Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:01, 13 January 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Greece High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving 2008 Greek riots was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 December 2008.

[REDACTED]

A news item involving 2008 Greek riots was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 22 December 2008.

[REDACTED]

Rename request discussion: Riots vs. Civil Unrest?

I don't know how to do this, but I think the title should be edited to say "2008 Civil Unrest in Greece". Titling the page riots would indicate that ONLY riots are happening. Riots ARE happening, but the word riot is a bit of a loaded term (some say "rebellion") and property destruction and clashes with state security forces aren't the only thing that's happening--there are building occupations (such as the occupation of the GSEE by Greek workers), strikes in all sorts of industries and professions, and traditional street marches. My internet is being teh dumbzorz at the moment, but if you google it, you'll find that a majority of Greeks in a nationwide poll last week identified what's going on as a "popular uprising". I'd prefer to title this a popular uprising, but that's still a subjective judgement. Civil Unrest makes more sense. Also, that would bring it inline with Misplaced Pages anyway--the 2005 riots in the French suburbs is referred to as the "2005 Civil Unrest in France"--and that was 6 weeks of massive car burning. 138.88.194.65 (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's been going on long enough to use the term "civil unrest" and there are no claims being made with this term. "Riot" is too short-term a concept, I agree. Xenos2008 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

i have to agree we need a title change but maybe something like riots and demonstrations--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree too : this event is far more than just desctructive riots. Yug (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Civil unrest is more broad a descriptor. It's not just riots and demonstrations, it's strikes and occupations and a lot more. And even those only limit it to the article being *just* about the actions of demonstrators and leaving out things the police and the government are doing and leaving out the larger context. Civil unrest lets you describe the full spectrum of what's going on. And it brings it in-line with other wiki articles on similar topics. It's def bigger than just calling it riots though. 68.239.82.231 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

THe page is protected against moving, so someone with sysop rights has to to do it. I propose renaming the page: 2008 riots and civil unrest in Greece. Any other suggestions? Xenos2008 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This issue is a concern of mine as well. These events have for some time now far surpassed the classification of "riots" and the connotations such a classification brings. I agree that "Civil unrest" is a more appropriate term until further developments are made. Spewns (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 2008 riots and civil unrest in Greece or 2008 civil unrest in Greece. Yug (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

All seems agree for a renaming. Please, an administrator to do it ! : Yug (talk) 12:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Template:Moveprotected

I agree too - adding {{editprotected}} as page is move protected. --h2g2bob (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The move protection don't means the name should never change. The situation have change, several users agreed that a name change is need. An admin should come and rename the page. Yug (talk) 09:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Greek riots is fine. And that is because ti is certainly not unrest. Let me remind you that many demonstrations were anyway p

So one person can block a change that everybody else agrees with? With that attitude, the world would never have progressed from the Garden of Eden. It is not reasonable to say that people who might disagree do not look in here. There are plenty of people who don't edit WP who might disagree: that is irrelevant.. It is not how democratic decisions are made. Xenos2008 (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Who ever said WP is a democracy? If you want a democratic news source, Indymedia is what you're looking for. WP only tells you opinions of the majority, as reported by the mainstream (i.e. pro-establishment) press.--Angdraug (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

THe majority so far have expressed a desire to rename the article, which also is in accordance with mainstream press descriptions. I am talking about one person blocking change: this is just inertia, inability to act, much as the current Greek government behaves. We see the results of such a mentality on the streets of Athens. Also, this is POV: it is clear from the comments above of Michael X that he thinks that the civil unrest is about nothing at all. This is a small minority opinion. Xenos2008 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• I clicked and I was about to support 2008 Greek civil unrest (or something), but while I was typing this, the change struck me as a little too much for now. I think Michael's proposal for waiting just a couple of weeks makes sense. We wouldn't want to move this article back and forth. NikoSilver 16:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest hanging in a while longer before making any moves. This is still a volatile topic, and the article is still rapidly transforming. Given the amount of back and forth that is still going strong on the content end, it would be unwise to either move the article, or release the move protect. It may yet become something bigger than ordinary unrest, or rioting, or it may fade and be regarded simply as a period of riots. I can easily imagine that if I move the page, that I will have a thousand messages on my talk page indicating that I did not move to the best possible name, and then telling me a thousand variations on what the correct name is. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I defer to yet more dissenters. My view is that these things do change meaning over time, but that it has already gone beyond "riots in Greece" when 3 weeks have passed, the range of demonstrators seems to cover Greeks and non-Greeks, students, anarchists, ordinary (older) voters; the range of actions is not limited to a handful of riots; and has also spread across the European continent. Of course, nobody can identify what is the exact meaning or result of any of this, so nobody can find the perfect title for this contemporary phenomenon. That happens with up-to-date reporting, as opposed to more academic historical accounts. It is still not a reason to leave a very limited title, however. Xenos2008 (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this: If there is no objection, I will move the article to 2008 civil unrest in Greece. However, to give people time to comment, I will do this three days from now (Friday). If there is substantial opposition to a move, I will just leave the status quo in place for the time being, and we can revisit the name of the article when the dust has settled. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

We have 2005 civil unrest in France, while the French event was not that complex, and never had large social support, nor had large manifestations supporting it with political claims. So, for me, the current Greek event deserve more the title 'civil unrest' that the article 2005 civil unrest in France. Yug (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's the main reason for changing it--bringing it in line with other Misplaced Pages articles and I think Hiberniantears' solution is awesome. 216.15.38.134 (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, Hiberniantears. I don't believe that Greek Wikipedians are so busy with Xmas shopping and cooking that they will not look in here over the next 3 days. Xenos2008 (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I will be busy, and "unrest" still strikes me as too much for now (although it was me who introduced the term - check section right above). Especially given that the whole fuss has subsided due to the holidays. NikoSilver 15:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling it fuss when it's entering it's third week and when solidarity actions are breaking out across the world doesn't really fit, lol. From the perspective of proper terminology, "Civil Unrest" is what analysts refer to something like this as. There was a publication by the Strategic Studies Institute in the United States over the past week that referred to events like this as "civil unrest" and with property damage being mixed among television studio takeovers, work place occupations, strikes, rallies, and a teetering government, "civil unrest" is the only real way to talk about this as an historical event with a context and history and timeline. 216.15.38.134 (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with User:Der Blaue Reiter and User:NikoSilver. Thinking of the consequences of renaming the article and what damage it could do to the image of Greece and specifically Athens abroad. Perhaps a POV statement but that's the way I see it... Pel thal (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, as if Greece's reputation after these riots is going to be affected by choice of wording on WP. The tourism industry has already collapsed, I regret to say. Xenos2008 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, since we started joking here, there's definitely gonna be a reason for renaming the article if the riots continue: THE YEAR! NikoSilver 20:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• I notice that the Greek language article is still using a title that describes riots. Since I learned that through Google's language tools, I was wondering if someone could tell me if this is also a discussion on the Greek Misplaced Pages article. Thanks! Hiberniantears (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There are brief comments here and there in the talkpage. A brief debate was made between ταραχές/riots and εξέγερση/rise (or unrest), the former prevailed. NikoSilver 20:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Although I insist on using Greek sources for these (and other) events, I would not support relying on Greek analysis, which is usually very conservative and non-innovative. Xenos2008 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that unrest is actually a very "strong" phrase to describe the events also i am suprised to see that the page was renamed so quickly--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

While reading the article civil unrest, it seems the definition fits perfectly. Based on what I have been reading in this discussion, I think a lot of people are confusing civil unrest with societal collapse. Maziotis (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Renaming

Should the title of the article be renamed to include the new year? If the riots are still continuing. OOODDD (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The riots are still continuing. I agree that the article has to be renamed. Sources:

• - (as provided by another user above)
• - "The police talked about a blow-blind murderous attack directly related to the events that followed the murder of the 15 y.o. Alexis Grigoropoulos on 6 December." ("Η αστυνομία μιλούσε για τυφλό χτύπημα-δολοφονική επίθεση που συνδέεται άμεσα με τα γεγονότα που ακολούθησαν τη δολοφονία του 15χρονου Αλέξη Γρηγορόπουλου στις 6 Δεκεμβρίου.")
• - PASOK announcement for the shooting of a policeman (5-1-2009):

  "The responsibilities of the current government for the scrapping phenomena prevailing in the Greek Police, and the general situation that has developed on the streets of Greek cities and continued even during the holidays, are obvious." ("Οι ευθύνες της σημερινής κυβέρνησης για τα φαινόμενα διάλυσης που επικρατούν και στην Ελληνική Αστυνομία, καθώς και για την γενικότερη κατάσταση που έχει διαμορφωθεί στους δρόμους των ελληνικών πόλεων και συνεχίστηκε ακόμη και την περίοδο των εορτών, είναι προφανείς.")

• - KKE announcement after the shooting against a police vehicle 3 days before and a policeman (5-1-2009):

  "It was expressed by the attack with Kalashnikovs against the riot-policemen (MAT) vehicles. The event today is a link in the same chain." ("Εκφράστηκε και με την επίθεση με καλάσνικοφ κατά της κλούβας των ΜΑΤ. Το σημερινό γεγονός αποτελεί κρίκο της ίδιας αλυσίδας.")

I propose the title to be moved to "2008-2009 civil unrest in Greece".--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lady6thofAu. Today a policeman was shot in the same neighborhood as Alexis Grigoropoulos (some blocks away). Pel thal (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. These are terrorist acts somehow "inspired" by the events of December, not their continuation.

I propose December 24, till when NTUA's occupation lasted, as the ending date for the template. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't consider a blog with 10 posts total a reliable source.
2. The riots were inspired by the death of Grigoropoulos anyway, in the above sources Herald Tribune reports a continuation. Major greek newspapers report the police, PASOK and KKE claiming that there is a continuation. I think that the 1st week of 2009 is full of events that should be mentioned in the article as reported in the sources.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if the submachine gun attacks on the police are separate, but (minor) demonstrations did continue into the New Year. However, I propose delaying any decision on renaming the year until we are a little more into 2009. Xenos2008 (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think we should mention the events in the article though.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 11:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they are in the article. The only issue is the renaming of the year: let's wait to see if there are any other events more obviously connected with the events of December.Xenos2008 (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that we need a rename though i disagree with Asmedai 119 the terrorist (and savage if i may add) attack is in my opinion and the view of international media, of greek media, of the greek politicians a continuation of the events started in 2008 i don't see the need however to change the tittle to include 2009 since as it seems right now the only event we'll have to add in the article we'll be the large demonstration organised (since before the holiday by POSDEP, ADEDY and GSEE if i'm not mistaken) for 9 Jan. 2009.

P.S. i also want to urge people to actually read the article (or at least pay attention to the history tab) before they post on the talk page since the terrorist attack part was added since 13:20 GMT, 5 January 2009 by OOODDD--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, since events update really fast I should have better said all events. I think it is important to include the reaction of the prime minister, political parties etc (e.g. Prime Minister's announcement, KKE claiming the policeman's shooting was part of a plan etc. - source above) for the policeman's shooting.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Please note that there is systematic vandalism, citing the Greek WP, and removing all events after the first week. I have reverted the edits made by 85.72.132.194 Xenos2008 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I support the article's renaming, the protests have continued to the present day, if the consensus says otherwise however, please remove the current events tab and change the infobox to the agreed end date.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

could you please provide some sources about the protests continuing for example today or yesterday cause then i could add it to the article (by the way i still oppose the renaming of the article to contain the new year i don't see the reason for the title to contain all the details)--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. On the article, we already have incidents, including riots, that are from 2009. The fact is that, even though the international media is not giving so much attention, the country is still in a state of "civil unrest". Maziotis (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"Third week" section

I was reading through the riots section and the third week section seems to be garbled chronologically. At first I thought it was just the days and dates not matching up (for example Friday was not the 25th, it was the 26th) but when checking the sources the dates given within them don't match either. Specifically the line about the Wednesday march seems to be repeating the previous paragraph and the final paragraph has two days mixed together. I'd edit it but I can't make sense of the order, can anyone else make sense of it? Nmcc89 (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

fixed--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We are in 2009

Since the unrest has continued into 2009, should the article be renamed 2008–2009 civil unrest in Greece?  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  01:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the discussion above, concerning this same topic. Continue discussion above.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

2008 Greek riots

With the obvious absense of the vast majority of the contributors who have written most of this article, with the "warning" that this here would happen, a "consensus" was "made" and a rename after it. So, I propose renaming back to 2008 Greek riots mainly because this was not civil unrest but purely riots; civil unrest implies (if not means) unrest and endless rioting in the entire country, like a mini-revolt. And we all know that after the first the riots troubled almost solely the city of Athens, only at night. Also, demonstrations are not part of any "civil unrest" and are something that never really ends in Greece. Let me also remind you that some of the demonstrations (GSEE,ADEDY) were already planned prior to the boy's death. Also, let me simply say that "riots" is the most common term. For example, Google gives you 2.640.000 results for 2008 greek riots, while 2008 Greek civil unrest gives you 136.000 --Michael X the White (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, I dispute your definition of "civil unrest". This term very adequately defines what has been happening, whereas the word "riots" does not. Furthermore, the idea that you are trying to promote -- that there has been, and is, no civil unrest -- is your personal point of view and somewhat pro-government, I would add. The available information makes it clear that many of the people involved are seriously dissatisfied with the current government and its policies, and the demonstrations and riots are not focused on the killing of the boy in Exarcheia. The fact that one or two demonstrations had already been scheduled is tangential to the case. The results from Google are also irrelevant, especially as their interpretation is difficult. Xenos2008 (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The consensus for "riots" was reached on the first few days. After a couple of weeks it became (in consensus) a civil unrest. Maziotis (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Support for the reason described in a previous post i made on this talk page on section Riots vs. Civil Unrest?--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it is not only my opinion that it was riots and not civil unrest but the opinion of most editors around here. Also, as NikoSilver and PelThal said, "civil unrest" is too heavy and too dramatic and I think that civil unrest is your personal point of view. If you happen to check the "Beggining" section, you will see that the boy's demise sparked the riots as there are always people ready to riot and just need a reason to. It is not disputed that they're not satisfied with the government. Now, the results from Google would be irrelevant if 2008 Greek riots gave you 100.000 results and 2008 civil unrest in Greece gave you 99.000. But the first one actually has 2,5 million more results!!!! Doesn't that obviously prove that riots is the most common use???--Michael X the White (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It is undisputable that there are "riots" going on, and that that is what people are interested in. The google search test only shows us what people are searching, not what they believe it is happening. As an encyclopedia, we should put things into context. Most people don't even use the term "civil unrest", ever. That "test" is statistically meaningless. Maziotis (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, Maziotis: I hadn't thought of it like that before. "Civil unrest" is a broader social analysis, whereas "Greek riots" is a sort of newspaper headline. WP should aspire to be more than a glorified newspaper! Xenos2008 (talk) 09:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

the civil unrest term can only be used to describe the first one and a half weeks of demonstrations if we want the article to include the entire period of events following the death of Alexis we need to rename to a characterization less "strong" than that.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Test"??? Who mentioned a test?? It is undisputable that there were riots a few weeks ago but I can't see them today, except some limited events. Google shows how much a phrase is used, not how many are searching for it. If people do not use the term, why should WP?? We should use what people will search here for.

By the way, this is not about what WP should or shouldn't be according to each of us.

Please check WP:Name:3, 2.1 and WP:Naming conventions (events) 2, 2.1 --Michael X the White (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see here any good arguments against renaming back to "2008 Greek riots", so, unless there are some, I'll ask the move soon. ;)--Michael X the White (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that you cannot see anything is your problem, and apparently nobody else's. Xenos2008 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Shooting of the police officer

Isn't the police officer shooting a direct consequence of the anti-police climate that prevailed during the last month and shouldn't it be covered in this article? Every media has made this connection, Misplaced Pages hasn't yet.--Avg (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, let the useless media speculate: serious people establish facts first, and then try to interpret. My own opinion is that the attempted murder of the Special Guard has a historical connection with previous violence against the police, and is a form of organised terrorism as opposed to civil unrest. One of the remarkable (and positive) things about the unrest was exactly the lack of personal violence, despite extensive fighting with the police and burning of state and private property: this marks out modern Greek civil disorder as being distinctly non-violent, in contrast to the attempted murder of the MAT officer. Xenos2008 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget that we are an encyclopedia, and our goal is not to find the truth. If the connection is found across mainstream media references, it might be notable to hold a reference in the article, by itself. Maziotis (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedias (other than very low quality ones) do not reproduce the foolish ideas of the mainstream media, although they do sometimes reproduce foolish ideas found in published academic work. If the goal of WP is merely to assemble disconnected opinionated ideas, then feel free to insert whatever idiocies you can find out there. Xenos2008 (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Xenos2008 I'm afraid you're introducing your own POV in a big way. It is completely WP:OR to claim that this was a non-violent movement (if it is a movement at all). On the contrary, there are many many instances of violence. In fact my own POV is that the riots reflect the level of violence that pre-existed in the Greek society for some time now, especially within the youngsters. Teenage mobs exist in all neighborhoods, hooliganism is on the rise, attacks on specific youth groups (e.g. emos) is the norm, so it's only normal for youngsters to consider violence as a logical choice. --Avg (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Avg: of course, it is my POV and I merely express it here on the Talk page, and put nothing in the article. The fact is that, compared with the UK, Italy, Spain, etc (other EU countries) Greece is very low on violence of all sorts. There is a popular Greek consensus that violence is out of control since 1990, but this is not supported by any hard facts (small increases excepted). Anyway, for the purpose of this article, I think we should show conservatism about the meaning of things, although not as much as the few who deny that there is any social unrest! The long-term distrust of the police and the Greek state are factual, so there is no problem in including these. The role of violence is highly POV: let's avoid speculation on it. Xenos2008 (talk) 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reference (Kathimerini) claiming that there is no linkage between the riots and the attempted murder of the MAT officer on Monday: Xenos2008 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added sources above in the renaming section, claiming a linkage between the riots and the shooting.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

the fact in my opinion is that the shooting of the police man just like the shooting of the seccond teen in december are part of the general climate that took shape over the past few weeks in greece however i'm not sure if we can attribute the shooting to the negative climate created by the media against policemen like the police labour unionists say because in my opinion it is the police's responsibility to create a positive image of themselves just like in the other European countries e.g. England, Germany, Italy etc. it is difficult for us to judge wheather the greek media worked for or against the police (IMO they should have stayed Neutral) but we cannot use[REDACTED] to write stuff like this down. Perhaps if there is a formal announcement against the greek media we can add it to the Criticism of the media section of the article--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

"i'm not sure if we can attribute the shooting to the negative climate created by the media". I agree with you, in fact there are sources claiming that the shootings to the second teenager and the policeman were organized by provocateurs. The question is certainly not about attributing the shootings to the climate, but about the existence of a relation between them.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

there was a anonymous user who deleted a large part of this article cause "the article does not correspond with el.wikipedia.org and 1 section is WP:undue" ahould the article be shaped to correspond with the article of the greek wikipedia?--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. The greek[REDACTED] article is very very very conservative.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. There is no rule, in any wikipedia, that suggests that one should comply with another. We need a good reason to cut a huge section of an article. It's possible that, if this event goes on, at some point in the future we will have to compress the text. This, of course, doesn't mean to cut the last 5 weeks, at any point, as if they never happened. If there is a problem with any source, it should be addressed here. Maziotis (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes ok i'd like the opinion of other editors as well this interests me particularly cause i have added almost 1/3 of the section "riots and political crisis" and i don't want to see it go down the drain.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The different language versions of WP are independent and it is not a valid argument to delete things from one because they are not in another. A more valid argument would be that the one with a deficiency of material should consider importing some from the more developed article ;; Ha! As if that could happen! Xenos2008 (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, so basing the contents of one on another is a bad idea. Murderbike (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Domestic Response

I think that this should be mentioned, Rizospastis is the official newspaper of KKE. Secondary source about it here criticized the response as "black spot".--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote from the article: "The KKE has stated that the riots and the destruction is the work of foreign agents acting as provocateurs. The leader of the KKE, Aleka Papariga, called for organized struggle against the main politics that it will be well guarded against suspicious command centers."--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The opinion expressed in the source I provided above is different.

Quote from the secondary source:

"In this political text, shown as a short story which will also be a black spot on KKE, with a much more coherent structure than that of Kougia's provocative statements, acquitted, yes you've read accurately, acquitted the policeman - «child of the worker from the village», which shot «the bad-ass boys» «that have a private home with three cars, nannies and teachers at home», which «called names on his mother» and «went to burn him like a candle» !!!" ("Σε αυτό το πολιτικό κείμενο, που εμφανίζεται σαν διήγημα και που θα αποτελέσει μελανή κηλίδα για το ΚΚΕ, με μια πολύ πιο συγκροτημένη δομή απ' ό,τι εκείνη των προκλητικών δηλώσεων Κούγια, αθωώνεται, ναι καλά διαβάσατε, αθωώνεται ο αστυφύλακας - «παιδί της παραδουλεύτρας από το χωριό», που πυροβόλησε «τα κωλόπαιδα» «με σπίτι ιδιόκτητο, τρία αυτοκίνητα, νταντάδες και καθηγητές στο σπίτι», τα οποία του «βρίζανε τη μάνα» και «πήγαν να τον κάψουν σαν λαμπάδα»!!!")--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Summary of the first source:

In the short story published by KKE newspaper, the special guard is portrayed as a poor guy of the people, that was forced by the police to become a special guard. He had numerous problems in his childhood, his father was drunk and his mother was struggling to make ends meet. Finally, while he was on duty rich kids called names on his mother and tried to burn him, as a response he shot them. He doesn't regret it and has called Rizospastis that will let his opinion be expressed. He says that the only honest man he ever met was a supporter of KKE and Liana Kanelli was the only one that understood what made him shoot the kid.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

ok we could add this to the article if it represented the formal position of the KKE but it doesn't in fact at the begining of the link you gave to the rizospastis newspaper it says "ΔΙΗΓΗΜΑ" which means "fictional story". Also the section of the domestic response is about the POVs of political parties over the riots not the POVs of political parties over the shooting incident. Finally the criticism section contains criticism towards other parties the government etc. as they are represented by officials and authorities not political views or other criticism coming from the papers or unofficial supporters of one or the other party. It seems to me that we cannot add it to any section as long as it doesn't come from officials of the aforementioned party--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the short story itself is quite notable and should be mentioned, since it was written by a political party about the event.

It is indeed a fictional story, alas! I would never claim it is real!, but it is undeniable that it was created by KKE and it was published in its official newspaper as a formal expression. Although not entirely fictional as any short story (i.e. it takes an actual event - the shooting - and develops a story), it represents a formal position of KKE about the reasons behind the shooting, about the hoodied guys etc. As the Eleutherotypia claims and as Coalition of the Radical Left in official blogs says they both criticized the story because the special guard's fictional "revelation" is the formal POV of KKE about the event.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

so you're basically saying that we should include a mention of a fictional story about how the shooting happened that was written by some member of the kke (i presume) and published in a newspaper that was claimed by a journalist in another newspaper (we don't even know if the journalist expresses the opinion of his newpaper) to be expressing the formal position of the party that is interconnected with the first newspaper. And all this should be added in an article that talks mainly about the riots and not the shooting ... ok that is the definition of farfetched....--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't say that, I think you misunderstood what I've said. To make things clear, initially I have to inform you that:

1. Rizospastis is "an organ of the Central Committee of KKE" (sic), whatever is written there is not just POV of an individual member/author but POV of KKE (as per newspaper's claim).
2. There is no signature under the short story, apart from the letters A.S.A. and no individual author of Rizospastis claimed openly the text as his own.

All the sources claimed/reported the short story as a political text, not as a plain short story/literature. In any case (either it is a political text or a short story), it is undeniable that it is a formal text by KKE since it has appeared in Rizospastis.

The short story was broadly criticized by secondary sources (not only by one journalist), I mentioned Eleutherotypia since it is a major newspaper and therefore can be considered as a reliable one. Gathering altogether the sources I have found about the text:

• Eleutherotypia newspaper, criticism about the text in "Ios" included paper (we can be sure it expresses the opinion of Eleutherotypia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady 6thofAu (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Eleutherotypia newspaper, criticism about the text (signed by George Roussis)
• Criticism at the official blog of the Coalition of the Radical Left
• Eleutherotypia newspaper, report about the criticism by editor that "supports Coalition of the Radical Left" (sic)
• Ethnos newspaper, report about the criticism against the text
• To Vima newspaper, report about the criticism against the text

Therefore, my point is that:

1. A short story about the shooting created by a political party and published in its newspaper is notable per se,
2. especially since it generated so much criticism by another party, as well as in major newspapers, and
3. since there are reports about criticism against the text, also in major newspapers.

Therefore, I think it should be mentioned in an article where the shooting is mentioned. AFAIK, this article is about the shooting (as well as the riots) and the domestic response section contains opinions about it (e.g. "The Panhellenic Socialist Movement issued an announcement holding the police responsible for the incident", ""Meanwhile, the Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA) spoke of a cruel murder.", "The Communist Party of Greece (KKE) attributed the killing to the result of escalating authoritarianism, reinforcement of the suppression mechanisms and their action, the network of reactionary laws and the "Euro-terror laws" created by the governments of ND and PASOK.", etc.").--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

and my point is this: this is a feud between two left parties, it is part of their feud and connected with the "ear foddling" stuff, it is not notable enough to be added to the article, it did not receive so much coverage as you present (since most of the articles you show above are part of the columns where journalists express their opinions) and i personally am tired of this argument. if you wish to add this, try to form a concensus with other editors of the article. i oppose. "I'm anaspeptic, phrasmotic, even compunctious to have caused you such pericombobulation."--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your counter-argument, you make a point that a text published in the official newspaper of KKE is a feud, anyone criticizing it has just an opinion and nothing is a secondary source. Well... that is a point, which doesn't make sense. It's a way to oppose when you're tired.

I would like to hear more opinions by other editors.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

nice going in paraphrasing what i said "feud between two left parties" to "text published ... is a feud" let me try to explain this to you i don't dispute that what you're saying is not the truth i state the fact that it's not noteworthy and that it's not directly related to this article. "I'm anaspeptic, phrasmotic, even compunctious to have caused you such pericombobulation."--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Please be polite, I didn't paraphrase anything. I requested the text to be mentioned and your response was that "this is a feud" and "it is not notable enough". You stated your opinion, so instead of making statements again and again let arguments be heard.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

i was as polite as it get's could you tell where i was rude to you?--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"nice going in paraphrasing" <-- This is called irony:

• The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
• An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

and such behaviour is considered impolite.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok just 1 question even if we accept as a fact that that was irony(good job assuming good faith btw). By whom is irony considered to be rude?--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith doesn't mean to be blind on facts, e.g. you can't be ironic or call someone names etc. and then request good faith assumption. Irony is considered an insult by most ppl, if you want some source though you may read this. Anyway, this talk page is for a different purpose so I stop from writing here.--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

yes whatever. i believe though you confuse irony with sarcasm.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

2008-2009 civil unrest in Greece

People, we need to change the name of the article. There is no doubt now. January 1: January 5: January 9: Maziotis (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, as explained above and according to the links --Lady 6thofAu (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, especially as my street was set on fire again yesterday:-Pp Xenos2008 (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose , we don't need to change the title to include 2009 just because the events continue i don't see the reason for the tittle to include both years. The riots started on 2008 and therefore they are called the 2008 riots. Now if they continue to the middle of 2009(which i don't think so) i.e. 06/2009 we would have to change it.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting opinion... That is not the criterion usually used here, though. I believe the date part of the title should indicate what is the period... this is not a catchy journal title, with a reference about its start. It is very common to find encylopedic articles with the date in this format - 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. The date prevents us from confusing two events with similar realities, but that happened in different periods of time. Otherwise, the article can have no mention of date whatsoever. To me, I believe this is a question of organization, using an established criterion that applies to all. Maziotis (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose This should be renamed to 2008 Greek riots --Michael X the White (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not "2005 support for the ND government"? Xenos2008 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On a serious note, why not call it "2008-2009 Greek riots"? I think it would be easier to seperate the issues. This topic is for renaming the article in terms of date. We already have a discussion above concerning the terms "riot" and "civil unrest": Talk:2008_civil_unrest_in_Greece#Rename_request_discussion:_Riots_vs._Civil_Unrest.3F Maziotis (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the original name of riots were to be brought back, then all the non-riot events would have to be deleted from the article and another article made to include them. I do not know what the other article would be about, nor I am convinced that it is easy to separate the issues. Xenos2008 (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should refer to the event as "civil unrest" (for the reasons given in the said section), but for the arguments I have seen in here, I was hoping we could separate the issues, and change the date to comprehend to encompass the full period of time. It seems to be the rule on thumb here. Maziotis (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could agree on something like 2008 riots & protests in Greece per Los Angeles riots of 1992 and 2006 youth protests in France. Also to Xenos2008 i don't think that your recent comment: Why not "2005 support for the ND government" was a good example of assuming good faith (basically the complete opposite).--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this event is closer to 2005 civil unrest in France. Notice that this event started and ended in 2005. For all events that have a period of time that encompasses different years, the stretch is reflected in the article's name. Maziotis (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

End date

According to what I heard and found out by the Greek media only 80 schools remain under occupation and in protest and just 6 faculties of the NTUA. Plus i even checked in the Athens indymedia and all the demonstrations and protests planned for the next week are connected with the recent conflict in Gaza. I think it’s safe to put the 9 of January as an end date for the events. However if something connected with this events happens in the near future I assure you I’ll add it and change the date.--Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 80 is not a small number.
• Indymedia's calendar may not be updated yet and certainly is not the only source we should consider. Even there though I can see events scheduled related to the article:
  • protest for those arrested - 17 Jan
  • ceremony to remember Alexis Grigoropoulos - 18 Jan

I think that we should wait for at least a week after the last event to change the end date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lady 6thofAu (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be hard to find where is the burden of proof, but there is simply no sources whatsoever that could sustain the claim that this event ended precisely on 9 January. I believe that if we can't find consensus on this, we will have to leave only the starting date, for now. Maziotis (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

firstly 80 schools under occupation is a very small number compared to the 800+ schools that were occupied at the high point of these events. Secondly can any of you find a source that claims these events will continue (riots, demonstrations, protests) and a connection between them and the death of Alexis ? No you won't find anything because there is absolutely no protest planned in the near future by any organisation in Greece that is connected with the killing of Alexis. In fact any protest after 9 january are either about the Gaza conflict or about the attack at a bulgarian labour unionist. So yes it will be difficult to find sources to confirm the end date but the absence of protests connected with the death of Grigoropoulos should be proof enough. Now as i said before if something happens that is indeed connected with the basis of this article i'll be the first one who'll change the date and add info about that event and please don't forget that i'm the person who contributed almost 1/2 of the riots and political crisis section (where all these events are included). --Der Blaue Reiter (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

1. 80 schools should be considered as an absolute number when talking about an event which had such gross participation and so many effects. Everything now compared to its peak is relatively small, yet this doesn't mean that small reactions are not part of the event.
2. The article is not only about the death of Alexis, as it is not only about events connected with his death - since it not only about riots. Therefore, the protest about people arrested in the events described is related to the article (protest for those arrested)
3. I appreciate that you've contributed so much to the article, but the only way to say that the unrest ended is to reach a consensus based on certain sources. The ceremony to remember Alexandros is scheduled for the 18th, I think we should wait until then to say that events have ended (I don't believe we'll be able then to do so).--Lady 6thofAu (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Greek articles
• High-importance Greek articles
• WikiProject Greece general articles
• All WikiProject Greece pages
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles