Talk:Kingdom of Greece

message: First Republic is an unrecognized entity. It may have a spiritual value to Greeks but legally the international agreement which build this new establishment had the signature of Ottoman Empire. Ottoman Empire did accept this entity as a new state, not the one before this. Am I wrong? --OttomanReference 17:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Greece was granted de jure autonomy in the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, which ended the War of Independence. Hence, for all intents and purposes, Greece was a separate state, recognized by the Great Powers. The fact that the Republic was for a long time not recognized does not mean anything, since a provisional Greek state existed de facto from 1822. It is this that the Kingdom was a successor to, not the Ottoman Empire, even more so since the change from "Republic" to "Kingdom" was effectively nothing more than a change of regime. In Greece, and in international sources, independence is dated from 1821, as is also the common practice with any "unrecognized" state that eventually either became recognized or was subdued again (prime example: the United States). If you change the predecessor state to the Ottoman Empire alone, you practically erase 11 years of Greek self-rule. However, since full independence was de jure acknowledged only in 1832, I am adding both states (Ott. Empire and First Republic) to the infobox as predecessors. I think that should be satisfactory to both. Regards, Cplakidas 18:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, sometimes I forgot that I'm living in the 21th century and in this period Turks and Greeks are enemies. However, Greeks and Ottomans during 400 years were not that much of an enemy. They had their own administration under protected millet (Ottoman Empire) system, developed their religion, even had their own flag. I wonder if a Greek flag in Turkey or Turkish flag in Greece can be seen in our period of time. If you wanna talk about erasing history between these two groups, we need to talk more than couple decades. Thanks for your edits though... I think both views are reflected. Have a nice day. --OttomanReference 01:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, there was the millet system, there were privileges for certain classes, and the Ottoman rule certainly wasn't as bad as it is usually painted to be (I've long outgrown the primary school's harrowing histories about the savage Turks). But one cannot help ask a question. If the situation was so rosy as ardent modern-day revisionists depict it, why did the Serbs, the Greeks and all the others rise up in the first place, and more than one time? The spread of nationalism is a significant factor, but certainly not the only one... The whole Greek-Turkish history is a looong, very painful and controversial story, and it can't be resolved in one article. Limiting ourselves to the present case, I meant that 11 years of independent, local self-rule, which was based on some of the world's most liberal constitutions (something very different from the Church-dominated millet system) deserve mention. Because these years established the modern Greek state that became recognized as "Kingdom of Greece". There are no two views in this regard, there are the de facto and de jure establishments of the Greek state, the former being 1821/22 and the latter 1832. I think the situation is clarified now. Regards, Cplakidas 07:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official establishment 

message: :Image:Glucksbergstamp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Glucksbergstamp.jpg

message: After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the government and any capable resistance have fallen under disarray and there were very little and insignificant battles afterwards until the rest of the Byzantine territories fell under the Ottoman rule. In essence, the fall of Constantinople was the fall of the Byzantine Empire.
Where exactly is the subjectivity concerning this?
Concerning the dates, the rest of the mini-kingdoms you are referring to, were small remnant states of which none gained the title of the Byzantine Empire, they were considered despotates. You mentioned their names yourself. 
Nevertheless the heavily forested areas and the mountains were never under Ottoman rule. Should we then, following your objection, postpone the dates even further up until the Kingdom of Greece, “occupied” or “conquered”, the “forested areas and the mountains” or maybe suggest to the historians all over the world  that the Byzantine Empire never fell, it is still flourishing in the “forested areas and the mountains” of modern Greece?
Since I really don’t prefer to start a war but only to contribute to the Wikipedia, would you prefer a correction like this?
"...after almost 371 years of occupation, beginning with the Fall of Constantinople on 29 of May 1453 and the rest of the remaining areas of the Byzantine Empire up until the destruction of the Kingdom of Trebizond on 15 August 1461, of which the last remnant of the Empire was extinguished..."
Polemos (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I objected to the inclusion of this sentence on the following grounds: a) while I am certainly not disputing the fact that there is a large degree of cultural/identity continuity between modern Greece and the late Byzantine Empire, political continuity is another matter altogether. Greece is not widely perceived as the political heir of the Byzantine Empire, nor, at the time of its independence, did it make explicit claims to that legacy (under the Bavarians, it was more oriented to the glories of Classical Hellas than Byzantium). b) the very exact chronology mentioned, esp. this "371 years", bothers me. There is no fixed date when "Greece" (which at the time was either way a geographical, but not a political entity) was conquered by the Ottomans; although historiography has (correctly) regarded the Fall of Constantinople as the chief event marking the end of medieval Hellenism, several areas had been conquered earlier, others remained independent for a few years, and others still remained under Venetian rule for some time to come. If we want to be correct, I think that a more general statement would serve us better, to the point that "this marked the first fully independent Greek state since the fall of the last remnants of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottomans in the mid-15th century." This conveys the gist of the argument in a more neutral tone, without getting entangled in too complex chronology questions. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  20:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though Greece did not make any claims to this legacy (Byzantine) the common folk of the country expressed it in many songs, poems and tales. The reasons why there were claims only for the legacy of Ancient Greece was due to the fact that this was the image that the phihellenes in Europe had at the time for the conquered Greeks and because there was a strongly negative assessment of the Byzantine civilization at that time in Europe. Nevertheless, I agree with your reasoning and I believe your "more general statement" would indeed serve us better. Thank you for not misinterpreting my tone and for moving the subject in the correct position of the "discussion" page. Polemos (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. BTW, it is better, when you have an argument with an editor, to take it to his/her talk page. Regards, Constantine   ✍  21:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I learn as I grow older. Thanks I will in the future.Polemos (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Concerning the objectivity of the continuity of the Kingdom of Greece from the Byzantine Empire.

message: Can anyone tell me why the cross and stripes flag isn't used for the Kingdom of Greece? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 07:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read Flag of Greece? The stripes flag was used from the beginning as the "sea flag", but the simple cross flag was the proper national flag until 1978. Constantine   ✍  10:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes. The cross-and-stripes was the naval and "abroad" flag, but it was also quite popular, being extensively used inside the country irrespective of rules. The simple cross flag however was the "official" national flag, used as such both inside Greece, e.g. government offices or military sites, and outside, e.g. in the Olympics or in international organizations. Constantine   ✍  12:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question 

message: An image used in this article, File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG Nominated for Deletion

message: The article needs to be split into at least two, or perhaps three articles. This is no way to cover the subject. -- Director (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO it would make more sense to split it chronologically, i.e. 1832-1862 (King Otto), 1863-1924 and 1935-1967/74, since the main problem of the present article is that it lumps together different dynasties, regimes & historical periods. In terms of politics, economy, society, etc, there is little in common between Otto's kingdom of the 1850s, which still struggled to overcome the effects of the War of Independence, and the kingdom of George I in the 1870s, let alone with the polity reigned over by Paul and Constantine II. Constantine   ✍  17:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: I get that the Balkan wars were a major event, but does this article really need to have the entire section basically copy and pasted from the Balkan War page?
Muskeato 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balkan War 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Kingdom of Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090718062057/http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_2.asp to http://www.haf.gr/en/history/history/history_2.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070624035222/http://www.bankofgreece.gr/en/bank/Exhibition_Vlachos.asp to http://www.bankofgreece.gr/en/bank/Exhibition_Vlachos.asp
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) 09:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, can someone who knows how to deal with pictures' sizes, adjust the coat of arms size so that it is smaller and better-looking (inside the template)? Thank you! --Morretor (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: In response to the request on my talk page, here are some comments on the article. Due to the issues with referencing noted below, I've only read over the article lightly.
*A major issue is that most of its content is not referenced. This is of such an extent that the GA nomination will likely be speedy-closed, and an FA nomination definitely would be. All material needs to be covered by an inline reference for GA level and higher.
*The article provides a strongly 'top down' history. It would be interesting to discuss demographic changes, as well as cultural trends.
*The lead is somewhat short
*There are probably too many images. A smaller number of well selected images would have more impact than the somewhat overwhelming current situation (note: I haven't checked the copyright status of the images)
*" Otto of Wittelsbach, Prince of Bavaria was chosen as its first King" - why was he selected?
*"Nevertheless, they laid the foundations of a Greek administration, army, justice system and education system." - did the Greek state inherit nothing along these lines from the Ottomans? If not, why not?
*"All Greeks were united, however, in their determination to liberate the Greek-speaking provinces of the Ottoman Empire." - did 100% of Greeks really want this? It seems unlikely. Also, 'liberate' doesn't seem an appropriate word: it takes the side of the people who thought that this was justified.
*The coverage of the Balkan Wars seems excessive
*"Over the past 50 years, Greece has grown much faster than most of the countries that had comparable per capita GDP's in 1950, reaching a per capita GDP of $30,603 today" - is this still current? Unfortunately Greece's economic performance over the last decade hasn't been strong.
*Does Greek cinema really need three paras? Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: Which version of flag and CoA should we use? --178.59.160.150 (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag and coa 

message: I suggest the article be split into two separate articles, namely Kingdom of Greece (Wittelsbach) and Kingdom of Greece (Glucksburg), per User:Cplakidas suggestion, some years ago. The information provided in the article of both dynasties could lead to confusion. Personally, I believe that breaking it into these two entries, with this page acting as a redirect, will trigger the expansion and enrichment of each. --Morretor (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reply to comment. Excellent point. I agree. Year ranges would be much clearer for readers in article titles than dynasties. They're in your face, and you don't have to know your way around the German noble families, but just the calendar. Nevertheless, the House of Glücksburg and the House of Wittelsbach were and are totally distinct from each other, so that Kingdom of Greece (Glücksburg) and Kingdom of Greece (Wittelsbach) would be unambiguous redirects to the two date ranges. Narky Blert (talk) 19:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into two separate articles (per old proposal) 

message: Cplakidas
It could be split this way:
* Kingdom of Greece (1832–1862)
* Kingdom of Greece (1862–1924)
* Kingdom of Greece (1935-1967)
Or else:
* Kingdom of Greece under the Wittelsbach  House
* Kingdom of Greece under the Glücksburg House 
--176.92.39.64 (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Provided that a suitable parent article remains under the present heading, I have no problem with splitting by year range. This would already mirror somewhat the structure of our categories at History of modern Greece. By dynasty is probably unwise, since there is really little in common between Greece under George I and that of his grandson Constantine I, and too many interruptions in between, so that one cannot really speak of a dynastic point of view as a legitimate periodization for historical purposes. However, a proper WP:RM with suitable invitations to WP:GREECE and other interested wikiprojects would be necessary to achieve proper consensus. Constantine   ✍  16:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New split proposal 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion