources say. No more and no less. Dr.   K.  03:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify that my objections do apply both to the "strategically" and to the "crossroads" phrases, so yes, I do think Macrakis and me are largely in agreement here. The question is the same: what is this expression actually supposed to mean? Apparently it can mean two things; in the one case it's utterly trivial, and in the second case it's false. The trivial meaning is: Greece is geographically sort of close to both Asia and Africa. Yeah, great; so what? (In fact, as for Africa it isn't even that close. If I'm not quite mistaken, of the five countries that mark the southern boundaries of Europe – Greece, Italy, Malta, Spain, Portugal – Greece is the one that is farthest away from Africa, so are all the others also "at the crossroads"?) The other meaning, the one that I think careful and felicitous usage of the phrase "crossroads" would actually need to entail, is that Greece is a notably important channel of cross-continental contacts, i.e. a favoured path of traffic of goods, people, ideas or cultural influences between these continents. That was certainly true in earlier times, but is it true today? Hardly. (Apart from the traffic of illegal immigration, that is.) Given the vagueness and questionable implications of these phrases, their net effect in the article – especially in such an exposed position in the lead – really becomes that of mere peacockery. They only serve to vaguely insinuate that Greece is somehow special and particularly noteworthy. That's poor encyclopedia writing.
 * I'm also not buying the whole rhetoric about "WP:V" and "WP:OR" and "[if it's written in some sources], then that's where the buck stops". We are writing the lead section of an encyclopedia article here, and we have our own editorial discretion in deciding what goes in and what goes out. It's not "OR" to use our own brains in exercising this editorial discretion (seriously, before you continue misusing references to that policy or to the WP:TRUTH essay, read them first.) Just because one or two editors are enamoured of a certain phrase and have found a handful of random Google snippets of books that have used it before, doesn't mean the rest of us are forever doomed to accept that phrase in a privileged position in the lead. We are talking about the third sentence of the entire article here. The very first actual "fact" we are telling our readers about the country, after what its capital is, and before even telling them what other countries it borders on. I continue to be of the opinion that this position should be reserved for a matter-of-fact, factual description of where the country is, not for selling the reader some evaluation of how that position gives it some vague but grandiose-sounding special quality, and I'm not going to be stopped from stating this editorial opinion by cries of "but it's sourced, we have to write it that way". Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (seriously, before you continue misusing references to that policy or to the WP:TRUTH essay, read them first.) Don't presume to lecture me about WP:V, WP:TRUTH, or anything else for that matter. Disagreeing with you on the suitability of the "crossroads" descriptor, is not "misusing references to the OR policy". I think that you are using OR in contravention of WP:RS and WP:V and then you attempt to use PAs to reduce your perceived opponent. The quotes of the references are clear. No amount of OR on your part will change that. But I will not start bickering about semantics with you. I have supplied 5 RS that use the terminology "crossroads". If you want to remove it, start an RfC. Thankfully, this is a wiki and the community can render its opinion over this. I rely on the community to relieve me from having to bicker with you about obvious, RS-supported facts. Dr.   K.  18:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Future Perfect, I am sorry but WP:OR and WP:TRUTH theories do not have place here. From the moment the content is well-sourced, there is no question about it. It stays, like it or not. Instead of causing disruption and blanking sourced content from the articles, I suggest that you do not waste our time and make use of your own time more wisely and productively. That means to not fix a problem where there isn't any. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 21:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That WP:TRUTH remark was simply ridiculous. Made just for the sake of gratuitous insinuation with the intent to embarrass. Unfortunately, that comment actually is a boomerang on the OP. Because, here on wiki, we go by WP:RS and WP:V, not by anyone's deconstructionist WP:TRUTH. Perhaps, he should remind this to himself rather than try to embarrass me. Dr.   K.  21:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * (my uninvolved 2 cents) I generally agree with the points made above about the general fuzziness of the "crossroads" descriptor. I'd add "clichédness" to that. That's language for a brochure, or for quickly finishing an essay when one lacks the inspiration to come up with something more specific. In a lead, surely something better could be found, regardless of how many sources may have dipped into the stock phrase reserves, and it should not be a difficult task. I'm a bit surprised to read how quickly this discussion escalated.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * That's language for a brochure, or for quickly finishing an essay when one lacks the inspiration to come up with something more specific. I can see your point of view, but somehow I don't think these specialist publications and reliable sources can be dismissed so easily as "essays" or "brochures" and their expert authors characterised as "lacking the inspiration to come up with something more specific."
 * Dr.  K.  04:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dr.K., the RS are very good and I do not understand why the "crossroads" is problematic, the RS support it. Dismissing any RS just to illustrate a point is only bound to cause more problems and is highly disruptive. If Future Perfect does not like a particular term, then he better start suggesting alternates to it so we can make some progress here. Otherwise we stick with "crossroads". And pointless to say, the proposed terms will have to retain the meaning of the sentence, not alter it, and be in line with what the RS support. Anything less than that is just a waste of time and very disruptive and I am not going to be part of this. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.  K.  04:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dr.K., the RS are very good and I do not understand why the "crossroads" is problematic, the RS support it. Dismissing any RS just to illustrate a point is only bound to cause more problems and is highly disruptive. If Future Perfect does not like a particular term, then he better start suggesting alternates to it so we can make some progress here. Otherwise we stick with "crossroads". And pointless to say, the proposed terms will have to retain the meaning of the sentence, not alter it, and be in line with what the RS support. Anything less than that is just a waste of time and very disruptive and I am not going to be part of this. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.  K.  04:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dr.K., the RS are very good and I do not understand why the "crossroads" is problematic, the RS support it. Dismissing any RS just to illustrate a point is only bound to cause more problems and is highly disruptive. If Future Perfect does not like a particular term, then he better start suggesting alternates to it so we can make some progress here. Otherwise we stick with "crossroads". And pointless to say, the proposed terms will have to retain the meaning of the sentence, not alter it, and be in line with what the RS support. Anything less than that is just a waste of time and very disruptive and I am not going to be part of this. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.  K.  04:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dr.K., the RS are very good and I do not understand why the "crossroads" is problematic, the RS support it. Dismissing any RS just to illustrate a point is only bound to cause more problems and is highly disruptive. If Future Perfect does not like a particular term, then he better start suggesting alternates to it so we can make some progress here. Otherwise we stick with "crossroads". And pointless to say, the proposed terms will have to retain the meaning of the sentence, not alter it, and be in line with what the RS support. Anything less than that is just a waste of time and very disruptive and I am not going to be part of this. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.  K.  04:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dr.K., the RS are very good and I do not understand why the "crossroads" is problematic, the RS support it. Dismissing any RS just to illustrate a point is only bound to cause more problems and is highly disruptive. If Future Perfect does not like a particular term, then he better start suggesting alternates to it so we can make some progress here. Otherwise we stick with "crossroads". And pointless to say, the proposed terms will have to retain the meaning of the sentence, not alter it, and be in line with what the RS support. Anything less than that is just a waste of time and very disruptive and I am not going to be part of this. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.  K.  04:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dr.K., the RS are very good and I do not understand why the "crossroads" is problematic, the RS support it. Dismissing any RS just to illustrate a point is only bound to cause more problems and is highly disruptive. If Future Perfect does not like a particular term, then he better start suggesting alternates to it so we can make some progress here. Otherwise we stick with "crossroads". And pointless to say, the proposed terms will have to retain the meaning of the sentence, not alter it, and be in line with what the RS support. Anything less than that is just a waste of time and very disruptive and I am not going to be part of this. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.  K.  04:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dr.K., the RS are very good and I do not understand why the "crossroads" is problematic, the RS support it. Dismissing any RS just to illustrate a point is only bound to cause more problems and is highly disruptive. If Future Perfect does not like a particular term, then he better start suggesting alternates to it so we can make some progress here. Otherwise we stick with "crossroads". And pointless to say, the proposed terms will have to retain the meaning of the sentence, not alter it, and be in line with what the RS support. Anything less than that is just a waste of time and very disruptive and I am not going to be part of this. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Dr.  K.  04:37, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Dr.K., the RS are very good and I do not understand why the "crossroads" is problematic, the RS support it. Dismissing any RS just to illustrate a point is only bound to cause more problems and is highly disruptive. If Future Perfect does not like a particular term, then he better start suggesting alternates to it so we can make some progress here. Otherwise we stick with "crossroads". And pointless to say, the proposed terms will have to retain the meaning of the sentence, not alter it, and be in line with what the RS support. Anything less than that is just a waste of time and very disruptive and I am not going to be part of this. Have a good day. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170111051954/http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/greece-can-still-be-a-geopolitical-asset-for-the-eu/ to http://europesworld.org/2013/06/01/greece-can-still-be-a-geopolitical-asset-for-the-eu/
 * Added tag to https://athens.usembassy.gov/amb_bookpanel_remarks.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)