Talk:PASOK

Factual accuracy and neutrality
A quick reading of the article made me ask the following questions: Don't these issues need to be dealt with? --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does the article cover the topic completely? [[image:X mark.svg|x15px]]
 * Is the article neutral? [[image:X mark.svg|x15px]] It is almost one-sided throughout.
 * Is there a section about how very unsocialist PASOK is currently? [[image:X mark.svg|x15px]] Yet it is a "socialist party" implementing austerity and arguably the most "right" government in Greece for years.
 * Is there a section about the numerous politcal scandals PASOK is currently involved in? [[image:X mark.svg|x15px]] Absolutely not a single reference.
 * Is there a section about the sharp drop in the party's popularity? [[image:X mark.svg|x15px]] Not even a single mention.
 * Is the article adaquately referenced? [[image:X mark.svg|x15px]] Hardly any.


 * They certainly do. The article is thoroughly inadequate and problematic, as are most Greek political articles. I have a barnstar waiting for anyone who makes this mess of an article half-way neutral and comprehensive. Constantine  ✍  17:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be willing to contribute, although I am not that well informed about the history of PASOK etc. I think that the history section in particular needs to either be moved to History of the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (or History of PASOK), or be shortened as it is currently too long. Obviously it also needs to be very welll-referenced as the topic itself is very sensitive. --Philly boy92 (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I'm guessing "The Banker First" is not the real PASOK motto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.232.212 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'Myths and Reality' section
I call into question the objectivity of this section, especially the clause 'imaginative conspiracy theories.' If anybody can find evidence that PASOK are not indeed subservient to the Troika, I will remove my criticism.

Furthermore, there is no serious attempt at explaining why 2012 saw their support collapse in favour of Syriza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.49.34.181 (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

==Pasok is not centre-left Pasok may have started as a center-left party but now it;s so only in name. It is rather center or center-right. By now way it's present policies are left.

Left or centre left
Can a self-professed Socialist party be called a centre-left party? Surely Left is more accurate?203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Democratic Socialism is also centre-left. For comparison, we have French Socialist Party, which is also centre-left. The question concerning PASOK is rather, can it be nowadays considered left at all.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 06:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can a self-professed pro-austerity party be called a centre-left party? Surely rightist is more accurate? Please keep you amerocentrism to yourself, it has no place on wikipedia. There are all kinds of centre-left Socialist parties in the world.108.131.86.15 (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I come back to the original question, can a socialist party be a centre party? If it was a "broad church" party, certainly there could be a centrist wing, but PASOK is a purely socialist party - there is no right wing (i.e. centrist) to the party. Greek politics are not as centrist as in the UK, or how it used to be in the USA. Left and right are more pronounced. PASOK may not be as left wing as Syriza, but that makes Syriza a far left party, leaving PASOK as a left wing party.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This, and many parallel discussions on other pages, just illustrate the uselessness of classifying parties on left-right axis on Wikipedia. The left-right axis is always depending on context, in time and place. If the US classifications on left-right politics would be applied to Western Europe, all parties would be seen as leftist (including the French Front National, whose social policies are to the left of the US Democrats). --Soman (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Question should be: Where are you getting that PASOK is currently a "socialist" party? Impru20 (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Elia is the new name of PASOK
Please change the nameof the article to ELIA which is the new name of PASOK. 688dim (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any English language sources on this news? Has there been simply a rename, or a party merger into a larger structure, or an expansion of the Olive Tree (Elia) electoral list?--Autospark (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Its an expansion to a larger stracture, including other political parties. With the name ELIA (meaning olive tree!) PASOK took part at the last European parliament elections.688dim (talk) 22:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is already an article for the Olive Tree (Elia) alliance, should any new information be added to that article instead? I have searched for some English language sources on the situation with PASOK but as yet there doesn't seem to be any, unfortunately.--Autospark (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats the right article. But I recommend to change the article's name to ELIA.688dim (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Regional Councillor Numbers?
What is the exact count? It's hard to find in English media, but I'm pretty sure PASOK don't control a resounding majority of the regions like the info box states... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.179.101.231 (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Panhellenic Socialist Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090610163929/http://ekloges.ypes.gr:80/pages/index.html?lang=en to http://ekloges.ypes.gr/pages/index.html?lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to PASOK per nom. WP:COMMONNAME is a persuasive, policy-based argument for the move. While we generally give certain weight to official, formal names, the evidence for preponderance of the acronym in reliable sources is overwhelming. Oppose votes are not rooted in policy and current practice. WP:Official names describes our general approach and rationale for it. No such user (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Panhellenic Socialist Movement → PASOK – per WP:COMMONNAME. In English, the party is overwhelmingly known as PASOK. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - PASOK is not a name, it is an initialisation/abbreviation. Articles for political parties on en.wiki use English language translations of the party names as the article titles, not abbreviations (e.g. we have an article called Social Democratic Party of Germany, not SPD (Germany)). The commonly accepted English language translation of this party's Greek language name is the Panhellenic Socialist Movement, which should remain the article's title.--Autospark (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Autospark. PASOK is not the party's name, but just its abbreviation. --Checco (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * see WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". That commonname may be an abbreviation or initialism. e.g. FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football), NATO (not: North Atlantic Treaty Organization), Comecon (not: Council for Mutual Economic Assistance), UEFA (not: Union of European Football Associations).
 * In this case, PASOK is overwhelmingly the COMMONNAME:
 * Gnews search goves: "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" ~250 hits, but PASOK Greece ~450 hits
 * Gbooks search gives: "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" ~80 hits, but PASOK ~650 hits
 * Gscholar search gives "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" ~980 hits, but PASOK ~970 hits
 * So, about even on Gscholar, but PASOK is the clear leader in books and news. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be an exception among political parties and it is worthless, thus I oppose the move. --Checco (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * what exactly is your policy basis for demanding that political parties should be an exception to WP:COMMONNAME? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Articles on political parties are named after the latter's names, not acronyms. --Checco (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again. Where is the policy basis for your demand that political parties should be an exception to WP:COMMONNAME? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll answer again. It's not an exception. "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" is the most common name, PASOK is the most common acronym. We need a name. --Checco (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not a policy-based answer. Where is the policy basis for yoir claim that an acronym is not a name? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename, preferably to Pasok per usual use in English language media. Per the similar case of Syriza. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: per WP:COMMONNAME, while PASOK is an initialism it is also an acronym, it is pronounced as a word. Just like the article NATO isn't called North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. On google "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" only gets 36,100 results whereas "PASOK" gets 9,300,000! Ebonelm (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. On Highbeam for the last two years, 206 news stories mention "Pasok" while 26 mention "Panhellenic Socialist Movement." Gulangyu (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That is because PASOK is the abbreviation of the party's name; just as NDP is for the New Democratic Party of Canada, CDU is the abbreviation for the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, and so on - there are plenty of examples where political parties are commonly known by acronyms.--Autospark (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, I am sure that CDU has more hits than "Christian Democratic Union of Germany", but that does not mean anything. We should not confuse party names and party acronyms. In my view, also Syriza is a big mistake as article name. --Checco (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We can discuss that if there is a move discussion at Talk:Christian Democratic Union of Germany. This discussion is about PASOK. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The policy does not require that entities be known by their acronyms, just that that they be known by the acronyms if that is the most common unambiguous way of describing them. Your list of "Socialist Party (foo)" articles is irrelevant, because their acronyms are not unique. Your comment that Would just be absurd to have the party article moved to the acronym yet the full name being used commonly and freely elsewhere misses the point entirely. The evidence of usage above shows that in this case, PASOK is by far the most commonly-used term in English-language reliable sources. PASOK is preferred by about 8:1 in gbooks, and about 2:1 in Gnews. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME should not be applied so lightly to political parties, since political parties do usually use acronyms for their party names, and they're mostly known by their acronyms, because that's what acronyms are intended for. Yet, as it has been pointed out, few political party articles do actually use an acronym as a title (we've lots of examples: New Democracy (Greece), Communist Party of Greece, Union for a Popular Movement, UK Independence Party, Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, People's Party (Spain), Convergence and Union, Social Democratic Party of Germany, Christian Democratic Union of Germany, New Democratic Party, Five Star Movement, Democratic Party (Italy), Socialist Party (France), Socialist Party (Portugal)... just to name a few). Were we to apply this rule to political parties, then surely all political party articles should have their titles changed to their acronym counterparts, which would just not make any sense. Also keep in mind that the parties' full names are commonly widely used in election articles, at least for elections in Europe, usually accompanied by their acronyms. Would just be absurd to have the party article moved to the acronym yet the full name being used commonly and freely elsewhere. That does not happen with NATO, Comecon, UEFA, FIFA, etc, which, by the way, are not political parties. Impru20 (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the policy basis for your desire to exempt political parties from WP:COMMONAME?
 * PASOK is an acronym, not a name.--Autospark (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The purpose of an acronym is exactly that of shortening the party name and making it known under that acronym. Yet you fail to answer to the question why, if this happens for most parties, it is so scarcely used in Wikipedia for article titles for political parties. Your comment that Your list of "Socialist Party (foo)" articles is irrelevant, because their acronyms are not unique doesn't take into account the fact that you could very well make the acronym unique by adding the country in brackets to the title (i.e. PS (France), or PS (Portugal)). And if the issue is of confusion with other articles not about political parties, adding the "French political party" or "Portuguese political party" wording next to it. Under current Wikipedia naming conventions, that could be done, yet that is not done. The "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party" is much more widely known in English under either "PSOE" or simply "Socialist Party", yet its article page is not "Socialist Party (Spain)", instead using redirects. Lots of other such examples there. So, what exactly is the policy basis to choose what name should be used over others? Because it's clear that in the case of political parties, customary practice in Wikipedia has been to choose actual party names over acronyms, and indeed, no other Wikipedias show political party articles named under the party's acronym (except maybe in very exceptional circumstances; but not seeing that for PASOK in any other Wikipedia). In the English Wikipedia, only in the case of SYRIZA did I see a heated debate which resulted in a political party's page being moved to Syriza, which, by the way, is just horrendous since it even isn't the proper acronym (which would be "SYRIZA"). What WP:COMMONAME can't be used for is to pretend having a free hand to rewrite political party names at leisure. An acronym is not a name, unless the historical background for its use is so well-established that the acronym has indeed replaced (and been commonly accepted as such) the actual name as the main reference for it. That justifies the examples you put of NATO, UEFA and the such. But arguing that just because googling the acronym you obtain more results than by googling the actual name is enough of an argument to defend such a vision is absurd if we consider the nature of acronyms: you'll see that happening for all political parties using acronyms. And here, we'd just return to the starting point of seeing how political party articles do not frequently use acronyms as article titles. In the case of PASOK, there's already a redirect which leads to this article. Thus, if the issue is one of accessibility, then surely there's no issue at all and you may be reassured that no reader will get lost. Impru20 (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Autospark and Impru20 had very good points. --Checco (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * an acronym is a type of name. It is formed by one style of shortening a name, and it inherently has neither greater nor lesser validity than other forms of shortening, such as our use of Conservative Party (UK) as the WP:COMMONNAME of the UK's Conservative and Unionist Party. Whether to use a short name of some form depends on the factors listed in the policy; but there is neither a requirement to use an acronym, nor a ban on one.  So you have still offered no policy basis for your objection.
 * I urge you to study WP:COMMONNAME, carefully. Your comment What WP:COMMONAME can't be used for is to pretend having a free hand to rewrite political party names at leisure shows a fundamental misconception of what the policy is all about.  It offers no "free hand"; what it does do is to require us to follow the secondary sources.
 * COMMONAME is not based on setting a particular rule for articles on a particular topic, but on finding an unambiguous title which is most recognisable to readers because it is widely used in English-language reliable sources. If you look above, the evidence I posted above shows that I seek no "free hand"; I seek to follow the sources.  And those sources are clear that PASOK is the English-language COMMONAME for the Greek party, just as you acknowledge that NATO is the English-language commonname for that body.  If you dispute the evidence, let's see your evidence.
 * In each of the other cases you mention, any renaming would need to be tested against the evidence of usage and ambiguity. I am not proposing any such renamings, and proposals which anyone might make would require supporting evidence.
 * I'm sorry that you are still smarting about the renaming of Syriza. However, I am sad to see that you are trying to use this discussion you re-air your rejection of consensus, and still pursuing your opposition to acronyms. Having just read Talk:Syriza (permalink), it's clear that you were told there many times in the course of the discussion that acronyms are not forbidden by policy. And the closer BD2412 specifically noted that opposition based purely on the proposed target being an acronym does not raise any issue that makes the move impermissible.
 * Yet here we have half the anti-acronym crew from the Syriza debate ++Checco) still pushing the same anti-policy position, with opposition to acronyms still their only argument. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You did hear that and those are still very good arguments. Wikipedia is for readers and, above all, is an encyclopedia. Using acronyms instead of names is a serious conceptual mistake. --Checco (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Checco, my point is that you didn't hear the closer's reminder that there is no policy basis for blanket comments like using acronyms instead of names is a serious conceptual mistake. That's your personal view, and you are entitled to hold it ... but unless you can identify a policy basis for it, that sort of blanket assertion is not a policy-based argument. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You could use the example of UKIP, whose article page is styled UK Independence Party despite everyone calling it "UKIP" for short. You could take a look at the proposed article move discussion to UKIP, which resulted in WP:COMMONAME arguments being put down and overriden by WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. You could see that some of the participants were the same ones involved in the Syriza discussion supporting Syriza's article move, and using the very same arguments they used back then; some of those are the sames used by yourself. Yet those did not succeeded there. The difference: the main factor behind Syriza's successful page move was that, in that case, the discussion on whether "Syriza" could be considered a proper word in itself or not resulted in it being regarded as such (that's why the page was moved to "Syriza", not "SYRIZA" which would be the proper acronym. That is, Syriza's article current title is not the official party acronym).
 * Reasoning rejecting UKIP's article move from "UK Independence Party" to "UKIP" included, indeed, that of commonly established practice in Wikipedia, and the fact that parties such as the UK Conservative Party are not titled as "Tories" (having lots of more results in Google than "British Conservative Party" or "UK Conservative Party", for instance, and being more commonly used by the media), or how British parties' articles are not titled according to acronym-styled preferences. In this case, we see that not only British parties, but European political parties' articles do not use acronyms as article titles. This would follow NAMINGCRITERIA of consistency, being that The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. It would also meet recognizability: isn't "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" recognizable enough to need a page move to "PASOK"? It is also precise and concise enough, and about naturalness, you already have redirects linking to this page if someone searches for "PASOK" instead than for the party's full name: just as happens for most political parties' entries in Wikipedia.
 * Another reason rejecting UKIP's move was that of "UKIP" being an acronym, not the "official party name". This is a difference to Syriza, since Syriza did indeed contest some elections under the "Syriza" label (the June 2012 one, under the "Syriza Unitary Front" label) and the party has indeed come to use "Syriza" as the party's official name and not just as an acronym. This situation could be translated to PASOK to check how both compare. The party styles itself as "Panhellenic Socialist Movement", and it only uses "PASOK" as an acronym. Thus, it seems this is closer to the UKIP case rather than to Syriza's situation. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Impru20: this discussion is not about Syriza and it is not about UKIP. It is about PASOK.  Please try to stay focused.
 * If you want to establish a naming convention which forbids acronyms for political parties, then start an RFC. Unless and until you get consensus for such a guideline, then then we can of course observe that most political party articles do not use acronyms ... but we still evaluate each of them on their merits. And even guidelines have exceptions.
 * You have been more forthcoming in your latest reply, but still some of what you say flatly contradicts policy. For example you focus on whether an acronym is the official name ... but WP:AT is explicit: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title.  It is hugely timewasting to have people expressing themselves at such length in these discussions whilst being unaware of key aspects of the relevant policy.
 * Your comparison of "UK Conservative Party" with "Tories" is silly. The overwhelming usage in the UK press is of "Conservatives"/"Conservative Party"/"Tories"; the prefix of "UK" or "British" is superfluous unless drawing international comparisons.
 * You cite the NAMINGCRITERIA of recognizability ... but as I have demonstrated above, PASOK is much more recognisable because it is much more commonly used.
 * As to consistency, the fact is that whether or not you like it, there is a clear consensus to name another major Greek party by its widely-used acronym. So your consistency argument is over.
 * Go back again to the policy on acronyms, at WP:TITLEFORMAT: Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject. In this case, the party is primarily known as PASOK, and the title PASOK is primarily associated with the subject. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @BrownHairedGirl: You've the UKIP precedent here, which is very, very similar to the PASOK case and not to the Syriza's case which you've compared it to several times. "Syriza" is not the party acronym, but a syllabic abbreviation. "SYRIZA" is the acronym, and if you check the discussion you'll see that the case for "SYRIZA" over "Syriza" was defeated. Different arguments than the ones used here were put forward there too. So not the same case. You can't make the comparison.
 * UKIP situation is much more similar to this one, and it settles a strong precedent. If you check the UKIP discussion, you'll see it's all very clear there. As per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, titles must be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles, and under recognizability there's no reason supporting a move to PASOK, since the current title is recognizable enough on its own (with the other three criteria making no overall difference to the issue). Your argument on recognizability saying that "PASOK is more recognizable" just because googling it gives more results than by googling "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" was defeated there for the case of UKIP/UK Independence Party on these same grounds. I can't see why "UKIP" wouldn't be more recognizable than "PASOK". Again, we've precedent on this issue.
 * Btw, I'd thank if you saved your bad manners and had some respect. Saying that my comparison is "silly" is surely not a valid argument, and I won't regard it as such. I did say "British Conservative Party" or "UK Conservative Party", because, surely, if you google "Conservative Party" you'll be shown results for more parties other than the UK's one (obviously). Btw, that same comparison was one of many that did result in UKIP's article not being moved. It was considered as real and useful there, so I can't see why it would be "silly" just because you say it is.
 * As per established precedent, common practice and consistency with other similar article's titles, there's no reason supporting a page move to PASOK under your proposed arguments. There are different policies that can be used to support either position, and in case of clash, we see that common practice and consistency has prevailed. You'd have to put different reasons to break with established precedent. Impru20 (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are being silly, and I will explain why as concisely as possible.
 * The article naming policy makes no distinction between an acronym and a syllabic abbreviation. Your argument above is based on your deep personal dislike of acronyms, which is not supported by policy.
 * As to the Conservative Party issue ... read what I wrote above, and please do stop being silly. The UK press doesn't put a national adjective before or after the party's name, so a search based on its presence omits nearly all the mentions of the party in the UK media. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will not stand by your statements. You can discuss on actual arguments whatever you want, but sort it down to "your X argument is silly" or "you're being silly" is just insulting. Since you're so fond of Wikipedia policy, you should take a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It'll make you much good, indeed. Use arguments, not personal attacks, thank you. On the Conservative Party issue, I again remind you that very same argument was used successfully in the UKIP discussion which resulted in the move request being denied, so it's not so trivial. Be more concerned on reasoning your positions rather than discrediting others'. Impru20 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support – Think of CERN, UNESCO, Laser, NASA and hundreds of other cases where the abbreviation has long surpassed the official name in common usage (very often including the subject's own utterances). See Brexit for a recent case where the move was first contested then massively endorsed. The convenience of a short memorable name is the very reason that people don't stick with clumsy titles such as Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum; this is how language evolves. The recent RM for UKIP was a close call, again with supporters citing strong evidence for common name usage and opposers disliking abbreviations in general. Dissenters should strive to change WP:NAME policy instead of making their case repeatedly on each proposed move to a widely-used shorter name. Note that I am not saying that every article on a political party should be titled by its abbreviation; I'm just saying that we should evalute each case on its own WP:COMMONNAME merits and we should not a priori discriminate against abbreviations in article titles. — JFG talk 01:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Supporters for page move tend to say that opposers to the move just oppose it because of "dislike for abbreviations", which I think is a massive error. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA clearly states that titles must be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles, which is clearly the issue here. All pages you are linking to are not political parties. Political parties' articles do not tend to use abbreviations for their titles (specially European parties), the only case of a major European party where this was done (Syriza) was based over additional and different criteria than the ones exposed here, as well as the fact that the application of such criteria resulted in the page not being moved to the party's acronym (which, again, I must remind all of you such a proposal was rejected over the "Syriza" abbreviation instead, which is not the official party acronym). This is why you can't evalute each case on its own WP:COMMONNAME merits, because COMMONAME is subject and dependant to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. And under NAMINGCRITERIA it's clear you must also consider consistency and the pattern of similar articles' titles, as differently naming for similar-themed articles may lead readers to confusion. And this is something supporters for the move are not only not doing, but pretend to discard entirely. The merits for moving this article to "PASOK" are the same than those that were exposed for moving "UK Independence Party" to "UKIP", and for that case it was rejected. If you want to press this issue forward, maybe it should be you who press for a change in naming conventions and established practice for political parties' naming in Wikipedia. Impru20 (talk) 11:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * please read WP:NAMINGCRITERIA in full, carefully. You are misrepresenting it in two crucial respects.
 * First, NAMINGCRITERIA applies only when the sources throw up more than one alternative COMMONNAME. That is not the case here, because the sources overwhelmingly prefer PASOK.
 * Secondly, NAMINGCRITERIA is very clear that the principles set out there "should be seen as goals, not as rules" and that "it may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others". So it does not say that titles must be consistent. That use of the word "must" is your own invention.
 * WP:NAMINGCRITERIA sets 5 desirable characteristics: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency.
 * In this case PASOK, clearly meets the first 4 characteristics. On the 5th it is a tie, because another major Greek party is also known by an acronym.
 * However, "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" fails on Recognizability, Naturalness, and Conciseness. It is just as precise as PASOK (no more and no less, because both are unique), so it passes that test, and it also passes the consistency test, since many other parties use the full name.
 * So ... NAMINGCRITERIA doesn't actually apply here. But even if it did, it favours PASOK. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You wanted policy-based arguments, and now that you have them you resort to its trivialization and to personal attacks like in your former comments. Consistency on WP:NAMINGCRITERIA has nothing to do with what you say. Please read the policy yourself.
 * It is not my invention. Check what Consistency is: criterion of the article titles policy, on using titles that are consistent from article to article, as well as what NAMINGCRITERIA is. good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics. One of them is consistency. So, for a Wikipedia article being good, among other characteristics it has to be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles". Ok, it doesn't say that "it must". Specifically, it says "it has to be".
 * Rather, when you say that First, NAMINGCRITERIA applies only when the sources throw up more than one alternative COMMONNAME. Where is that said? It says: However, some topics have multiple names, and this can lead to confusion about which name should be used in the article's title. Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above. You know that "multiple" stands for "more than one"... right? Not for "more than one alternative". More than one without including the alternative; so, if you've a name and an alternative, you'd be already having "multiple" names. NAMINGCRITERIA is of course appliable here.
 * On the criteria themselves:
 * Both are not equally Recognizable under the definition that The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize? Would seem so. Most people who know that PASOK is a political party would also unambiguously identify it with the "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" title. Would seem so. Most people who know that PASOK is a political party would also unambiguously identify it with the "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" title. The issue would be, however, for those that do not know what "PASOK" is and come to find it by first time or happen to find it by chance. For those, "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" wouldn't be recognizable, but "PASOK" wouldn't either.
 * Conciseness? The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. On this you'd have some issues for "PASOK". Everyone knows what "NASA" or "NATO" are, but PASOK is not an internationally-known subject, but a Greek political party which, by the way, does not frequently appear on English media (specially now that it is a major-turned-to-minor party). Not everyone will know it is a political party, and you won't be able to identify that with just the acronym, unless you actually enter and read the article. "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" is much more concise in identifying the article's subject, since it at least specifies the subject's nature.
 * On its Preciseness I agree that both would be equally precise to distinguish it from other subjects, since this is more of a material criteria. This would be only problematic if there were other "PASOKs" or "Panhellenic Socialist Movements", which is not the case here for either.
 * I would only concede on the Naturalness issue under this criteria's definition, since people who know what it is may instead look for PASOK. But only people who knows what PASOK is would do that, and you must consider that Wikipedia is oriented to everybody. There's already a redirect linking to this page, so that is solved that way for people searching for "PASOK".
 * Furthermore, "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" also meets the 5th criteria of Consistency, something that "PASOK" doesn't. There's not "a tie", and that statement of yours is just false. Syriza's acronym is "SYRIZA". I should remind you (since you reminded me earlier on) that I did participate in that discussion, and when it was obvious that a move was clearly going forward, I pressed for it to, at least, be moved to "SYRIZA" and not "Syriza", presented with only the two choices and since the former was the acronym and would be more "official" than "Syriza". And I remind you that the case for this was defeated. So, in fact, your very own example what shows is a case where an acronym was defeated in favor of a syllabic abbreviation (which, btw, people in the discussion favored, among other things, because they said that "Syriza" was an actual Greek word).
 * Thus, there's no example of any major Greek political party having its acronym as a title. This has been already explained above and you still stick to your own idea without even minimaly arguing it.
 * As a result, we have:
 * PASOK: Meets the Recognizability, Naturalness and Precision criteria.
 * Panhellenic Socialist Movement: Meets the Recognizability, Precision, Conciseness and Consistency.
 * Furthermore, with "Panhellenic Socialist Movement" you can solve the lack of its Naturalness through redirecting, whereas you can't solve the Consistency and Conciseness issues for "PASOK".
 * Again, if you want to make this change, press the issue so that political parties are to use their acronyms as article titles, because otherwise you'll have this issue for every party in the world. And it's much easier to be consistent than saying that, for some reason, some parties should be titled under their acronyms whereas other shouldn't. Impru20 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , please do try very hard to stop being silly, and read the policy you are referring to.
 * At the start of your most recent post, you write for a Wikipedia article being good, among other characteristics it has to be consistent.
 * No, it doesn't. As I pointed out to you in my previous post, NAMINGCRITERIA does not require that all five goals are met.  It specifically acknowledges that there are often trade-offs between then. Yet even after that is pointed out to you, you still repeat the false claim that the 5 points of NAMINGCRITERIA are compulsory.  This is simply not true.
 * Similarly, you misread the start of NAMINGCRITERIA. The first 2 sentences are "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article.". In this case, the reliable English-language sources prefer PASOK by a huge margin ... so there isn't an alternative which complies with commonname.
 * And again, on the principle of consistency, you write Ok, it doesn't say that "it must". Specifically, it says "it has to be". Despite your quotation marks, that section does not include the phrase "has to be".  The language is subtle, but what it is doing is describing desirable characteristics, rather than imposing hard rules.
 * Before going any further, I had a hunch, so I just checked your userpage. I see there that English is not your native language. So it is possible that is why you repeatedly misread the policy.  But whatever the cause, it is futile to continue a policy-based discussion with an editor who is trying to argue fine interpretations of policy when &mdash; for whatever reason &mdash; they do not understand what the policy actually says.
 * Between your repeated claims that acronyms are not names, and your insistence that policy says something other than what it actually says, no useful purpose is served by engaging with you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You have kept claiming from the beginning that since googling "PASOK" gives you more results then that's all that counts. In this case, the reliable English-language sources prefer PASOK by a huge margin ... Yes, that happened for UKIP too on the same grounds being exposed here, and it was not moved because of Consistency and other similarly-explained arguments here. I've shown you very similar stances where your arguments for moving an article were rejected, and now you're engaging in direct insult and harassing, just trying to discredit all those who oppose your views.
 * You said that NAMINGCRITERIA applies only when the sources throw up more than one alternative COMMONNAME. I've yet to see where is it said that NAMINGCRITERIA applies only when there are multiples commonames, because it is obvious that idea can't be extracted from your quotes, specially when COMMONAME is not even in the same section in that article. For example, this statement of yours (so there isn't an alternative which complies with commonname) could have some usefulness if you did actually explain where is that said in the article naming policy.
 * The quotation is A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics. For a Wikipedia article title to be good, it has to have those five characteristics. Now, if you like, you may distort what this means as you seemingly distorted (or maybe confounded) when or how NAMINGCRITERIA applies. I'm however curious as to how you're so strict on language here, yet you fail to show us the exact quote where it is shown by policy that "NAMINGCRITERIA only applies if there's more than one alternative COMMONAME".
 * Of course NAMINGCRITERIA is not compulsory, it is advisory. But so is COMMONAME, the proof of it being that COMMONAME has actually lost arguments here on Wikipedia on very similar stances. Or do you pretend to argue that your policy-based arguments are the only valid here? NAMINGCRITERIA is not compulsory, but since it is given such a prominent place in Article naming policy, it should also not be discarded just because it doesn't fit your views. And if we were to treat COMMONAME just as you treat NAMINGCRITERIA, then we could very well entirely drop COMMONAME as well, with all of your arguing coming down. You asked for policy-based arguments, thinking than your COMMONAME-based argument was absolute and thinking others' couldn't argue back at you, and that can be seen at your mean behaviour towards others, including myself, who oppose your view. I've shown you policy-based arguments. I've shown you precedent on how in very similar stances moves were rejected, and I've thoroughly explained every bit of information I've exposed here. Your only answer to it now is that I'm being "silly". And what if English is not my mother language? I do understand English pretty well, and I find it just insulting that you try to discredit my arguments by trying to convey the impression that I don't understand policy because I may not understand English. Firstly, that insituation, aside from disgusting, is false. Secondly, I understand policy pretty well. Thirdly, maybe we should question if it is you who actually does not understand policy, seeing how you consider some guidelines as not compulsory. And I'm not talking about NAMINGCRITERIA here, but rather, about WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
 * Between your repeated claims that acronyms are not names, and your insistence that policy says something other than what it actually says. This is false, and another attempt on your part to avoid engaging in constructive discussion by discrediting the other's position.
 * Have more respect and stop looking down at others like if they were "silly" as if only you were right. I've explained my arguments quite thoroughly, and I've yet to see you refute half its content. Until then, I think my position is very clear, so I'm not addressing you anymore seeing how this may end up in some sort of unpleasant situation for everyone. Seeing how your arguments have been disproven in the past and how I've shown that to you, you should maybe check for new ones OR press for a change in political parties' naming practice. Keeping saying that others are silly won't be taken seriously. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said, I will waste no further time trying to discuss a policy issue with an editor whose grasp of English is insufficient to allow them to understand the policy being discussed ... and who engages in irrelevant diversions into the names of other parties ... and wastes time with irrelevant pedantry like the distinction between an acronym and a syllabic abbreviation. You and your anti-acronym tag-team of non-native English speakers have wasted enough of my time already. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop engaging in such a blatantly offensive and insulting behaviour. As an admin (according to your userpage) you should be giving example and not acting in such a rant by trying to discredit others whose views you don't agree with. I've been noting you on your conduct several messages ago yet you keep escalating this. You can't just treat others as cannon fodder or marginalize their opinions just because English is not their mother tongue, nor call them "silly" at convenience. I've been in Wikipedia for years, and as I'm aware, there's no policy establishing that English-native speakers' opinions have preference over those of others, nor than those not being English natives should be treated in the way you're treating people here. I've not insulted you so far, nor has anyone else here. I'm sorry if you're having your time "wasted", but it is you who freely chose to enter this discussion and, so far, I think you've wasted our time enough with your offensive behaviour (specially mine, since I'm spending my last messages here mostly to address your behaviour instead of discussing contents). I'm willing to discuss civilly, but clearly not like this. If you want to ignore some guidelines at leisure, then at least respect etiquette. As an administrator, you should surely understand respect-based policies, and if you don't, then you should do it quickly. My views have been exposed, so have yours. If you've nothing useful to say, then save for yourself these kind of opinions and end the discussion. Escalating this to such dangerous levels of unpoliteness will only spell trouble for everyone involved, because this is going off-topic and not in the best of ways. Have a good day. Impru20 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Please have the civility to respect other editors by a) not engaging in timewasting pedantry about irrelevancies, b) not dragging the discussion off into hypothetical assessments of other articles; c) by reading policy before you enter the discussion; d) by not repeatedly misrepesenting the policies which you began to read only after about a dozen requests; e) accepting that while people of any language skill are welcome, there will be times when a non-native speaker should accept that they may have reached a linguistic limit. Your conduct is civil on the surface, but it is highly disruptive in effect. If you avoid behaviours like those listed above, then you will not find your conduct described in unfavourable terms. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * a) timewasting pedantry about irrelevancies. That is your opinion, not a holy sacred universal truth to be respected, sir. And so long it is your opinion, the fact that you needlessly throw such expressions here which are not useful at all to the issue at hand is what sparks uncivility. Such expressions are what constitute truly timewasting irrelevancies which, as of now, have dragged us into a discussion on your conduct.
 * b) Wikipedia works on established precedent as well, which counts in the consensus-making style that characterizes this site. I don't drag on the discussion off into hypothetical assessments of other articles, I merely explain established precedent and what consistency means. Btw, I recalled you cited the Syriza's article several times in order to make a point yourself.
 * c) That's what I encourage you to do: to read policy before coming here insulting people. And not to assume right away others don't understand policy just because you don't agree with their views or from the time you think you may be losing the discussion; what I'm seeing here is that you've clearly lost your temper. I presented you the same case done for UKIP, using the very same arguments. There, it resulted in the move being refused and no one talked of violations of Wikipedia policies (and I'm sure there were a lot of native English speakers there). Here, it is resulting in you resorting to open insult and to discredit others. You could look for other arguments or acknowledge that COMMONAME is indeed not absolute, instead of coming down to such a behaviour.
 * d) by not repeatedly misrepesenting the policies which you began to read only after about a dozen requests What? I was aware of those policies a long time ago. Again, it is you who show a lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies. You asked for policy-based arguments and you got them. Right from the moment you were presented those, you started going into a rant with others, and more specifically against me by calling me "silly" (which, btw, constitutes a behaviour which violates Wikipedia's policies).
 * e) there will be times when a non-native speaker should accept that they may have reached a linguistic limit No, what you're doing is to take for granted that, since I'm not a native English speaker, I somehow don't understand Wikipedia policies because, according to you, I'm unable to properly understand English. You've assumed that right away, and I can't consider you did it in good faith from the moment you called me "silly" several times. Those are assessments you make, which I tell you 1. are blatantly false, 2. bring no usefulness to the debate, other than to generate tension and 3. violate WP:GOODFAITH. I don't know if the other involved users are native English speakers, but you referred to them too when, right now, they weren't even taking part in this specific discussion.
 * Your conduct is civil on the surface, but it is highly disruptive in effect. Well, this is actually a joke coming from someone who has just been blatantly disruptive both "on the surface" and "in effect" to several others. What about the "anti-acronym tag-team of non-native English speakers wasting your time"? Are those you refer to in the plural sense also "civil on the surface but highly disruptive in effect", or you said that for those because you felt like it? It is you have the issue, not the rest of people here. It is you who have engaged in this disruptive conduct, not the rest of us. Obviously, if you think my opinion and my arguments are "disruptive", then surely we have little else to talk about. But you've made serious accusations here, and by attacking a plurality of people you are also potentially provoking others into responding to you. I've called for an end to this discussion, which is clearly going off-topic, as both our points have been already exposed for everyone to see, and I make a new such call. I don't want to keep responding to you to lengthen this senseless talk, but I feel obliged to answer when you make such appreciations. We clearly don't agree on content, so leave this as it is. Impru20 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on PASOK. 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/20140527211603/http://ekloges.ypes.gr/may2014/e/public/index.html to http://ekloges.ypes.gr/may2014/e/public/index.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20150126122621/http://ekloges.ypes.gr/current/v/public/index.htm to http://ekloges.ypes.gr/current/v/public/index.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150724163338/http://www.pes.eu/parties to http://www.pes.eu/parties

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) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Historical political position of PASOK
Lega Nord, Fidesz and Liberty Korea Party are examples of political parties with changes in their polticial position that have been listed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.142.32 (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * These are all examples of drastic, well-documented shifts in political position that seem to be permanent. In contrast, the shifts in PASOK's position are just normal fluctuations. Ezhao02 (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

PASOK's shifts in position are not just normal fluctuations because not in one or two but three of Greece's national elections, PASOK turned into a small party below 10% while SYRIZA has been a large party of more than 30%, which is the opposite of what happened before austerity. But Simitis did not lose votes for being more centrist than PASOK founder Andreas Papandreou because New Democracy was right-wing but after participating in centrist coalition governments in PASOK, New Democracy absorbed PASOK's centrist faction while PASOK's much larger left-wing one went to SYRIZA. So I think that PASOK's shifts are important since they led to the rise of Greece's first left-wing government that didn't originally represent the ideas of PASOK founder Andreas Papandreou due to Varoufakis, Konstantopoulou and Lafazanis who have since founded their own parties, specifically MeRA25, Course of Freedom and Popular Unity, respectively. PASOK's shifts and subsequent collapse also caused the return of the Mitsotakis family in New Democracy's leadership, unlike a few years ago when Dora Bakoyannis was dismissed by Samaras and founded her own Democratic Alliance party which was unsuccessful before returning to New Democracy just like the party of New Liberals of her father Konstantinos Mitsotakis. And if New Democracy's leader Kyriakos Mitsotakis makes the same attempt as his father Konstantinos to shift his party to the centre to centre-right, then New Democracy's right-wing base might go to the new Greeks for the Fatherland party of Ilias Kasidiaris, a former member of the far-right neo-Nazi Golden Dawn. And since Greece isn't a presidential republic like the United States but a parliamentary one instead, maybe Golden Dawn's leader Nikolaos Michaloliakos actually encouraged his "betrayal" by Kasidiaris in order to attract right-wing votes without renouncing his neo-Nazi ideology, but if Kasidiaris wins a majority of at least 180 out of 300 members of parliament, then he might promote Michaloliakos as President and then change Greece's political system to an absolute monarchy, since the President is not elected by the people but by a parliament where most members are completely clueless about politics and follow their party leaders, an occurence that has been seen with both right-wing New Democracy that embraced the centrist austerity of a coalition government and the left-wing SYRIZA that didn't follow Varoufakis, Konstantopoulou and Lafazanis but former PASOK ministers such as Ragousis instead.