Talk:Metapolitefsi/Archive 2

RfC: Is the article encyclopedically written?
I do not know what the opinion of the community is, but my personal opinion is that this is not an encyclopedic article. It is written like an essay, from a non-neutral point of view and in emotional language. The Deus ex machina section, for example, compares the Greek political scene of the 1970s to Ancient Greek drama. This might be excellent for a Political Science thesis, but it is not suitable for an encyclopaedia article. Also, the fact that it is sourced does not really matter, because the (certainly reliable) sources are very subjective.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * but my personal opinion is that this is not an encyclopedic article. It is written like an essay, from a non-neutral point of view and in emotional language. I disagree. The article is very well written and is neutral, factual and extremely well cited. Your sweeping statements are not supported by any examples other than the Catharsis section which is very well supported by RS as well. Further, your last edit indiscriminately removed the section "Prelude to Catharsis" which contained factual and well-cited information about the events that led to Karamanlis being invited back to Greece and about his eventual return. You may have disagreed with the section title but it seems you did not check properly what you were removing. These facts are central to Metapolitefsi and your edit removed them all. Such removal of central facts from an article is not constructive. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  18:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * To be exact you removed this whole section, in addition to the "Catharsis" one:
 * Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any relevance between this RfC and that edit of mine you mentioned. What I propose here is to re-write the article, making it more encyclopaedic.--The Traditionalist (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How can you propose an RfC when a) you don't provide diffs as examples to support your assertions that the article is not written in an encyclopedic manner and b) the only example of your editing is one of blanking a central part of the article which is very well cited and written. I wanted to highlight that your lack of diffs and your edit inspire no confidence as to the factual basis for your assertions. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 18:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not present diffs because I asked from responding users to read the article.--The Traditionalist (talk) 19:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Fair enough for part a) of my comments above. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:12, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your b) comment suggests that my statements are weakened by the quality of my past editing, while I suggest that the latter is irrelevant, as they are supported by just reading the article.--The Traditionalist (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you read the article carefully enough to assess it fairly, based on your blanking of a large, central and important part of it which also happens to be very well cited and written. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 19:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much on an RFC here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

What is this RfC for? I can't tell if this RfC has been used to simply garner attention to the article (which shouldn't be the reasoning, and WikiProject: Peer Review would be more appropriate) or if there is a an actual dispute about the content (which hasn't been made clear, other than an editor's "personal opinion" and a slab of text that is TL;DR with its sizing and length). Please create a carefully thought out RfC statement along the lines of: "This is the current xxxxx, should we change to xxyyy because of WP:Policies and Guidelines . Attempts have been made to make this change (insert diff links here) and discussion was started here, Talk:Example . What is the better choice for Wiki?" per WP:RfC#Request comment on articles, policies, or other non-user issues and its sections. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Spamming information using unreliable/undue sources across multiple articles
An edit-warring account is spamming the following information across multiple articles: The first source makes the claim His election campaign motto has been "It's me or the tanks", which some of his opponents saw as a bullying and a manipulative campaign. which is an exceptional claim. Aside from the bad grammar, the use of WP:WEASELWORDS like some of his opponents and the fact that this exceptional claim is being edit-warred on with no ISBN number, page number and no quote, as well as without any other sources to back it up, make this a classic case of WP:UNDUE and also very probably WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Aside from the fact that the second source is a pro-royalist Greek website, the description Analysts claim this was a deliberate act by the government to undermine any chance to restore the monarchy. is pure WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH junk. The "Analysts who claim" that, is just the pro-royalist website which is a very unreliable source. Edit-warring of this junk across multiple articles must cease otherwise the next step will be WP:ANI. Dr.  K.  03:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Metapolitefsi. 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/20081220093701/http://www.enet.gr/online/online_text/c%3D110%2Cdt%3D14.08.2008%2Cid%3D47456648 to http://www.enet.gr/online/online_text/c%3D110%2Cdt%3D14.08.2008%2Cid%3D47456648
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050908132253/http://users.hol.gr/~ergatiki/ep/7_2004/Metapolitefsi.htm to http://users.hol.gr/~ergatiki/ep/7_2004/Metapolitefsi.htm

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) 01:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)