Talk:Greek War of Independence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 157.228.x.x (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 3 October 2008 (→‎Clogg's book: 1st or 2nd edition?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Title of the article in Ottoman Turkish

I permitted myself to correct 'isyani' by replacing hamza and, sin with ayn and sad; 'yunan' by removing the hamza on the vav. Ottoman orthography has been true to original in the use of arabic words to avoid ambiguity. Dmermerci (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Greeks & Scholars, Ali Pasha

I think this article does not really cover the backround of the Revolution and its preparation. Except Dionysius, Feraios and the Filiki Etairia, there are not significant references to some important scholars, preparing the people. I think there should be an entire section devoted to them and their great work (i.e. we should give more weight to people like Kosmas o Aitolos, Methodius Anthrakites, Neofytos Doukas). Also, many rich Greeks that funded the Revolution (Demetrios Basileiou, Constantine Radus, L.Plakidas, Manthos Oikonomou, etc.) and we should refer to them seperatly. Also, the situation inside the Empire should be given more weight (ie, Vizier Ali Pasha's revolution that aided the Greeks greatly should be given more weight- Ali Pasha taught many Greeks in his military Academy, like Adroutsos, and was said to be Filikos). So, I propose to keep the section "Background" (to cover the historical Background) and create a new section like "Preparation of the Revolution" or so, with 4 sub-sections. In it, we could include "Armatoloi" and "Filiki Etairia", the second being much more focused in Filiki Etairia than it is now. The two new sections can be "Spiritual and Economical preparation" (or so) and "The situation in the Empire" (or so). That is a plan-starting proposal, that I believe should be reasonably discussed. What say you? --Michael X the White (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provided some sources are given for it this could be useful. Note that Kosmas is covered in the article Cosmas of Aetolia and his article could also use expansion. Dimadick (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philhellenes

"In Europe, the Greek revolt aroused widespread sympathy among the public but was met at first with the lukewarm reception above from the Great Powers, with Britain then backing the insurrection from 1823 onward after Ottoman weakness was clear, despite the opportunities offered the occupiers by Greek civil conflict and the addition of Russian support aimed at limiting British influence over the Greeks". The meaning and formulation of this phrase is unclear. Too long, too complicated. Would somebody with some knowledge of the facts mentioned have a look at it? Because I cannot edit the phrase as I do not understand the meaning. Thanx! Pel thal (talk) 13:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it. Hopefully it is better now. Kyriakos (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overreliance on Paroulakis book

If this article is to reach FA status, then it's going to have to incorporate the most recent scholarly historical research on the Greek War of Independence. As it stands, there is a huge over reliance on the work of Peter H. Paroulakis. Paroulakis is not a professional historian. He is a graduate in Law from the University of Melbourne.--Damac (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced quote:

"The Greeks never lost their desire to escape from the heavy hand of the Turks, bad government, the impressment of their children, the increasingly heavy taxation, and the sundry caprices of the conqueror. Indeed, anyone studying the last two centuries of Byzantine rule cannot help being struck by the propensity of the Greeks to flee misfortune. The routes they chiefly took were: first, to the predominantly Greek territories, which were either still free or Frankish-controlled (that is to say, the Venetian fortresses in the Despotate of Morea, as well as in the Aegean and Ionian Islands) or else to Italy and the West generally; second, to remote mountain districts in the interior where the conqueror's yoke was not yet felt."

Where does this come from? Paroulakis, Vakalopoulos, somebody else? By the way, I agree with Damac's comments about Paroulakis. We need prominent scholars. I'll use some stuff from Svoronos—not that he is recent, but at least he is prominent (and interested in socio-economic factors as well)!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images and maps

Looking over the article, I've noticed that several of the sections are crowded with images and quote boxes and I've also noticed that gallery at the bottom. Should we keep the gallery and place the paintings of notable people there as that would help a bit with the crowding or should we get rid of the gallery all together and try and incorporate the images into the main part of the article. I also think that the article could use more maps showing the area during the war and operations during the war. Thoughts? Kyriakos (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an overuse of images. Sure they are "free" and we can use as many as we want, but that doesn't mean we should. There is limit to how many images you can have on a page before you are overwhelmed. Does the gallery add anything to the page or is it just a bunch of photos that belong on a person's biographical page? I agree with the need for maps. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want this article to pass first through GAC and then through FAC, then the gallery should go. It is a no no! We should incorporate as many pictures as we regard as useful within the main article, and then get rid of it. I also agree with the need for maps, but who's going to make them?!--Yannismarou (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about using only some of the pix in the gallery when referring to a particular hero's input in the war? Pel thal (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that, Pel thal. Currently we only on have the images of Feraios, Byron and Petros Mavromichalis in the article. The rest are in the gallery. Doesa nyone know anyone who could make some maps for us? Kyriakos (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was recently a discussion in Byzantine Empire and some offered in creatiing a map. I'll check it out.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Talessman, you mean? It was for a different issue I think (3-D animation map of the BE), but do check it out. Here, in order to create a map, we should have a source (a text offering the hints for the map or a source-map [even better!]). What is going to be our source for the map(s)? Do you have any books with military maps of the 1821 war?--Yannismarou (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are two nice maps about the insurrection in Macedonia. If there is any expert of you in maps, who can turn it into a proper wiki-map!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they look fine.Anyway, the discussion I mentioned didn't make any sense; we all just wanted a GIF but none knew how to make it... Meanwhile, I found two maps in the "Concise History of Greece, 1770-2000" by R.Clogg. The first, in page 30-31 shows the Greek communities in the Ottoman Empire and the second in page 68 shows the expansion of the Greek state 1832-1947. Also, I have found a map in "Atlas d'Histoire" of HAYT and "de boeck" in page 110 shoing the territorial breakdown of the Ottoman Empire between 1812-1913.I'll keep searching.--Michael X the White (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia section

"Mehmet Emin secured a victory at Kolindros while further north, in the vicinity of Naousa, the detachment of Karatasos, some 5,000 strong, recorded a victory but was checked by the arrival of fresh Ottoman reinforcements and then by Mehmet Emin himself who appeared with 20,000 regulars and irregulars" This phrase needs reformulating and a better choice of words in order to carify its meaning. Someone who knows the facts can help do this. Happy editing! Pel thal (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bad bad English indeed! When our rewriting is more advanced, I'll ask some good copy-editors and wiki-friends of mine to have a look at the article. For the time being, I'll check the sources for this particular issue you raise.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whole section rewritten (though not one of my initial goals!). I'll report progress in the Mission's page!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue boxes-images

Some issues with the blue boxes:

  • I am the master of blue boxes, but try not to overdo it! If they have long quotes in them, they start to look ugly, and I'm afraid some of them in the article are on the verge of looking as such.
  • If you have an English translation of a Greek text, mention your translator and source. Some of the blue boxes omit this info.
  • Some right-aligned blue-boxes coincinde with some left-aligned images, creating the "sandwitch" effect, and making the main text almost unreadable. These problems need fixing and attention.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European Intervention problematic

The section is very problematic. First of all, it gives no comprehensive account of the diplomatic background, and does not treat the reasons that led to the shift of UK's stance under Canning. It mentions the London Treaty of 1827, but not how we got to this treaty, and it continues to use non-scholar sources, such as Paroulakis.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only rewrote the section leading up to Navarino. I'll see if I can write the bit on Britain's change of stance. I'll also try and remove Paroulakis from that section by finding alternate sources. Kyriakos (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also look at the section, and try to add to the diplomatic background issue.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-reading the 'A Concise History of Greece' at the moment and it may have some useful infomation. If it does have some, I'll use it to add to the section. Kyriakos (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This book is really very useful.In page 86 you will find a very interesting picture about the help! There is a lot of info to add in oage 63 ( I have the Greek version), explaining how we came to 1827.That's the best info concerning E. Intervention I have found.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have the English version which I think has different page numberings. But it is a very useful book. Kyriakos (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also in Google book for anybody interested in the book.--Yannismarou (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added a paragraph to this section. However, I could not find any info on why Canning started to sympathize with the Greeks, only what happened afterwards this change of attitude. Pel thal (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Is the Greek History book "Newer and Modern History"(Ιστορία Νεότερη και Σύγχρονη), Vas. Sfyroeras, Schoolbook for Triti Gymnasiou, 6th edition, Athens 1996 and distributed in Greek schools considered as a reliable source? Because a user that changed the "Klephts and Armatoloi" section called it "nationalistic myths". I was going to refer to this particular book in other contexts but in order to avoid edit wars, I think it should be clarified if it may be considered reliable. Pel thal (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider it to be reliable, why else would it be taught in school? Unless we teach false information lol. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some people would argue that each country filters its history that is taught in schools. This is, however, not the case of this particular book but... Anyway, nice to see some logic replies once in a while:) Anyone else on this issue? Cheers! Pel thal (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't regard it as unreliable, but in an article aiming at getting the top quality status (GA or later FA) I would expect cited scholarly sources of the highest possible caliber, and not schoolbooks. Of course, such sources are better than nothing, but I would prefer to replace it some time, when a relevant specialized scholarly work is available. Recently, during Roman-Persian Wars FAC I was criticized for using Britannica ("It looks odd for a general encyclopedia to cite another general encyclopedia as a source" I was told), and not a specialized scholarly work!--Yannismarou (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usually school history books provide a brief overview while a book by say a scholar would go into depth and interpret things. There's nothing wrong with finding additional sources though. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a wealth of academic research out there that shows that history schoolbooks in many countries are used to justify the existence of the nation-state, legitimise its origins, sanctify its heroes and denigrate its enemies.
I can't comment on the book in question, but the issue of history books and their revision is a very contentious one in Greece, as typified by the 'history war' over a new book for the 6th primary school grade in 2007.
The safest approach is to use scholarly histories written by professional historians for an educated readership. That's the way to FA status.--Damac (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeap!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK! Giving a "solomonian" solution (wonder if this expression exists in English?), I propose that as long as there are no better sources, we could leave the referenced (to the history book or other controversial sources) sections and someone in possession of scholarly sources could verify these sections' content. Pel thal (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you were sourcing something we already had right? It wasn't like you added the information after reading the book. Do I have this right? Cause there would be a difference. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I only referred to the book in the section about Klephts and Armatoloi (adding a phrase that Yannis Makriyannis said about them being the "yeast of Freedom"-someone moved it to the section about central Greece I think) and today I added a brand-new paragraph to the european intervention section that some of you will write about if you find the scholarly works. Pel thal (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the Greek word used: μαγιά or ζύμη?--Yannismarou (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Μαγιά. "Μαγιά της λευτεριάς" (σελ.122, ΣΤ' έκδοση) Pel thal (talk) 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"μαγιά της λευτεριάς". Found it! We can cite Makrygiannis himself. The primary source itself. Does a second source like Sfyroeras or Kourvetaris add anything to what Makrygiannis said. If not, I do not see the need for a second source, accompanying the primary one.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that WP is a collaborative project, maybe we should establish the motto of this article or the WPGreece as "Είμαστε εις το εμείς και όχι εις το εγώ" that Mr. Makriyannis once wrote. One translates the texts, another wikipedian provides scholarly sources and someone else reverts the edits! (sorry, some wikihumour slipped out of me. I promise it won't happen again in this serious matter...) Pel thal (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I was the user that made the edits discussed above, I think I am entitled to clarify my point. When talking about "nationalistic myths", I didn't mean to condemn Sfyroeras' book as such, but most of what was written on klephts and armatoloi (many Greeks wishing to preserve their Greek identity, Orthodox Christian religion and independence, chose the difficult but free life of a bandit, (klephts and armatoloi) began to establish relations with one another under a common ethnic identity. This collaboration was also based on mutual sentiments against foreign conquerors ), ie. Paroulakis-based info (see here). Nevertheless, I would like to stress the importance of scholarly approved sources -as Damac pointed out- especially when dealing with a rather misconceived topic, like the conditions of living of the Greek-speaking Orthodox population in the Ottoman Empire. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But citing what Makriyannis said about the klephts is no "nationalistic myth".--Yannismarou (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find out where I said so or even implied something like that. Please take a look at this change. I didn't remove relevant info, but only relocated it in another section along with a request for a proper source -not a schoolbook!
P.S. I hopefully plan to rewrite the "Background" section till the end of September. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From a logical point of view (and taking it for granted that the above people involved in the discussion do not have any objections!), I'll move the comment about the "yeast of liberty" from the Central Greece section to the section about the "klephts", properly cited. Actually, I'll do it now... The "yeast" discussion will soon be turning into bread in this hot atmosphere:) Pel thal (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status

I offered some comments in the WP:GREECE mission page. More to come.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clogg's book

I have found a lot of interesting stuff in Clogg's Concise History of Greece nad I've added them here. The thing is, I have the Greek Edition and I added that remark, so that there is not a confusion with the page numberlings. Could anyone who has the English edition (Kyriakos??) fix the numberlings according to the English edition?? (So that we stick to one edition as Yannis said in the Mission Page).--Michael X the White (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to these editions:
  1. Clogg, Richard [1992] (reprint 1999), A Concise History of GREECE, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 37830 3 (pbk)
  2. Clogg, Richard (2002) A Concise History of GREECE: Second Edition, 2nd ed., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 00479 9 (pbk)
  3. Clogg, Richard (1979), A Short History of Modern Greece, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0 521 22479 9 (hard cover). Do you have the translation of the first or the second editon? Tell me if you need anything of the above. --157.228.x.x (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_War_of_Independence&oldid=242781938"