Talk:Reaction in Greece to the Yugoslav Wars

Contested deletion

Keep There seems to be quite some content about this in international bibliography. It may not be written in the best way possible, but it is a notable topic.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2020 (UTC) @Fa alk: maybe you should rewrite this in a broader way that includes events and the geopolitical context. The topic is definitely notable, but needs someone to write with proper context. There are many Greek scholars internationally who also seem to have written about this topic:

• Michas, Takis (2002). Unholy Alliance: Greece and Milošević's Serbia. Texas A&M University Press.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Strong Keep - This page should not be speedy deleted because the Greek Orthodox church supported the Serbian government and there is WP:RS for that. I think either renaming the article to something like Greek support of Serbia during the Yugoslav wars or Greek involvement in the Yugoslav Wars might be better and allow for wider scope and expansion. This title can become a redirect page for that article. Greece did play a pivotal role to sustain the Serbian government through sanctions busting etc during the war, its church provided support too.Resnjari (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

• The Greek Volunteer Guard is definitely a subject of public discussion to this day in Sarajevo. I think that the GOC deserves its own article in terms of the politicization of religion in the Yugoslav Wars.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Your right, it does deserve its own article.Resnjari (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I made some edits just to establish the subject's notability.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber, Fa alk, this topic is cited in RS sources such as Shea (1997) [1]; Roudementof (2005): [2]; Mojzes (2015) [3]. So it can be expanded. Though this one is outside the scope, for a visual, a Dutch documentary (1990s) on the program Factor covered it as well [4].Resnjari (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Plus this kind of article won't be a first, as similar articles exist on wartime and religious institutions., i.e Catholic Church and Nazi Germany during World War II.Resnjari (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of excitement here, but also a lot of ignorance. Since you all seem so interested in the subject, the first thing you should know is that there is no such entity as the "Greek Orthodox Church". It's a term used to group together all those churches that use Koine Greek as the language of the liturgy. This includes several largely independent churches, such as the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Church of Greece (which is often conflated with the "Greek Orthodox Church"), the Church of Cyprus, and even the Orthodox Church in Albania is included sometimes. For instance, one of the sources listed below speaks of "the Greek Church", but in fact refers to the Church of Greece. Archbishops Christodoulos and Seraphim were in charge of the Church of Greece, not "the Greek Orthodox Church" (which is not headed by anyone). As far as I know, some elements of the Church of Greece did express support for Serbia in the 90s, but none of the other churches. Anyway, what I see below is mostly[[WP:SYNTH], and WP:COATRACK, and heavily WP:POV. Yes, there was a lot of support for Serbia in Greece in the 90s. So what? What does that have to do with the title? That hasn't changed by the way. The "Greek Orthodox Church pushed for closer relations with other Orthodox countries"? Really? Is that really news? There is a clearly discernible tinge of alarmism in the content below. Why is it "opposed the NATO bombing of the Milošević government." (POV) instead of the "NATO bombing of Yugoslavia" (NPOV)? Also, John O'Shea is not even close to a reliable source. In other words, what I see here is another major Balkan shitstorm in the making. Khirurg (talk) 04:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

What? There are RS sources on this topic. The editor who initially created this topic did not have enough sources, nor was it written directly addressing the topic. I filled that gap for starters. It can be expanded accordingly. All sources that discuss this topic refer to the Orthodox Church of Greece (and are clear about it) and no other. I have no idea what the Orthodox churches of Albania, Cyprus have to do with this topic. Please, lets not go off on tangents that are off topic.Resnjari (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking about what you said about being precise on location, so there isn't any mix up. Renaming this article to Orthodox Church of Greece during the Yugoslav wars? By the way Michas as a source is the best, most dense and researched on the topic.Resnjari (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Church of Greece during the Yugoslav Wars would be better. That's the official name, the name of the wikipedia article, and there is no other kind of "Church of Greece". I agree regarding Michas, but Shea has to go. Khirurg (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In Greece there are multiple Christian churches i.e: Catholic Church in Greece and Protestant denominations (Greek Evangelical Church etc). Plus the sources are specific that its the Orthodox Church in Greece, not any of the others. Having the title be composed in a generic way may confuse a reader as to which Christian church in Greece this refers too. Not all readers who read Wikipedia are familiar with the religious institutions of Greece. I say this because your the one you brought up the matter of possible confusion in an above comment about the title. On Shea, i disagree, but i am not fussed, Michas covers that aspect, actually the whole topic more in depth then any of the other sources. Best.Resnjari (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I removed the CSD tag because this is clearly not an attack page, even less so than the original. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge Content of the article should be incorporated into a related article. Current article name is plain wrong, not to mention that it has serious NPOV issues (nothing new there) and some of sources used are not RS. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep - this is really interesting subject, well researched in scholarship, so thanks to User:Fa alk and User:Maleschreiber for putting together this nice core; also thanks to User:Resnjari for nicely elaborating in brief on why we need this subject covered in the article. I also agree with Resnjari that article should cover engagements and support of Greek state and society provided for Serbia (and against its own alliance - NATO) as a whole, and for that purpose we should rename it as proposed by the editor (Resnjari).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ౪ Santa ౪^99°, much appreciated. --Fa alk (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

You are most welcome Fa alk, but let's see what will happen in time, and what we could do and how could we develop it further.... I think that this article should be broaden into an overall involvement of Greek society with regard to a support for Serbia in wars of 1991-2000, where we would have sub-sections on every aspect of that involvement: religious, governmental, (para)military, financial, political, NGO, propagandist, and so on, rather than having all these small articles; and maybe as a first step toward that goal, we should rename this article into, say, "Greek involvement in the Yugoslav Wars", or something in that line. I don't know, Resnjari suggested something which made me start thinking in that direction.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

When i made my suggestions, i had in mind that the article on Greece could be done along the lines of Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War and having a similar name, i,e Greek involvement in the Yugoslav Wars. There is research on this topic, wider then just covering the Orthodox church or the detailed data by Michas, for example this journal article by Brown and Theodossopoulos [5] etc. I thank Fa alk for laying the foundations. As the world is in of a weird place at the moment, the literature in university libraries on my end is a little hard to come by, as they are closed and being out and about for non-essential purposes can land a person with a $1,600 fine where i live. Hopefully by mid year, we can pick this up again for here. Santasa99, you make good suggestions about the scope, and i think its a good direction to take. This article on the Orthodox church could then be absorbed into that article, but only after its created and has some substantial content in it. Best.Resnjari (talk) 11:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge: As an article its just a weird collection of unrelated material. We don't even have an article about Greek involvement in the Bosnian War by the way.Alexikoua (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

We do need it, its a big neglected topic on the Yugoslav Wars within Wikipedia. And there are RS sources for it. Anyway this will do for now until university libraries open up, hopefully soon, to access books. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to merge or move the article start a discussion about it and then we can discuss it as a community. It's not going to be merged just because you're typing "merge" in bold letters in a closed discussion about its possible deletion. The subject's notability has been established. If and when other editors choose to expand it, is a wholly other topic.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Merge: There is not enough flesh on the bone for a stand-alone article. It reads more like a news ticker. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Editors have said merge, but to where? On the other hand if this article is renamed to Greek involvement in the Yugoslav Wars it can be expanded accordingly. There is enough material for a much bigger stand alone article, where the religious institutional aspects will form just one section. Best.Resnjari (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously the article should change to something more generic: Greece and the Yugoslav Wars. Its very sad some users neglect for example the great humanitarian aid of Greece to the people of Kosovo. "This" needs to mentioned & not insignificant piece of info that hardly passes wp:N & weird POVFORK as a product of childish POV playing.Alexikoua (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Greece opposed intervention on behalf of Kosovo Albanians by NATO (Norris,p.9. [6]). Greece also never took in any Kosovo Albanian refugees, unlike other EU and NATO countries. Anyway as with other similar articles, i.e Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, this article can be renamed like Greek involvement in the Yugoslav Wars. It would allow for expansion of the article. Or instead a article with that name can be created at a later date and then this one merged into it.Resnjari (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep - This is a overlooked aspect of the war(s). Sure, it started small, but the article can only grow from this point onward. Mhare (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Obviously this piece of info [[7]] is not about the Church of Greece but selective information about the public opinion in Greece. It appears that the article is screaming for a new title Greek involvement in the Yugoslav Wars as already stated. Information such as this one [[8]] can be very helpful.Alexikoua (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Alexikoua: If you think that other views about how the Greek Church took in Serb refugees after the war are missing, they can be added. That doesn't make anything "POV" though. You can't mark an entire article as POV without having written anything or even disputed anything of what is written. --Maleschreiber (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@Alexikoua, sure Greece's involvement is complex, both in proposals, actions and positions it took publicly and what it did privately. It's why i agree that the article should be renamed. Allows for more scope. Anyway sources are a little hard to come by in book form due to this covid situation. Hopefully mid year university libraries will be open again on my end.Resnjari (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with renaming it too--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I second Maleschreibers opinion. --Fa alk (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Blatant coatracking with the Greek paramilitaries and Golden Dawn

The blatant coatracking with the Greek paramilitaries and Golden Dawn is too blatant and must stop. Similarly, the Greek public opinion has nothing to do with the stance of the COG during the Greek wars. This may just be a case of newbie editors who are sharpening their editing claws at the expense of topic relevance or just run of the mill blatant WP:COATRACKING for propaganda purposes. Whatever the reasons of this sloppy editing may be, it has to stop. Dr. K. 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Article needs to be renamed, that's all. Michas extensively covers Greek paramilitaries and a whole host of other Greek involvement in the Yugosalv Wars. I suggest you have a read of Michas. Sources are NOT propaganda by the way, but WP:RS. I am in favour of renaming this article to Greek involvement in the Yugoslav Wars, like this much more can be included.Resnjari (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't presume to tell me what to read. After you decide what shape your COATRACK is going to take and pick a suitable article name, then come and discuss but not before then. The way it stands now, it is COATRACK and propaganda. End of story. Dr. K. 00:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggested Michas so you can expand your knowledge (if you want, do so. If not, its your prerogative) on the topic instead of presuming everything is a "coatrack" or "propaganda" based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Being misinformed can result in those conclusions. RS sources do note that Greece, as a regional player was involved in the Yugoslav wars and that is fact.Resnjari (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I told you above. I said that under the present name of the article, the paramilitary stuff and the Greek public opinion stuff is a COATRACK. That's a fact. It has nothing to do with IDONTLIKEIT. Don't get confused. As far as the Greek stance during the Yugo wars, it is a subject that leaves me cold. I couldn't care less about it. But I do care about COATRACKS and their use in advancing POV and propaganda. Dr. K. 01:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You seemed to have missed many of the above comments by other editors, because i had said that this article should be renamed to Greek involvement in the Yugoslav Wars, so it covers wider scope in above comments made before your thread here. Don't worry, this article is not based on propaganda, it already has RS sources. An article that has a wider scope would be able to account for more that what allows for under this name. For now this will do, as the covid situation makes access to university libraries impossible at the moment to get sources for this article. Hopefully in a few weeks time.Resnjari (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't bold irrelevant stuff for me or make irrelevant comments. I don't need to read any comments on this talk to understand that, and I repeat, as the current name of the article stands, the stuff about paramilitaries etc, is a bona fide COATRACK, period. Now, I do understand that you want to change the article's name. But you haven't done so. So, until you do, this is a COATRACK. Is this clear? Dr. K. 02:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Irrelevance is unto the eye of the beholder. There other editors who have expressed that the topic and its expansion is relevant. How that pans out, in coming weeks or months is what was discussed above before this thread was opened. Whether you want to be a constructive editor or otherwise is up to you.Resnjari (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Resnjari. It is not my intention to attack or coatrack anything. I want to expand the subject, and I've plenty of material to read. Question is if we can come to some sort of understanding what may be relevant or not. I've cited clearly the sources. Some are Greek, and some aren't. I've also requested consensus on an article provided, so that the expansion of this article suits everyone. If the subject still however is sensitive or if someone doesn't like it, well that's a different topic.--Fa alk (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Dr. K. Until the name is changed by majority consensus, all undue material should stay out. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Sadko for inserting some sanity into this unbelievable discussion. It is one thing to be a COATRACK editor, and another thing to insist on being a COATRACK editor after other editors explained to you the simple fact that the name of an article is all that Wikipedia has, in fact any publication has, to distinguish relevant material from irrelevant material. These people have to understand that if you name your article "Church of Greece during the Yugoslav wars", then this article is not about "Greek paramilitaries during the Yugoslav wars". The editing environment in the Balkans is toxic enough. Such obfuscation, WP:STONEWALLing and obtuseness is really not needed in addition to that toxicity. Also, if someone wants to do experiments with article naming and material added, then they should do that in one's sandbox. Wikipedia namespace is not the place to experiment with COATRACKs and attempts to mislead readers. Dr. K. 11:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agree. An expansion would not be undue, but at this stage these additions are highly premature and coatracky. By the way, how come there is no comparable interest in Albanian involvement in the Yugoslav Wars? Khirurg (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The Albanian state was not involved in the Yugoslav wars that engulfed Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina. It was involved in Kosovo as part of NATO operations (though at the time not a NATO member itself), which Greece, a NATO member did not partake in. Anyway i am fine with this article as is for now. I need sources for a bigger article, and that i lack due to the covid situation and university libraries being closed.Resnjari (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• There are already many articles about that: Kosovo Liberation Army, National Liberation Army, Liberation Army of Preševo, Medveđa and Bujanovac.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus requested

"Celebrated by the media, the Church, and the political world during the war, the members of the GVG had nothing to fear in the immediate aftermath of the Srebrenica genocide. The Greek Orthodox Church often mingles in the political arena. This was true in 1995 and is still true today. Their support of the Serbs (and later on to the GVG) was outspoken. Notably, Archbishop Seraphim personally invited Radovan Karadzic to Athens in 1993, with the latter expressing his gratitude for the Greeks’ support. “We have only God and the Greeks on our side,” he said."

This article suffers from POV.

The phrasing is POV, needs attribution, etc. among others. Terrible editing quality prevails throughout this terribly-written POV piece that passes for an article. Do not remove the POV tag until this crappy editing quality has improved. Dr. K. 17:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Why do not you make the changes you want to make? Has anyone so far opposed them? If the concerns are not addressed or clarified after you try to make those changes, add the POV tag. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

This tag remains until my concerns are addressed. This is how tag discussion works. I'm not your secretary to demand from me that I correct the POV of the article. You go do it, and I'll let you know if it passes muster. Dr. K. 18:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

First off, do not make such comments as the one in your edit summmary on me again. If you are referring to a block I had in the past for edit warring, it is irrelevant. After all, you too were once blocked for edit warring but nobody is using it as an edit summary. If you do not want to try to make the changes you want, the tag will be removed. You tried the tag tactic on other articles and it got removed. This one will not be a special case. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit-warring, or your block log will get longer. There is a NPOV dispute, so the tag stays until it is resolved. That's how it works. Khirurg (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You must be desperate to refer to my single block from twelve years ago for repeatedly reverting an IP vandal at Greek name that promoted the hoax name of Iasperos. It was exempted from 3RR rules, due to being hoax vandalism, but the admin did not understand Greek. In any case, don't put words in my mouth. I was not referring to any blocks in your log. Unlike you, I don't spy on peoples' logs. I was referring to your ceaseless reverts that litter your contribution record. As far as the "tag tactic", be serious. Act like a normal editor for once. The POV of this article is so obvious, even a completely inexperienced editor can see the POV that permeates it. Dr. K. 18:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• What is the "POV problem" of the article? You are just repeating that it has "a POV problem" but you're not being specific at all except for "everybody can see it". Many of the sources are Greek scholars, so what is "POV" being pushed here? And what is the "NPOV" you want to see in the article? If you do specify it, we can discuss and solve it. If you don't, I'll remove the tag and we can gladly discuss on WP:ANI about how you were asked to give a solution but kept repeating that the article has "a POV problem" in order to keep it in a permanently tagged state. Also, I'm renaming the article as everybody seems to agree with the renaming.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

For example - The politicisation of the Church of Greece in the period of the Yugoslav Wars has been dubbed as one of the most important political developments in Greece in the 1990s. It's not NPOV and it is poorly sourced. Any move like that without prior discussion or RfC would be reverted. There is an ongoing debate. Tag should stay until all matters have been resolved. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is it poorly sourced? Who is contesting it in terms of bibliography? The same content you are now disputing, a couple of days ago you called it a great page. What changed?

I made the move because nobody was against this move and it was proposed by two different editors Resnjari and Alexikoua. You reverted without having said a single word until the move was made against the new name. At the same time Dr. K. removes content because it is out of the scope of the title, but when the title is moved - I can't stress this enough - in alignment with what @Alexikoua: proposed, you are against the move. What do you think the new title should be then? This is not going be a stalemate where you propose nothing in order to not allow the article to progress and keep it in a permament state of POV tagging and reverting. The refs are here for the admins to see.--Maleschreiber (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

It was a figure of speech. A move such as that one needs prior consensus. Do you really think that 2 or 3 editors (not even 1/2 of editors involved) occasionally supporting or mentioning the idea gives you an argument for your move? I shall help a bit - no, it does not. That statement is poorly source and not nPOV. Indeed they are, making a bold move without consensus and repeating it again after another editor explains to you that it's not the way to do it, is indeed something to look at. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• If you are referring to this edit, it's a talkpage edit I made by mistake because I hadn't seen that you had reverted me and I thought that I had moved the article only. So, if you want to report me for a talkpage edit I made by mistake, do so.

• If you have nothing to present against a given source - Michas in this case - but you still call it "POV" and nobody in bibliography is contesting it either, that is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Also, if you refuse to present an alternative to an uncontested rename, but you still revert it then you're just trying to create a stalemate to keep the article in a permanent disputed status. So, what do you think the article should be renamed and what are the edits you think will make it "NPOV". If you don't answer these two questions, there is no real discussion here.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If you can't spot the obvious POV of this article, even after Sadko and I have pointed it to you you are in no position to criticise either Sadko or myself. You also moved the article to a POV title without consensus. Your brute force editing tactics are unacceptable. Talking about brute force, your ANI threat against me is only good for one thing: the garbage disposal system, with a toxic garbage label attached. Dr. K. 20:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• So, to recap: you have nothing in particular to say about any changes except for "it's obviously POV"? Why is Alexikoua+Resnjari's title POV? You hadn't disputed this title either before I made the move. In fact, you used the fact that it wasn't moved as an argument for removing a large chunk from the article. Do you have an alternative title that you think is more NPOV? You are at three reverts, so I hope that you have something to present as an alternative on this talkpage to move towards a dispute resolution which so far has no content on your part.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• Read my initial post, read what I told you in the post you replied to, and read Sadko's comment about the POV in the article. But I won't guide you more than that. I have no time for reading comprehension tutorials. As far as the name of the article, some advice: Don't get involved with that issue yet. Try to focus your attention to my comments about NPOV and those of Sadko. Dr. K. 20:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber, your now starting to figure out how real wikipedia on Balkan topics works with a few certain editors. Welcome to the jungle newbie. As i said earlier this article can stay as it is for now. Access to sources are limited at the moment, so expanding it with a new title etc is not possible as well.Resnjari (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, we got it. You are the official jungle greeter. I suggest you try becoming a Walmart greeter instead. You'll have a much brighter future. Dr. K. 01:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Dr.K., is there an alternative title? Yes or No? @Sadko: Why is Michas (2002) "POV"?.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Maleschreiber, Dr.K claimed they did not care for this topic, yet is heavily involved here, whose actions show through deep involvement. The same editor also probably has not read Michas, after he got all flustered [9] when i made a suggestion about reading it. Anyway, this article ain’t going anywhere at the moment. Just give it some time, find sources and a bigger article can be made. Work on other things, you will get more done and then have time deal with these kinds of shenanigans. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, we got it. You are trying to troll annoy me, and at the same time you are repeating the same mantra: Library closed, will come back when library opens. Is there something better for you to do? Just asking. Dr. K. 01:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Cool, you got it. Progress! See a little time and patience does wonders. Well since you asked, i am doing some home renovations, sanding doors and doorways and repainting them. Perfect time to take advantage of the covid lockdown. When the lockdown is over, i should be able to get the books and sort this business out here. Cheers.Resnjari (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dr. K., WP:DNFTT. Khirurg (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Trolling or not, I found the part about the renovations quite hilarious. This guy's got talent. On the other hand, if I hear again about the closed library and the books, I'll buy him a one-way ticket to the jungle where he can enjoy the books without bothering anyone. Dr. K. 05:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Passing the time, makes one do many things. I have been to an actual jungle in the past. Its an interesting place, hence my use as a metaphor for here. Quite apt. If books and libraries offend you, your loss. Making Wikipedia a better place requires those tools, not intransigence or being unconstructive.Resnjari (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you understood anything from what I wrote above. It is your repetition of the same thing: "library closed, will get books later" that is irritating, not the library or the books themselves. Now, if you don't pick up on these crucial distinctions it's your problem, not mine. There is also the matter of trolling too, but I'll AGF you are doing this out of inability to comprehend. Dr. K. 15:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If your irritated, then don't involve yourself in the talkpage. Its simple.Resnjari (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If you are dense and don't understand what people are telling you it's not your fault, but don't presume to provide garbage advice to competent editors. Dr. K. 12:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I will look the other way, as i know your frustrated, but don't take it out of fellow editors. Take a deep breath and it will be ok.Resnjari (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking the other way will accomplish nothing. You have to self-reflect what makes otherwise very civil editors such as myself get frustrated with you. This goes both ways you know. Check if you exhibit a bad case of WP:IDHT, for example. Dr. K. 20:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment Personally I'd also prefer a broader article about "Greek involvement in...", as this article is already seeming poised to become anyways. Why should we have an article specifically about the church's reaction, and not the reaction of all parts of Greek society, which is notable, and complex with various stances and actions. Also, I want to raise a question regarding why we are using "Church of Greece". Aside from Resnjari's reasonable point, the Church of Greece is not the only Orthodox hierarchy tending to the flocks in Greece. Was the intention of the sources here to limit the analysis specifically to the Church of Greece, whose jurisdiction does not include the flocks in Epirus, West Thrace, Macedonia, Crete and many of the isles? Was the intention of sources to exclude from analysis the Church of Crete, and the local priests of Macedonia, West Thrace and Epirus under the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople? If that is not supported by sources, why have we forked the content to do just that? --Calthinus (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest Reaction in Greece to the Yugoslav Wars. This can cover "reaction" in a broad sense wherever sources show it to be notable, including political, religious, public opinion (polling data and RS analyses of Greek public opinion on the matter exist), and notable actions (volunteer fighters, contributions to aid etc). --Calthinus (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Reaction" would be more appropriate and NPOV as a title. The proposed title is a little too similar to Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Khirurg (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. It is a more encyclopedic title. Dr. K. 05:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Calthinus, the initial article created by Fa'ik was not done to include a wide enough scope. I'll sort this out in a few weeks with content. I wouldn't waste time on this at the moment. Best.Resnjari (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

So is there anyone disputing a move to Reaction in Greece to the Yugoslav Wars? @Sadko: you are the only one who hasn't replied yet to that alternative. --Maleschreiber (talk) 17:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest a RfC for that move. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 17:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• If everybody involved agrees then why should we begin a one-month discussion? Do you agree with it or not? If you disagree with the current alternative, give a new one.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, let's not make the closers hate us any more than they already do. I swear at this point they must have nightmares, where they wake up screaming, and the wife is like "what's wrong, honey?" and the response is, "oh sorry, I just dreamed there was another Balkan shitfest I had to close". Moving it right now as there is no opposition from either side here. --Calthinus (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

If either of the minority of users that were unsure (Resnjari, Sadko) have another idea later, we can cross that bridge and open a discussion when that idea actually occurs to them. --Calthinus (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

In a few weeks time i am going to create an article with the involvement name and have all content in it. That's about it. Taking here in circles otherwise is a waste of time. That's about it.Resnjari (talk) 11:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

• [10] It says The talk page should explain, to those unfamiliar with any of the sides in the argument, what the sides are and try to point to some neutral language that all sides might agree on. If what the other views are is not explained here on the talk page, the tag bombing is not helpful. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

If the editor gave an array of reasons (hopefully not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT), other editors will be able to work in good faith what the problems are here and possibly address them.Resnjari (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

POV tags and attribution are used when there are several views backed by RS and, in the case of POV tags, the article does not cover all of them. Anyone who has RS that give another view can add relevant content to the article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Why exactly is the POV tag here? This still hasn't been explained by @Dr.K.:? --Fa alk (talk) 06:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

First, no pings. I have this page watchlisted and I don't need pings. Since you didn't understand my explanations on talk, follow these simple instructions: 1. Go to the article. 2. Go to the tagged section. 3. Spot the sentences where there are tags. 4. Go to the source and see if the sentence with the tag is in the source, and it is accurate according to the source. 5. If the sentence is not in the source, remove it. 6. If the sentence is not according to the source, fix it. 7. Repeat. 8. Come back on talk and discuss. 9. If there is agreement, tags get removed. Dr. K. 15:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• My problem with that approach is that you can idefinitely revert any form of dispute resolution without every being specific about what you consider NPOV. So far you've added the POV tag, but yesterday you also said that you don't consider the sources POV. I think that it is better if you present the alternative, so that we can progress. It was you who added the tags, so you must have at least some idea about what you consider NPOV.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Don't be apprehensive. Why don't you try your hand in this and I'll help out if need be. Dr. K. 21:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Since I see no takers, I have started fixing the POV, CLOP, SYNTH etc. on my own. I normally wouldn't do that, but I do it out of deference and respect for El C. Dr. K. 19:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Very good job. Congrats! The most difficult part is to clean the mess as you did. Alexikoua (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Alexi for your kind words and apt description. Dr. K. 23:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Great job Dr.K.! Thank you for your work.

Thank you very much, Sadko for your kind words. Take care. Dr. K. 23:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This part did not make sense to me - anti-European values . It might seem to our readers that having a different stance compared to most EU countries is an issue. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 23:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. Thank you, Sadko. Dr. K. 23:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• I also wish to thank Alexi for his beautiful additions to the article, including the very nice pic, that changed this article from a COATRACK nightmare into a beautiful article. My thanks go to Sadko as well for his great suggestions and contributions. I also thank Calthinus for providing an elegant and neutral title to the article. Last, but not least, I thank El C, a great editor who also happens to be an admin for his absolutely great actions both as an editor and an admin that helped transform this article into its present beautiful state. Dr. K. 00:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

• This article has still many POV issues - the main one being that it is completely devoid of the actual events and instead has long paragraphs that try to justify why Greece supported Karadzic. The Greek Volunteer Guard - a major aspect of Greek involvement - is also strangely absent.--Maleschreiber (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel that all involved users here need to thank Dr.K for his valuable contribution. By the way continuous disruptive editing such as placing material of questionable quality [[11]] will inevitably lead to blocks.Alexikoua (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that Dr.K.'s contribution leaves out a large part of the actual events. The image can be removed because of copyvio on the part of the uploader. What I added in terms of content is sourced with full quotes, so I want to ask you: why has the POV tag been reintroducted? --Maleschreiber (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Definitely this article deserves a place in wikipedia: Greece's largest humanitarian campaign in terms of resources provided 'is' a notable piece of info.Alexikoua (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

A Greek NGO's humanitarian effort, this is not about Greece as a state. That NGO I think is the Greek section of MSF (not 100% sure). MSF has also been providing the same level of support to refugees from Syria today in Greece.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to this initiative by the Greek government several people (in our case mostly ethnic Albanians) received medical treatment. No wonder the Greek force positioned later in Kosovo was warmly welcomed there.Alexikoua (talk) 20:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

---

 Administrator note please do not remove the npov tag while this dispute remains outstanding. Thank you. El_C 13:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Zgrada prijateljstva između Grčke i Bosne i Hercegovine.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)