Talk:Kingdom of Greece

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

Merger of Kingdom of Greece, First Kingdom of Greece[edit]

Someone put a merger proposal for these two articles. However she/he didn't start a discussion, so here it is.

I disagree with the merger. I believe that "Kingdom of Greece" should be a disambiguation page, referring to two articles, one for each of the kingdoms (Otto's and the Glucksbergs'). As a side note, I believe the same should be done with the History of the Hellenic Republic article -a disambiguation to seperate articles for all three republics.--Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea and would support that proposal. Should we start adding "Move" requests to the relevant articles? --Kimontalk 12:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, in terms of historical nomenclature, there is no "first" or "second" Kingdom of Greece, unlike the Republics. The current article considers the entire period 1933-1922 as a single entity, separate from 1935-1973, which is wrong. I would prefer, like Michalis, a separation between the Othonian and the Georgian-Glücksburg Kingdoms (1863-1924 and as restored in 1935-1967/73), as indeed they were very different entities in their nature. The "First Kingdom etc" article would provide a good starting point, which is why I too oppose the merger. But in order to separate into pre-1862 and post-1863 Kingdoms, we would have to "invent" the relevant terminology, for which I don't have any good proposals (perhaps "Kingdom of Greece (House of Wittelsbach)", "Kingdom of Greece (House of Glücksburg)"?). I think that for the first period, it could be sufficient to link to the article on King Otto, who either way dominated and defined it. BTW, concerning the Republics, there already exists an article on the First Hellenic Republic, which is in need of great expansion. Regards, Cplakidas 16:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since there isn't a standardized nomenclature on the Kingdoms, then the best way to differentiate between the two would indeed be by royal house (Wittelsbach & Glücksburg). As for linking the first period to Otto, it may be enough to begin with but, I would think that an article the covers the period in its entirety should be considered. Some of the information in the Otto of Greece article can be brought into this article (e.g. Parties, finances and the church). --Kimontalk 18:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support merging these two articles as there is no need for the distinction between the periods of the Monarchy (1832-1922) and (1935-1974). Remember part of this article is about "former countries," so to the extent that the "Kingdom of Greece" no longer exists, we should capture the structure of that former government. Accordingly, before September 3rd and after is a more significant distinction, IMHO.
As far as distinguishing the two dynasties, (which many editors seem to want) I would prefer two seperate articles that deal with each family as Cplakidas proposes. (BTW, sorry for not starting the discussion--my bad) Argos'Dad 21:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the term "Kingdom of Greece" refers to a former country and therefore warrants an article. Maybe what would make more sense would be a more refined series of articles on the history of modern Greece. Something along the lines of "History of Greece (1830-1922)", "History of Greece (1922-1967)" etc. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that who ever wrote the Kingdom of Greece article seriously messed up. I suggest that the article Kingdom of Greece be re-written as the kingdom that existed from 1935 – 1967. - RedNeckIQ55 4/17/07

Official establishment[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Glucksbergstamp.jpg[edit]

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)[reply]

Concerning the objectivity of the continuity of the Kingdom of Greece from the Byzantine Empire.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I learn as I grow older. Thanks I will in the future.Polemos (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FlagSpot says both flags were used, with the plain cross being only for internal use, and the cross-and-stripes for use abroad? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

So the plain cross was the national flag? Ok, thanks for clearing that up. It did seem kind of unlikely you guys made a mistake there. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag[edit]

I changed the State flag used on public buildings, with the National flag of Greece during the monarchy. We have a lot of sources about the flag of Greece in history:

I see the plain cross has been removed. I must say, this whole issue seems pretty significant and yet completely confusing. What was the national flag ("main" flag) of the Kingdom? If it was the plain cross, when was it replaced with the cross-and-stripes? If it was the cross-and-stripes, when was that instituted? Was there a special relationship between he two if they were used simultaneously? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there was a separate Domestic and International Flag? El Greco(talk) 22:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I read on Flagspot when the matter peaked my interest. The plain cross was apparently for internal use, and the cross-and-stripes for use abroad. In either case, we need precise information on the legislature concerning the insignia of the Kingdom. I can't say I have any source myself.
If the two flags were used simultaneously for internal/external use, the question remains: 1) Which flag should we use?? 2) When did such a situation come to be, and what was the external insignia prior to the cross-and-stripes? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(editconflict) Sometimes I wonder why we have the Flag of Greece article if people don't bother checking it... :P Long story short, the plain cross flag was the official national flag until 1978 (except for the period 1970-75), while the stripes flag was the naval flag and the one for use abroad (and after 1978 the sole national flag). The latter was popular inside Greece as well, but the former counts as the national flag until 1978, since it was used by the government, the army, etc. and flown on all public buildings. Constantine ✍ 22:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Flag of Greece article is a little confusing, and so is this article's infobox. I know that the Kingdom of Greece succeeded the First Republic and was interrupted by the Second Republic (1924-35), what I don't get is the succession. That entire part of Greek history is blurry on Wikipedia. (I assume the terms "First Kingdom" and "Second Kingdom" are not used?)
The Kingdom lasted up to 1974, and yet it is "succeeded" by the "Greek military junta of 1967–1974", and the Axis occupation of Greece (1941-45)?
I don't see a clear line of state succession. IMHO, there ought to be an article on the First, Second and (perhaps even the) Third Hellenic Republic, with infoboxes and the lot. If, mind you, if the terms "First Hellenic Kingdom" and "Second Hellenic Kingdom" are used - seperate articles would be a good idea too (again, imho).
The "Greek military junta of 1967–1974" should be a part of the Kingdom of Greece article (or at least depicted as a more detailed account of that period of the Kingdom's history), certainly not shown to somehow "succeed" the Kingdom.
Again, I am not deeply knowledgeable in Greek history, but I know my way around Wiki history articles. I've recently tried to get a clear idea on modern Greek history and I was simply confounded by the confusing structure. "Junta articles" are depicted as successor states which succeeded a state while it still existed :) A single article covers two Hellenic kingdoms separated by a time period, etc... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Greek history is indeed labyrinthine to an outsider, so let me try to explain it. The Republics are numbered in Greek historiography (and articles exist an the 1st and 2nd, the current 3rd is obviously in the main article on Greece), but the periods of monarchy, for some reason, are not. The exact end of the monarchy is a matter of debate. The Junta abolished it in 1973, but since Junta acts are considered illegal, de jure the establishment of the Third Republic came in 1974 (that is the official position). As for the Junta being shown as a successor to the Kingdom, the reason is that, while nominally the state remained the same, in effect there was an entirely different political system than that of the so-called "Crowned Republic" represented by the Kingdom. The closest analogy would be a Francoist Spain (nominally a kingdom) succeeding directly from Alfonso XIII... Likewise, during the Axis Occupation, the nominal Greek government based in Athens was not that of the King, who was in exile, but a quisling government which had abolished the monarchy. Thus it ranks as a "successor" state, despite the fact that in 1944, the Kingdom was restored. It may be confusing, but that is the practice followed with infoboxes, namely to list all the state forms that ended/succeeded or even temporarily interrupted the continuum (cf Serbia, Albania and other states with a turbulent history). Also, the article on the "Kingdom of Greece" should indeed by split, ideally in three parts: 1832-1863 (under King Otto), 1863-1924 and 1935-1967/74, but this will take time and attention. I have considered doing it, but it is a massive undertaking if it is to be done properly... Constantine ✍ 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you for the breakdown. Though I must say, now that I have some sort of an understanding, that I still don't follow the logic in the infobox successor states. Since the state known as the Kingdom of Greece was occupied 1941-1945, I don't see how the Axis occupation "succeeded" it? Rather, its a period of history of the Kingdom of Greece, during which it was occupied by the Axis. I think it warrants a brief section in this article with a "Main article: Axis occupation of Greece" link at its top to the article that covers the period of the Kingdom's history in more detail. Either way, you can't have the Kingdom's years going right through WWII and then add the successor state as if the Axis occupation took place in 1974, right? :)
Similarly with the Greek military junta of 1967–1974. Notice how the Spanish State article has a clear "line of succession". Either the kingdom ends in 1973/74, and the period of the Junta is included in its History section as a (relatively) brief subsection with a "Main article: Greek military junta of 1967–1974" link at its top, OR the Kingdom of Greece ends in 1967 and is succeeded by the Junta, in which case the Junta article should be included as a successor state in the infobox (and it should have an infobox of its own with the Third Republic succeeding it). The main question here should be whether the junta is viewed as a seperate state from the Kingdom of Greece or not, though I get the feeling its not...
My point is, you can't very well have successor states in the infobox if the Kingdom is depicted as lasting right through their period. I can tell you first hand, a person loses his wits trying to make sense of it all. :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean. The present article is woefully inadequate, but either way, one should not rely on infoboxes too much... They are not designed for too complex cases and have a tendency to be misleading without proper context... The reason why the Axis Occupation is listed as a different state is that it was: the "Hellenic State" was not the kingdom, and the royal government in exile, although still the recognized government, had virtually no authority within the country itself. For all intents and purposes, the Kingdom inside Greece was abolished in 1941 and restored in 1944/45. As for the Junta, in Greece it is seen as a distinct historical period, but not a different state, since de jure however the kingdom lasted until 1974. If this article were rewritten, the junta would be included in a subsection as you say. Constantine ✍ 08:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are many problems affecting this article (and surely it could be better divided in more articles).

  1. Flag problem. I think that we must speak of flags in general history, to solve this problem. Before the end of 18th century, flags were generally used only on sea, to identify ship nationalities. There were no reasons to fill up Paris with French flags, because everyone knew that Paris was a French territory. Most famous flags of that period were flags of Naval Powers: the Republic of Genoa, the Republic of Venice, or an island which was in friendly relations with Genoa and adopted Genoa's flag. Coat of arms or Royal family's banners were more commonly used than national flags in Europe on land. American and French revolutions changed this situation, when France and the United States adopted sole national flags to use everywhere, on land, on sea, in all situations. But not all States followed French and American example, so many type of flags where created. Together with the national flag, which is the country's flag for antonomasia, in some States there is a State flag to use on public buildings, a merchant flag to use on civil ships, and a naval flag to use on military ship. The biggest problem is between national and State flags, because sometimes the latter are more commonly used than the first ones. To make two examples, I think that Spanish State flag [1] is better known than Spanish national flag [2], but German State flag [3] is less known than German national flag [4].
    I think that Kingdom of Greece had a national flag [5] and a State flag [6].
  2. Kingdom ending. Monarchy was abolished in Greece on July 1st, 1973. I don't know if all Junta's laws were legally abolished by democratic authorities, or if there was only a political denial. But in all cases, a statement of a government pro tempore, if this government had an indisputed control of State territory, is always considered an historical fact. Even De Gaulle legally annulled all Vichy's acts, but nevertheless we say that France was under the French State between 1940 and 1944, we don't say that the Third French Republic lasted from 1870 to 1946 (it lasted only until 1940). Analogously, we must take Junta's proclamation of the republic as an historical fact, and we can't say that the kingdom lasted more far than July 1, 1973.
  3. Axis occupation. There is a lot of confusion in wikipedia between puppet states and occupation zones. Nazi Germany never granted autonomy to occupied Greece, not even in theory. We must not make comparisons between occupied Greece and, for example, the Ustasha Croatia, whom Germany granted a (at least theoric) independence. When a State is fully occupied, according to classic international law, the occupying Power can annex it (the latin-called debellatio), but if it doesn't make it, the international personality of the State continues indisputed. So, during WWII, Greece continued having a king, certainly in exile, but it had a king. And a king that continued to have a (small) army between the Allies, fighting in North Africa and Italy. By the way, we don't say that the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, all ended in 1940 and re-born in 1944/45. Why must we treat differently the Kingdom of Greece?--Cusio (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 1), no. The national flag was the plain cross flag. The situation is inverse to that of Spain that you are describing, primarily because the sea flag was designed for use abroad and was always better known there. Check any pre-1970 atlas or vexillology book to that effect. Believe me, I know the history of my country's flag, and have dozens of books where there are photos of the "national flag" being hoisted, displayed in public buildings etc. On 2), you have a point, but the Greek government disagrees. All official publications take the Third Republic to have started in 1974. The Junta was a republic in name only, either way. If we wanted to be pedantically correct, then the Junta Republic would indeed be the Third Republic, and the current, post-1974 republic would be the Fourth Republic. Nevertheless, historiographic conventions are otherwise and we must follow them. On 3), you are simply wrong. The Greek puppet government was recognized as an independent government by the Axis states not considered independent (IIRC it did not have a foreign minister), but functioned nevertheless as a national government under German and Italian supervision. The fact that it never became a major Axis partner like Croatia is irrelevant. In the final analysis, all German-sponsored regimes were puppet regimes, but they enjoyed their own kind of legality. Aside from that, the status of the king during the period of exile was debated: most Greeks, including the leadership of the government in exile, preferred that the monarchy be abolished after the war. Only British pressure kept the king on as head of state, and only after a plebiscite in 1946 was he even allowed to return to the country. Greek politics during WW2 are nowhere as neat and clear-cut as that of the Netherlands or Norway, where the government in exile was acknowledged in the respective countries, since in Greece, the resistance unfolded independently and even established its own government (the PEEA) for a time. Constantine ✍ 14:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 1), we could believe you, but we need some examples of these pre-1970 atlas. Actually, in internet, we can find many photografic sources about the use of the actual flag even during the kingdom era, but not about the flag you speak of. Can you give some sources about your statements?
About 2), we are not speaking about the begin of the actual Republic, we are speaking about the end of the kingdom. Who was the king of this supposed Kingdom on December 31, 1973? I think that the problem is that in Greek language: if I well remember, the exact translation in Greek of the word "Republic" doesn't exist (you can confirm this), and only the litteral translation of the word "Democracy" is used. Surely, the Junta was a democracy, but equally we can't describe it as a monarchy. I think that this source [7] shows us the Kingdom of Greece ended in 1973; and surely we can let to other pages the problem of the Greek political regime until 1974.
About point 3), the absence of a Foreign Minister in Athens between 1941 and 1944 is absolutly relevant: this fact proves that the Axis Powers didn't decide the final arrangement of Greece after the war, and their puppet administration in Athens was only an local (even on a national dimension!) administration, and not a government (even if puppet) of a State (probably, this administration hadn't a War Minister and nor a Treasury Minister issuing drachma coins). Ironically, I'm engaged in Czechoslovakia talk page with a user which says that that country continued to exist even during the war. It is the exact opposite: Germany disbanded Czechoslovakia, which didn't exist between 39 and 45, but it never cancelled Greece: it occupied it, it installed provisional authorities, but never changed the final status of the country, postponing its decision after the war. Germany occupied the kingdom, but never gave an act saying: "the kingdom of Greece has ended".--Cusio (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From my grandfather I know that the national flag of the kingdom of Greece was the plain cross in the blue field (without the crown). The cross and stripes was the naval ensign. At the Dictatorship the cross and stripes was adopted as the national flag, but with a darker shade of blue. After the restoration of the republic a refferendum about the national flag (between the plain cross and the cross and stripes) was held and the cross and stripes won and became the new national flag at 1978 Amanoss (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amanoss: There never was a referendum on the national flag. Constantine ✍ 10:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cplakidas: Sorry my mistake. But there was a vote on the parliament,right ? Amanoss (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greek 30 Drachma coin 1863.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

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)[reply]

Split[edit]

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)[reply]

-and what would you rather see it split into?JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kingdom of Greece
  • Economy of the Kingdom of Greece
  • History of the Kingdom of Greece

Also this article is severely undercited. --Philly boy92 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

As a first step, I would suggest condensing the section on the Balkan Wars, which is perhaps excessively detailed for a general article on the Kingdom of Greece. -J. Conti 108.20.74.240 (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balkan War[edit]

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)[reply]

Also, in this section there is a mention of "southern Yugoslavia", which is 6 years before such a place existed. This should be replaced with place names from that time. We don't refer to the Ottoman Empire or its holdings after 1918, for example. Deliusfan (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms[edit]

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)[reply]

Some comments[edit]

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)[reply]

Flag and coa[edit]

Which version of flag and CoA should we use? --178.59.160.150 (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split into two separate articles (per old proposal)[edit]

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)[reply]

no Disagree its not fine and good to split these two articles and if the viewers are confused, — they should go to the infobox and click on the first king of greece,and see for themselves, how simple is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newroderick895 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - User:Onel5969 is changing links all over wikipedia from Kingdom of Greece to Kingdom of Greece (Glücksburg) (which redirects back to Kingdom of Greece) - suggest that this is not a good idea while this proposal is still open. Perhaps somebody with knowledge of the subject needs to have a word, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • - The article was already split, which has since been undone, which is causing the circular links. Splitting the article causes over 1000 dabs which will need to be corrected. Onel5969 TT me 14:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not an expert on Greek History, but if such a split did happen, it should probably use years as disambiguator, not royal line. SnowFire (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Agree The history concerned is too complex and too divergent between dynasties to make for a coherent read. The article should be split. --Philly boy92 (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a conclusion yet? --176.92.176.24 (talk) 08:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New split proposal[edit]

Cplakidas It could be split this way:

Or else:

--176.92.39.64 (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Greece&oldid=1194924096"