Talk:Metapolitefsi

content does not match title
Instead of discussing the metapolitefsi most of the article is about the last years of the dictatorship. the article needs more content on the first years after the junta and how the transition took place. --Greece666 (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * We had this discussion before. The democratic metapolitefsi happened because of the events surrounding Papadopoulos's attempt at metapolitefsi and his subsequent overthrow by Ioannidis. If these events are not included in this article, this article makes no sense. Also there is a lot of information on the first years after the junta and how the transition took place in the article. Dr.   K.  03:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Shifting the meaning of a term is not good practice. That this is not the first time other users bring this up should give you a hint. Greece666 (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There is no such "shifting". All articles in this wiki have background sections. The 12 months before the democratic metapolitefsi happened is the background for the democratic metapolitefsi. So, like every article, this background has to be included in this article. And there is no hint to be given from anyone to me, because if you had bothered to read the archives, the editor who mentioned this agreed with me that we needed background sections dealing with the precursors to the democratic metapolitefsi. Again, there is no way the democratic metapolitefsi can be understood without including the background of Papadopoulos's metapolitefsi and the subsequent dictatorship by Ioannidis. Dr.   K.  22:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. "the editor who mentioned this agreed with me". Apparently, Metapolitefsi is not the only word you misuse, as the meaning of "agree" eludes you. This discussion contains several valid criticisms which still stand, esp. about the non encyclopedic way the article is written. Greece666 (talk) 21:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You can play semantics and try to misrepresent facts, but watch your WP:NPAs. I don't misuse any words, as I have explained to you multiple times now that the background of metapolitefsi is necessary for the readers to understand the subject of the article. Adding a background section is no alleged misuse of a word. Also, nothing eludes me, but it is apparent that WP:CIV eludes you for sometime now. The archived discussion has been over for 12 years and multiple people had edited the article in 2006-2007 to eliminate the past problems. The non-encyclopedic claims have also been discussed and addressed in the past peer review. This is a well-written and referenced article which has remained stable for over a decade.  Dr.   K.  21:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see the issue here. The background section is well-written and on point. Comments like the meaning of "agree" eludes are not conducive towards building a collaborative encyclopedia. Khirurg (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure, more content about Metapolitefsi can be added to the article, as long as there are sources for it. However, sourced content helping the readers understand why and how the Metapolitefsi came to be realised (that it is, the Background section), is mandatory, and cannot be removed, no matter what. Like the other editors above have said: background sections are necessary for providing the readers info about why and how the Metapolitefsi happened in the first place. If there is more background info about how the Metapolitefsi happened but no actual info about the years of the Metapolitefsi, it doesn't mean the "before" info has to be removed due to the absense of "after" info. This is not how Wikipedia works, I am afraid. The other way: the article needs expansion with more "after" info to balance out the "before" info. Simple as that. The more information an article has, the better for us all. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 02:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. Metapolitefsi is not the Big Bang. It didn't come out of nowhere. Khirurg (talk) 15:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Summary I agree with SilentResident that addition is better than subtraction, generally, but this backround section is 3x as long as it should be, and contains way too much detail already covered in the article on it, which should be cited at the top "Main article....". The whole "Deus et Machina" essay, etc., is personal research, not suitable for Wikipedia. I may or may not trim it, but the author should, and add to the actual section following. Backround should be 3 sub paras at most. Essentially, each sentence in the lead is a para in the section. Billyshiverstick (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Re-write this mess
I notice the primary source for this page is somebody's university paper, which has the same title as one of the para section heads. Big Ouch!!

I am very sympathetic to exposing the sad details of this period in Greek history, and I often use colourful language and imagery in my persuasive writing, but here in Wikipedia, there is no place for grinding axes in florid language. Just because you have a citation for somebody ranting in print, doesn't mean it should appear as a fact in Wikipedia. Sophomoric essays on Greek Theatre belong on your personal blog page. Put these descriptive flourishes in as a quote from the author, if you must at all. Style matters, as style becomes content.

Stick to the facts. Line them up properly, and they will tell your story far better than this amateurish froth. You can best honour the people who suffered torture by not driving future witnesses away with your bias. I will make a few structural changes to facilitate this, and remove some original research. Warmest regards. Billyshiverstick (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)