User talk:Factuarius

File copyright problem with File:Grece 1ere Guerre balkanique.png

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Grece 1ere Guerre balkanique.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's a rework of another map on Wikipedia, provide a link to the other map on the image page, and add the copyright tags on the other map to your own. After you have done that, feel free to remove the deletion notice. If you're having any trouble with this, leave me a note on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue was the lack of an image copyright tag- as it was a rework of another map, I have added the license of the original map, which would be the appropriate license to choose. I've removed the deletion notice. Thanks for understanding and taking the time to resolve the issue. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Commons:File:Balkans at 1913.jpg

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot about the comments. Seems your Daut arguments were nice and fair, I found at least 8 books (suppose the entire bibliography confirms you) comfirming your version on Cham Albanians. Alexikoua (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If you see their sources, you'll find the greek announcements about him. So, really, wouldn't call anything connected to neogreek sources even vaguely reliable. Whether it is Λιακοπουλος or Μπαμπινιωτης it is the same. --Sarandioti (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome in WP:GREECE

Hi, and welcome to the WikiProject Greece! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Greece.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our sidebar points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The Announcements and Open tasks section is updated quite regularly. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPGreeceOpenTasks}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has a monthly newsletter; it will normally be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Interested in working on a more complete article? The peer review department of the project would welcome your help!
• Interested in a particular area of Greek history, geography, culture etc. ? There are already two task forces, and you could initiate the creation of more focusing on specific topics or periods.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every Greece related article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

Happy to see you in the project!--Yannismarou (talk) 09:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Kresna's Bulgarian casualties

I am afraid I haven't seen any casualties figures.As for the strength one source states that there were 100 or 110 bulgarian battalions versus 80 greek but I need to verify it.I think the turks occupied Edirne again and halted at the old border.--Avidius (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

We may write that both sides suffered heavy casualties.--Avidius (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Percentage

Before the war 96 346, after it 111 831 sq. km. I am afraid it seems that source doesn't take in account the loss of South Dobrudja.--Avidius (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[[1]] This book is my source.--Avidius (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:World War I

In terms of the World War I article, it certainly is fragile and borne out of long discussions. I think the best thing for you to do would be to leave a note on the talk page listing the reasoning behind your edit and why you think it should be included. Please bear in mind that this article is a WP:SUMMARY article as there is not a lot of space to include information on every topic. A lot of information is in other feeder articles such as the assassination one rather than in the main article.

In terms of glorious islands I wish I could be but c'est la vie! ;) Regards, Woody (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Kresna

Καλημέρα Ηρακλή! Δυστυχώς για μένα οι βουτιές τέλος, και τα κεφάλια μέσα... About the battle, you raise some very good points: I have already changed the wording a bit as to the Bulgarian claims. I have not restored the phrase "In any case it is unlikely that either sides could achieve a clear win in case of continuation of the war before Romanian army would capture Sofia" for a single reason: that is conjecture and OR. As I repeatedly pointed out in the debates, we cannot include might-have-beens, however reasonable, in the article as if they were facts. It is equally possible that the Romanians would have delayed for a couple of days (their advance was certainly leisurely enough), the battle would have been decided. I hope the changes I made are satisfactory. If not, feel free to edit around. Thanks for the warm message and enjoy the sea! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 10:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Would this help?

Hi Factuarius, I have a little tool installed that helps me with adding references. You can find it here. It makes it very easy to just fill in the various fields, and makes referencing so much easier for me. Thought you might find it useful. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  11:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Venizelos

I noticed your recent edits at the article Eleftherios Venizelos. Your addition are appreciated. Nevertheless, it would be of great help if you could provide some sources (preferably in english) describing the events of "Noemvrina". From the current sources that we have, none of them mention that the allies attempted to land and capture Athens. They only mentioned the blockade. A.Cython (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, these will help. However, we do have a problem. Most of the sources that I have looked (including the one you have provided) mention the forces of the Allies landing in Athens on 1st of December rather than on 18th of November. Additionally, Seligman describes two versions of the story in his book (pp. 128-140) one from Venizelists, who portray the Royalists as the "evil guys" (e.g. the fleet bombard not the city but the barracks in order to force the Greek Royal forces outnumbering the Allied forces to allow to the captured allied forces to return to their ships) and the Royalists' story, who present themselves as the victims. Any comments on that it would be helpful.A.Cython (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok... the dates makes sense, but I still feel the way it is written now it shows that the Anglo-French navy attempted (a military hostile action) to capture Athens by force. Most of the sources are vague about their motives or directly of indirectly question the Royalists because the facts do not fit with their story... For example the Greek forces were 20000 versus 2000 the Anglo-French force, it does not make sense for the Entete to attempt something like that. We need to maintain NPOV for all sides, especially when the sources do not explicitly support this. I will try to dig a little bit further, but for me the facts are that a small force landed in Athens and there was a skirmish between them and the bombardment was needed to force the release of the Anglo-French captives by the Greek forces. A.Cython (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Writing is not about about me or how I feel about anything. It all about what the sources say, whether I like it or not. In this case the sources do not explicitly support this position i.e. the Allied forces had not right to be there. This is the Royalist position. Please read this book (pp. 128-140). Also, have a look at the Venizelos web site, where they have a brief biography (a pdf), where they write:

On 18 November 1916, the royalist state of Athens, under Germanophile extremist elements, attacked, by all its forces, the British and French troops dispatched to Athens upon the Greek King’s approval. Greeks and French wept for many victims.

Obviously, they describe the events very different from what you are picturing. Finally, please stay on the facts/sources rather how anyone would feel (and yes there were Greeks dreaming being in/becoming an Empire i.e. reviving Byzantium with their King as an Emperor).A.Cython (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ηρακλή. I have been following your edits in the Venizelos article, but have been rather wrapped up in my Byzantine articles to contribute myself. I will do a thorough copyediting ASAP however. I fully agree with you on the Noemvriana, it needs an article. It is strange that modern Greek history seems to be largely neglected even by the Greek editors on board (and we have grown fewer on number over time, not more), and especially the articles on the National Schism need work. I am glad to see that you're making good contributions, although you need to learn not to vent your personal feelings on other WP users ;). Although personally rather an admirer of Venizelos (one of the too few true statesmen we ever had), I can certainly understand the anti-Venizelist side, and the Noemvriana are one of these things that show what happens when we allow the Powers then and now to play us off against one another. My literature is rather restricted at the moment: I used to have Markezinis' wonderful (albeit too damn royalist) history, but somehow it's gotten lost at some point, and most of my readily available Greek sources are too brief to be of use. Also, I believe the correct term is "gunboat diplomacy", since gunboats generally sufficed to do the job... Best regards, Constantine ✍ 18:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I make some copyedits on your recent additions. I tried to maintain the points you wanted to make. As I told you earlier your additions are greatly appreciated. However, I had to dilute the language used in order to be more compatible with the WP standards e.g. you used the word "humiliated" 3 or 4 times to describe the retreat of the Allies on 1 December, where one time is already too much. Let me know if I forgot something. I will ask Constantine to check it as well. A.Cython (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Use the talk page, if you still have disagreements! There is not reason to enter into an edit war!A.Cython (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Βενιζέλος-Κωνσταντίνος-Σχίσμα-Νοεμβριανά-καί τίνος είναι βρε γυναίκα το παιδί (or how far the Allied forces had the right to be)

Κωνσταντίνε διάβασα με προσοχή ότι γράφεις. Ευχαρίστως να σου πω & γω τη γνώμη μου σχετικά με το Βενιζέλο το σχίσμα και τα Νοεμβριανά κλπ αλλά και about "venting personal feelings" που μου γράφεις. Έχω από πιτσιρικάς βγάλει τα μάτια μου να διαβάζω ότι έβρισκα μπροστά μου και έγραφε στο τίτλο "ιστορία" (όλοι έχουμε δικαίωμα στο βίτσιο), ασχολήθηκα και με την εποχή που συζητάμε, χρόνια, και με το Σχίσμα. Αφού πέρασα διάφορες φάσεις, η θέση μου σήμερα γενικά είναι ουδέτερη-εχθρική ώς προς και τους δύο. Οι καυγάδες τους γιά το ποιός θα πρέπει να είναι το αφεντικό στοίχισε στο τόπο εκατομμύρια νεκρούς ή αφελληνισμένους και τη μοναδική ιστορικά ευκαιρία να γίνει η χώρα μιά μεγάλη (πολυεθνική) δύναμη τους 10 τελευταίους αιώνες (και δε νομίζω πως γι αυτή τη χώρα θα υπάρξει άλλη). Δεν θεωρώ κανέναν από τους δύο πουλημένο κορμί αν και σίγουρα τα εντελώς προσωπικά συμφέροντά τους όπως ο καθένας τα σύνδεσε με τις Μ.Δυνάμεις της εποχής παίξανε κορυφαίο ρόλο στις πολιτικές επιλογές πού κάνανε -γιατί να κοροιδευόμαστε-, γεγονός πού φυσικά μονίμως διαφέυγει από τη προσοχή των οπαδών τους. Το αναμφισβήτητο γεγονός πάντως είναι ότι καί οι δύο τους, ανεξαρτήτως προσωπικών προσόντων ή μειονεκτημάτων, αποδείχτηκαν εξίσου κατώτεροι των ιστορικών περιστάσεων. Καί αυτή ήταν η μεγάλη ατυχία γι αυτό “τον έρημο τόπο”. Αυτά είναι τα κακά της ιστοριάς, αλλά υπάρχουν και τα καλά. Αυτό που 90 χρόνια τώρα δεν έχουν καταλάβει τα “μεγάλα μιαλά του τόπου”, ιστορικοί, ακαδημαικοί, πολιτικοί και οι λοιποί εθνικοί κριτές είναι ότι το σχίσμα ήταν ο απαραίτητος όρος γιά να υπάρξει αυτή η ιστορική ευκαιρία. Ότι εάν δεν υπήρχε δηλαδή ο διχασμός και ήσαν αρκετά έξυπνοι θα έπρεπε να τον είχαν εφεύρει. Να στο εξηγήσω: Η ξεροκεφαλιά τού συνονοματού σου ήταν εξίσου απαραίτητη με την διορατικότητα αυτού που συμπαθείς, γιά να προκύψει το ιστορικό “παράθυρο” της Μ. Ασίας. Αυτό που δεν αναρωτήθηκε κανένας μεγαλόσχημος αναλυτης είναι το τι πιθανότητες επιβίωσης είχε ο ελληνισμός της ανατολής το '14 εάν δεν υπήρχε το σχίσμα στην Ελλάδα. Καμμία, οι Τούρκοι θα χρησιμοποιούσαν τον Π. Πόλεμο γιά να ξεφορτωθούν το πιό επικίνδυνο & παλιό πρόβλημά τους τους Έλληνες όπως κάνανε και με τους Αρμένιους (λιγότερο επικίνδυνοι & όμως..). Και κανένας δεν θα τους σταματούσε. Οι μισές Μ. Δυνάμεις ήταν μαζί τους και οι υπόλοιπες ούτως ή άλλως τους πολεμούσαν. Και θα το κάνανε γιατί σήμερα ξέρουμε ότι το είχανε προγραμματίσει να το κάνουνε αλλά δεν προκύψαν οι ευνοικές συνθήκες. Στο μεγαλύτερο διάστημα του πολέμου οι Γερμανοί πασχίζανε να κρατήσουν την Ελλάδα εκτός πολέμου γιατί ξέρανε καλύτερα από κάθε άλλο τις συνέπειες μιάς εισδοχής, σήμερα το ξέρουμε και μείς γιατί το είδαμε. Αλλά τη σφαγή 2-2,5 τη εκατομυρίων ελλήνων δεν υπήρχε ελληνική κυβέρνηση που θα μπορούσε να το καταπιεί χωρίς να την πνίξει και αυτό το γνώριζαν όλοι. Η έναρξη σφαγών στην Ανατολία σήμαινε αυτόματη εισδοχή της Ελλάδας στο πόλεμο και αυτό ούτε οι Γερμανοί ούτε οι Τούρκοι το θέλανε. Έτσι γλίτωσε γιά όσο γλίτωσε ο ελληνισμός της ανατολής γιά να μπορέσει να αποτελέσει μεταπολεμικά το χαρτί που τόσο αριστοτεχνικά έπαιξε ο Βενιζέλος γιά να μπορέσει η Ελλάδα να έχει την ιστορική ευκαιρία πού είχε στην Ανατολία. Από την άλλη εάν δεν υπήρχε η στασιαστική (εκτός εισαγωγικών) στάση του Βενιζέλου, οι πληθυσμοί βέβαια πάλι θα γλιτώνανε αλλά δεν θα υπήρχε το άλλο μισό χαρτί: η θέση δίπλα στους νικητές το '18 και επομένως το ιστορικό παράθυρο της Ανατολίας πάλι δεν θα μπορούσε να προκύψει. Σκέψου το όσο θέλεις και απάντησέ μου όποτε θέλεις, το έχω σκεφτεί από όλες τις πλευρές δεν βγαίνει αλλιώς. Επομένως ο εθνικός διχασμός δεν ήταν η κατάρα πού μας λένε οι ανεπρόκοποι ήταν η ευλογία με την οποία γλίτωσαν εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι. Γιά μένα κάποιος συνομωσιολόγος Τούρκος δικαιολογείται απόλυτα να ισχυρίστεί ότι οι έλληνες το παίξανε διχασμένοι (κάτι σαν το παιχνίδι με το βυθίσατε το Χόρα, Καραμανλή-Παπανδρέου) γιατί αυτό τους εξυπηρετούσε. Οταν τελικά μπήκε (ολόκληρη) η Ελλάδα το '17 ακόμα & οι Τούρκοι ξέρανε ότι πλέον ο πόλεμος ήταν χαμένος & ψάχνανε τρόπο να διαπραγματευτούν (πχ με Ζαχάρωφ/Αγγλους στην Ελβετία κλπ) & υπ'αυτές τις συνθήκες σφαγές πληθυσμών είναι αδύνατες. Αλλά μεχρι πότε ήταν ευλογία? Προφανώς μεταξύ '18-22, από κεί και πέρα κάποιος από τους δύο θα έπρεπε να αναλάβει την ιστορική ευθύνη να βάλει μπροστα το τόπο του και να τελειώσει αυτή τη γελοία προσωπική βεντέτα αποκαθιστώντας με κάποια κίνηση υπέρβασης με κάποιο τρόπο τον άλλο. Είχαν και οι δύο τους από δύο χρόνια να το καταλάβουν. Ο Βενιζέλος όσο ήταν πρωθυπουργός (μέχρι το'20). Ο Κων/νος όταν αποκαταστάθηκε (μετά το '20-22). Αντί γι αυτό ό ένας πετούσε τους αξιωματικούς του άλλου από το στρατό και έβαζε τους δικούς του. Όσο γιά το λαό, απέλυε ο ένας τους δικούς του κληρωτούς και επιστράτευε και έστελνε στη Μ. Ασια τους οπαδούς του άλλου. Δηλαδή εξασφαλισμένα μόνιμο πολιτικό χάος μεταξύ αξιωματικών και στρατιωτών, οι μεν εχθρικά διακείμενοι προς τους δε. Κάνανε την υπηρεσία στο στρατό τιμωρία και τα αποτελέσματα δεν αργήσανε. Υπάρχει μιά εκπληκτική δήλωση του Κεμάλ που λέει ότι “ο Ελληνικός στρατός δεν ηττήθηκε: απέργησε”. Το πιστεύω. Όσο γιά το εσωτερικό διώξεις ΚΑΙ των δύο. Σ'όλα αυτά είναι καί οι δύο γιά κλωτσιές. Πάνω από τον τόπο βάλανε και οι δύο το εγώ τους, και αλοίμονο στο κοσμάκι που έτρεχε μετά να σωθεί.

Τώρα γιά αυτά που μου γράφεις γιά τη διαφωνία μου με τον C. Θα είμαι όπως πάντα ειλίκρινής μαζί σου. Αν και σχετικά νέος εντιτορ έχω αρχίσει να κουράζομαι με την ανειλικρίνια και τις “εμμεσες προσεγγίσεις στο θέμα” τα wiki κόλπα, μη πω τα χειρότερα. Δες το διάλογο: έκανα τις “συνεισφορές” μου, έρχεται και μου λέει πόσο ενδιαφέρουσες ήταν αλλά μήπως μπορούσα να δώσω καμμιά παραπομπή, του ζητάω συγνώμη καί του βάζω 4 & αγγλικές όπως ζήτησε (δύο από πανεπιστημονικές εκδόσεις) στις οποίες πεντακάθαρα εξηγείται πώς ήρθαν οι Αγγλογάλλοι, κλέψαν το στόλο από τη Σαλαμίνα και μετά από λίγο απαιτήσαν και την παράδοση του οπλισμού του Ελληνικού στρατού και όταν τους είπαν ε! όχι και έτσι ρε παιδιά, στείλανε τους πεζοναύτες να τους τρίξουν τα δόντια (ring any bell?), μαζέψανε εν συνεχεία κάτι ψιλές, τα μαζέψανε νύχτα και φύγαν και από την ασφάλεια των πλοίων στο Φάληρο άρχισαν να βομβαρδίζουν την Αθήνα γιά να τους δείξουν τι παθαίνεις όταν είσαι κακό παιδί (ring any bell?). Ζητήθηκε τελικά συγνώμη που τολμήσανε να τους εμποδίσουν να καταλάβουν τη πρωτεύουσα τους πήραν και 6 πυροβολαρχίες (άσχετο-μάλλον τόσες είχανε ανάγκη οι πεζοναύτες τους) και πήγαν έξω από κάθε μεγάλο Ελληνικό λιμάνι κυρήσωντας πείνα μέχρι να φύγει ο Κων/νος και να μπεί η Ελλάδα στο πόλεμο. Αυτή είναι μέσες άκρες η ιστορία, και η κουτσή Μαρία τη ξέρει. Τα γράφω στο περίπου, του εξηγώ και τα περί παλιών & νέων ημερολογίων που δεν ήξερε, τι άλλο να κάνω? Και μετά απ' αυτά μου στέλνει ένα μήνυμα πού όπως βλέπεις αρχίζει με “Ok... the dates makes sense, but I still feel the way it is written now it shows that the Anglo-French navy attempted (a military hostile action) to capture Athens by force.” Εσύ τι θα έκανες? Εγώ μάζεψα την wikiυπομονή μου και του έγραξα διευκρυνίζωντάς πώς και γιατί όντως γι' αυτό το λόγο ήρθαν. Γιά να λάβω απάντηση με παρενέσεις του τύπου “Writing is not about about me or how I feel about anything. It all about what the sources say, whether I like it or not” δίνοντας μου να διαβάσω ένα βιβλίο γραμμένο πριν τελειώσει ο πόλεμος (του 1918) καθαρή προπαγάνδα του πολέμου, και το επίσημο site του Βενιζέλου γιά να αποκρυσταλώσω άποψη: “..extremist elements, attacked the British and French troops..”(ring any bell?) αγνοώντας τελείως τις 4 που του έδωσα. Εσύ τη θα έκανες? Να στο πω πιό καθαρά: Όλοι έχουμε τις ιδεοληψίες μας: Το να αισθάνεσαι Βενιζελικός δεν είναι κακό & γω το πέρασα. Μεταξύ μας είμαστε, το λες όπως εσύ και φροντίζουμε να βρούμε μιά κοινά αποδεκτή κατάσταση να τελειώνουμε. Δεν αρχίζουμε τις μαγκανίες “ενδιαφέρον μήπως έχεις ρεφς”. Και κυρίως όταν είσαι Βενιζελικός δεν πας να βρεις βιβλία 90ετίας γιά να υποστηρίξεις that “the Allied forces had the right to be there”.. in Omonia. Αυτό δεν είναι Βενιζελισμός, είναι κοινή ξεφτίλα. Αυτή είναι η γνώμη μου τι νά κάνω τώρα? Πες μου τη δική σου να την αλλάξω.

Γιά το άρθρο δεν πειράζει θα το παλέψω, καιρός είναι να μάθω. γ. 1:00 η ώρα. Αυτά. --Factuarius (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Σε γενικές γραμμές θα συμφωνήσω μαζί σου στην ανάλυσή σου. Προσωπικά, είμαι "βενιζελικός" (ή μάλλον θα ήμουν τότε) επειδή ήταν ο μόνος εκείνη την εποχή που ήξερε τί ήθελε για την χώρα, που είχε ένα όραμα και ήξερε πώς να το πραγματοποιήσει. Ταυτόχρονα, κι αυτό είναι αδιαμφισβήτητο, ήταν μανούλα στη διπλωματία. Ποτέ δεν συμπάθησα το αντίπαλο στρατόπεδο, όχι μόνο λόγω των φρούτων που έβγαλε, αλλά και επειδή, κατ' εμέ, δεν είχε ποτέ κάποιο πρόγραμμα ή εναλλακτική λύση. Το λέει και το όνομα, ήταν "αντι-βενιζελικοί", δηλαδή κάτω ο Βενιζέλος, πάνω ο βασιλιάς, κι από κει και ύστερα τίποτα, όλα τα προβλήματα λύθηκαν. Σε μια παράταξη ο παλαιός Ιάπων Γούναρης μαζί με τον αντοδραστικό ψευτο-ευγενή Μεταξά. Βγάλε άκρη... Ό,τι παραγωγικό και καινοτόμο έγινε στην διακυβέρνηση της Ελλάδας από το 1909 ως το 1949 έγινε επί κυβερνήσεων Βενιζέλου (με κάτι εξαιρέσεις επί Μεταξά). Οι άλλοι απλά κυβερνούσαν. Για μένα, αν ο Βενιζέλος έφταιξε, ήταν που σε ορισμένα σημεία δεν επέδειξε την απαιτούμενη πυγμή (η μεγάλη διαφορά με τον στρατιωτικό Κεμάλ): α) δεν κατάργησε τη μοναρχία όταν μπορούσε, δηλ. το 1910, διότι ήθελε να τάχει καλά με τους Άγγλους, και ακόμα χειρότερα, επανέφερε τους πρίγκιπες στο στράτευμα β) δεν αντιστάθηκε πιο πολύ στις εξώσεις του 1915. Ήταν εκλεγμένος δυο φορές εντός μηνών με συντριπτικά ποσοστά, δεν έπρεπε να κάνει πίσω. Επιπλέον, με βάση κάποιες αφηγήσεις, ο Κοκός είχε πειστεί να κυρήξει τότε πόλεμο στη Βουλγαρία, αλλά ο Μεταξάς τον μετέπεισε. Δεν ξέρω πόσο ισχύει αυτό, αλλά έπρεπε να επιμείνει. γ) το μεγαλύτερο φταίξιμο, η μη προσπάθεια έστω συμφιλίωσης μετά το 1917. Είχε χρέος να περιορίσει τα έκτροπα των οπαδών του, όπως και την απόταξη αξιωματικών, ή έστω να αναθεωρήσει το περιβόητο επιπλέον "πολεμικό εξάμηνο" αρχαιότητας των Αμυνιτών. δ) οι εκλογές του 1920. Για το όνομα, είσαι ντε φάκτο δικτάτορας, ήδη έχεις πολλάκις ανατρέψει τη συνταγματική τάξη, είσαι σε πόλεμο που θα κρίνει το μέλλον της χώρας σου, δεν κάνεις εκλογές. Θα μου πεις, έλεγε θα κερδίσει. Με 500,000 μουσουλμάνους να ψηφίζουν? Και ένα ε) καθαρά προσωπικό και ολίγον τρελό: ότι στο τσακ δεν εξαπέλυσε τον Πάγκαλο και τη Στρατιά του Έβρου το 1923. Να βάλει τη θάλασσα μεταξύ ημών και Τουρκίας την τελευταία φορά που κάτι τέτοιο ήταν ακόμα δυνατό. Όσο για την απεργία, συμφωνώ απόλυτα: μου έλεγαν οι γεροντότεροι στο χωριό του πατέρα μου ότι όταν ο Κωνσταντίνος επιθεωρούσε το στρατό στη Μικρασία το '22, φώναζαν "απόλυσις, απόλυσις". Με τέτοιο ηθικό, έπρεπε να είχαν οπισθοχωρήσει όσο μπορούσαν. Τέλος πάντων, το θέμα είναι ατελείωτο, και στο τέλος, ως έθνος έχουμε ταλέντο να σκάβουμε μόνοι μας το λάκο μας. Μια απόδειξη, αν έχεις χρόνο: Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347.

Σχετικά με τη συζήτηση, σε καταλαβαίνω, κι αν μη τι άλλο, εκτιμώ πολύ που είσαι απόλυτα ειλικρινής. Το θέμα είναι πως με το να αγανακτείς μπορεί να εκτονώνεσαι, αλλά εκτίθεσαι κιόλας. Κατανοώ την αντίδρασή σου, επειδή κι εγώ έχω μερικά ισχυρά πιστεύω. Πολλές φορές μου έχει έρθει να διαολοστείλω κάποιον άλλο χρήστη επειδή είναι άσχετος με ένα θέμα, ή επειδή διαφωνώ κάθετα μ' αυτά που λέει και δεν μπορώ να πιστέψω πως ένας άνθρωπος μπορεί να έχει τέτοιες πεποιθήσεις (άσχετα αν κι εγώ κάποτε μπορεί να ήμουν έτσι :P), ή επειδή είναι απλά πασιφανώς μ***κας. Η WP όμως δεν στο επιτρέπει αυτό (και καλά κάνει, διότι θα γινόταν χαμός). Η συμβουλή μου: σήκω από την καρέκλα, κάνε ένα τσιγάρο, πιες κάτι, δες τηλεόραση, και ξαναγύρνα μετά από κανα μισάωρο και. Και καλύτερα επιχειρήματα θα χρησιμοποιήσεις αν δεν απαντήσεις εν θερμώ, και μπελάδες θα αποφύγεις, καθώς scripta manent. Φιλικά, Constantine ✍ 23:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Συμφωνώ σε όλα 1:1 εκτός από αυτό πού γράφεις γιά να έμπαινε η Ελλάδα από το'15. Όπως σου έγραψα προηγουμένως είμαι σίγουρος ότι σε μιά τέτοια περίπτωση δεν θα έμεναν έλληνες στην Ανατολία γιά μεταπολεμικές διεκδικήσεις. Εκτός αυτού όσο αργότερα έμπενε η Ελλαδα στο σφαγείο πού λεγόταν 1 ΠΠ τόσο καλύτερα. Ο Βουλγαρικός καί ο Τουρκικός στρατός ήταν πολύ μεγάλοι γιά να έχει κάποιο αποτέλεσμα η παρουσία του Ελληνικού στρατού το '15. Θα εμπλεκόταν στο στατικό μέτωπο στη Μακεδονία και απλώς θα φθειρόταν γιά 3 χρόνια τζάμπα. Δες πως κατάντησαν οι Βούλγαροι και οι Τούρκοι μέχρι το '18. Διαλύθηκαν. Με τι στρατό θα πολεμούσαν στη Μ. Ασία έστω και συμβιβασμένοι? Και γιά τι Έλληνες? Όπως ήρθαν τα πράγματα το '18 ήταν ιδανικά, σχεδόν παραγγελία, με τους Βούλγαρους & τους Τούρκους στα κακά τους χάλια αλλά..

Τέλος γιά την απορία σου γιά τις εκλογές του '20. Κωνσταντίνε ήθελε να χάσει. Ο Βενιζέλος ήταν ίσως ο πιό έξυπνος πολιτικός της εποχής του, δεν ήταν ηλίθιος όπως ο Κοκός. Γιά μένα είναι αστείο να λέμε ότι ήταν σίγουρος ότι θα κέρδιζε και τελικά δεν βγήκε ούτε βουλευτής. Τους δούλευε όλους μιλώντας γιά τη βέβαιη νίκη. Γιά να δικαιολογήσει στους δικούς του την αλλιώς αδικαιολόγητη απόφασή του γιά προσφυγή στις κάλπες. Ήταν πολύ έξυπνος γιά να πέσει τόσο έξω. Ήξερε ότι μπορούσε άνετα και δικαιολογημένα να συνεχίσει να κυβερνά με διατάγματα, αλλά προτιμούσε να χάσει και να αποσυρθεί (προσωρινά) γιατί δεν ήθελε να χρεωθεί αυτός τη καταστροφή στη Μ.Ασία πού ήξερε ότι ήταν βέβαιη. Απλώς πέταξε τη πατάτα γιά να επιβιώσει πολιτικά & να τελειώνει με το σόι. Υπάρχει μιά συζήτηση του με τον Τσώρτσιλ πού τη θυμάμαι σχεδόν κατα λέξη καί δεν θυμάμαι πού στο διάλο τη έχω διαβάσει (πριν αρκετά χρόνια), νομίζω την αναφέρει ο ίδιος ο Τσώρτσιλ σε κάποιο κείμενο του (ημερολόγιο?). Με το που χαιρετηθήκαν του είπε: “Φίλε μου πώς το έκανες αυτό, πώς παρασύρθηκες (ίσως εννοούσε από τον Λόυντ Τζώρτζ) και πήγες στη Μ.Ασία? Κατέστρεψες τη χώρα σου καί το πολιτικό σου μέλλον.” Και ο Τσώρτσιλ σημείωνε: “And the poor men agreed” (ή κάτι τέτοιο). Πιστεύω ότι ο Βενιζέλος σαν γάτα που ήταν βρήκε τελικά διέξοδο, έκανε εκλογές. Επειδή μου βγήκε η παναγία να το ψάχνω το απόγευμα γιά να το δώσω στον C. αλλά δεν βρήκα τίποτα αν έχεις υπόψη σου το κείμενο ενημέρωσέ με.

Γιά το θέμα της υποχώρησης πού γράφεις θέλω να σου πω ότι δυστυχώς δεν θα ήταν λύση. Το μεγάλο και αθεράπευτο πρόβλημα του Ελληνικού στρατού ήταν ανέκαθεν ότι όποτε υποχώρησε αυτοδιαλύθηκε, ή διαλύθηκε μετά από λίγο. Αυτό αποδείχτηκε και στις δύο περιπτώσεις πού έγινε. Στη Μ.Ασία μετά την υποχώρηση από το Σαγγάριο και το '41 στην Ηπειρο. Ίσως είναι θέμα ιδιοσυγκρασίας ίσως κάτι άλλο. Γιά το '41 ένας παλέμαχος γέρος μού είχε πεί πριν αρκετά χρόνια έναν πολύ ενδιαφέροντα λόγο πού με άφησε σύξυλο αλλά θέλει πολύ γράψιμο, θα σου πω στην επόμενη ευκαιρία. Και επίσης θα σου πω ποιός κατά τη γνώμη μου ήταν ο μόνος τρόπος μη ήττας στη Μ. Ασίας. Αλλά με εάν & εφόσον δεν γράφεται η ιστορία. Το θέμα εδώ είναι τουλάχιστον να μάθουμε από τα λάθη μας και αυτό προυποθέτει να ξέρεις τουλάχιστον την ιστορία, πράγμα πού μας ξαναφέρνει στη WP και τη προσπάθειά μας εδώ. Δυστυχώς τον τελευταίο καιρό παραδέχομαι ότι έχω αρχίσει και χάνω την υπομονή μου. Θα δοκιμάσω τη συμβουλή σου. Όσο γιά το scripta manent το έχω καταλάβει από καιρό. Αυτό έχει καταλήξει να είναι η ουσία πλέον εδώ μέσα, αλλά όπως σου είπα έχω αρχίσει να χάνω την υπομονή μου[2].

A ξέχασα, γιά την Αν. Θράκη που γράφεις, θα εκπλαγείς αλλά τα πράγματα είναι ανάποδα. Τότε ο Βενιζέλος ήταν στο Παρίσι και οι Βενιζελικοί αξιωματικοί ετοιμάζαν εδώ (ουσιαστικά ο Πάγκαλος) τη Στρατιά Έβρου. Όταν μετά από πραγματικά υπεράνθρωπες προσπάθειες του Πάγκαλου η Στρατιά ετοιμάστηκε, έστειλαν ένα τηλεγράφημα στο Βενιζέλο πού τον ενημέρωνε ότι οι ετοιμασίες ολοκληρώθηκαν και να βρεί κάποια δικαιολογία γιά να διακοπούν οι συνομιλίες έτσι ώστε να ξεκινήσει η επιχείρηση. Τότε αντί απάντησης έλαβαν την επομένη το γνωστό τηλεγράφημα “επετεύχθει συμφωνία”. Αν έχεις υπ'όψιν σου τη ρήση “μας πούλησαν οι χαρτογιακάδες” (τα κολλάρα), είχε υπωθεί τότε, γιά το συγκεκριμένο περιστατικό και απ'το στόμα του Πάγκαλου βασικά υπονοώντας το Βενιζέλο. Μικρότερος, ήμουν & γω απορημένος γιά τη μυστηριώδη αυτή εξέλιξη, αλλά τώρα ξέρω ότι ο Βενιζέλος είχε δίκιο γιατί δεν θα οδηγούσε πουθενά γιατί οι Μ. Δυνάμεις δεν θα αποδέχονταν καμμία τροποποίηση συνόρων εκεί. ΟΙ Μ.Δυνάμεις είχαν από το '13 καταστήσει σαφή την απόφασή τους ότι δεν επρόκειτο να επιτρέψουν σε καμμία χώρα να μοιραστεί τα Στενά (μία όχθη σε κάποιον, η άλλη σε άλλον). Τα Στενα θα έπρεπε να ανήκουν πάντα σε έναν. Ήταν ο λόγος γιά τον οποίο η Βουλγαρία υποχρεώθηκε το '13 να εγκαταλήψει τι γραμμή της Τσατάλτσας καί να πάει στη γραμμή Αίνος-Μήδια. Γιά να καταλάβεις τη λογική πίσω από το “δόγμα” θυμήσου τι είχε γίνει με το Σουέζ όταν πήραν την ανατολική όχθη οι Ισραηλινοί. Η Δύση κινδύνεψε με Κραχ γιατί η Αίγυπτος έκλεισε το Σουέζ εκβιάζοντας τη διεθνή κοινότητα. Το ίδιο κρίσιμα θεωρούνταν τότε -'13- τα Στενά λόγω (Τσαρικής) Ρωσίας.

Hi, the recent edit you made to Eleftherios Venizelos has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. A.Cython (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

On the Panzer IV, even the Germans in the Bundesarchiv apparently made that mistake, so you're off the hook :P I also went through the Noemvriana section, please check it and tell me your opinion. Again, don't let yourself be drawn into arguments about politics or ad hominem attacks. It distracts from the fact that you are making some contributions of substance in several of the more obscure or neglected articles on Greek history. Constantine ✍ 14:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

On the word "humiliating", well, you are right, I am not hesitating to use it for 1897, because it was. It was a complete and utter disaster, which led to financial collapse and considerable political turmoil. Also, I think you'll agree that it was indeed felt as a national humiliation, and that I am not really passing my own judgment here. As for the Noemvriana, certainly the Allied landing was a debacle, but "humiliating"? I don't know how they perceived it (du Fournet certainly was humiliated), and the fact that they eventually came out on top prevents me from using too strong language. If anything, the whole affair, and especially its aftermath with the terms imposed on the Athens government, was a far larger humiliation for Greek sovereignty and national pride. Plus, the scale of the two events is not really comparable: the defeat of an entire country within a matter of days and the repulsion of a landing party. Of course, both can be "humiliating", but 1897 shaped the attitudes and politics of Greece for 20 years, while the Noemvriana were one episode in a series of events. That's my opinion, anyhow. Regards, Constantine ✍ 11:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If by the comparisons with other wars you mean that we lost because we faced an overwhelmingly superior enemy, yes, that is true. But it was felt as a national humiliation, or at least that is the gist of every single history I have read on it. It was this sense of humiliation that indirectly led to the National Schism, as it was 1897 when many people first became disenchanted with the monarchy. And, speaking of "overwhelmingly superior" enemies, that was the same thing that happened to the Allies in Athens in 1916 ;). Constantine ✍ 13:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Κάπως καταφέρνουμε να παρανοούμαστε... There are defeats in war that are heroic even if unavoidable (Serbia in WWI is the prime example), and then there are defeats that are humiliating, when the defeated country managed absolutely nothing noteworthy. Greece in 1897 qualifies for this. An unprepared army, an incapable officer corps, a clueless leadership, a timid navy, and an over-enthusiastic population that believed that we could win just by sheer elan... Instead we got thrashed by a bigger, but also far better trained, better equipped and better led army, and got exposed for the loudmouths we were. For years afterwards Greece was an international pariah, with no diplomatic alliances, under foreign financial supervision, etc. That I think qualifies as "humiliation", ταπείνωση, in the most literal sense. Constantine ✍ 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My definition of a "humiliating war" covers all of the above, i.e. the previous aggressive mentality and the (humiliating) προσγείωση στην πραγματικότητα. That is what "humiliation" means in its literal sense, to prove to someone the extent of his misconceptions as to his own strength. Either way, the discussion is academic (which doesn't mean I don't enjoy it). With the exception of the adjectives, I think though that a stable version has been reached in the Venizelos article. I do still think though that (due to the dispute and the need to back everything up with sources) too much weight and details have been given to the issue (esp. the foreign reaction thing, which belons, as I had said before, to the Noemvriana article proper). BTW, for your intended expansion of the latter, the sources I used as refs are all available on Google Books. I also have Kitromilides as a pdf, if you want I could send it to you per email. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

When I said we reached a "stable" version, I meant the particular section, and that does not mean that it is a satisfactory one either, just that the main points in terms of content (and chronology, after this incredible mess-up with the OS dates) have been established. Otherwise I happen to agree 100% with your opinion of the article. Constantine ✍ 20:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with ✍ . The point is still disagree is whether "humiliating" or "ignominious" is academic discussion or not. Personally i think it is misleading and thus should be avoided. For example, for the war in 1897 this kind of description is accurate irrespectively how you will look at it. But still it should be avoided. In our case we have some sources saying the the Greek forces were 10 times more than the Allied forces, Seligman mentions that the king invited the Allies but later he changed his mind, Chester describes as it a surprise and "treacherous attack" from the irregular royalists, which also used by Kitromilides. So if it was indeed a "trap" to kick the Allies out by a numerically larger force then there is nothing humiliating in this. In fact it should be described as a sneaky military move and at the same time a smart diplomatic move which was effective against the Allies' demands. And even in the case of this event being humiliated I doubt Britain a colonial superpower would have a crisis over this. Even today where US & UK are more liberal and democratic than what they were they do not have a trouble into entering foreign countries. The argument that we are using is more than weak and it desperately needs a citation. Failing to bring Greece in to war during a critical time in WWI makes much more sense. What I still do not understand why need to present the kind of pro-royalist version of the story in the main article. Maybe that's what happened but we do not know that... we should allow the events to speak for themselves. Also, Burg (p.145) and Hickley (p. 12) state that Venizelos declared war on the Central powers before the landing of the Allies in Athens and if I remember correct other sources state this, thus we are using a source that probably has it wrong. I will check it later but please do check it as well. Thanks in advance.A.Cython (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be obliged if you could keep your colonialisτic-apologizing bullsits out of my page. If you want to tell something about the article use the talk page of the article, thanks--Factuarius (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh... now it is your article?? I thought you said that everyone can edit WP with reliable academic sources!A.Cython (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You are writting in my talk page you.. Vice Admiral.. Is that you? --Factuarius (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep you are right, but anyone can write here if they want to tell you something... but... I am not "Vice Admiral" I am King George I taking revenge on the royalists who ruined my kingdom! By the way have you seen my horse?A.Cython (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Highness.. you are sitting on it --Factuarius (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm back. I wish I had been there. Καλό χειμώναAlexikoua (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Skopje - liberation?

About the First Balkan War changes. I agree with you about not giving too much detail on what Serbian interests were when retaking southern lands. However, liberation is a very shady term. Its use is not universally welcome when rival populations reside in the same place. Used correctly, it requires a noun object following from. As such, one is liberated from something and that thing is the outgoing authority. So Slavic people in Skopje were indeed liberated from Ottoman rule if only to have it replaced with Albanian discipline. Looking at it that way though, any change of government can be seen as liberation to anyone except to those affiliated to the ousted party, majority or minority. The trouble with using "liberation" for an Albanian Skopje is that it implies that the city itself supported Albanian rule and history itself has recorded that this was not the case. Today, there are over 100,000 Albanians in Skopje, but the city has over half a million people. The percentage of Albanians have grown. The encyclopaedia Britannica in 1911 clearly shows that the main population of Skopje was Slavic, and that these were Bulgarians and Serbs. I now realise that those former Bulgarians/Serbs' descendants became ethnic Macedonians. To use "capture" has no negative connotations. Better still, it can be rephrased to say that successful Albanian insurrections won over Skopje; or that Skopje changed hands from Ottoman to Albanian rule etc. I know that many events have "liberation" as part of their title, and I do oppose them as well. Here where it is not such a major issue, I feel we can resolve such an issue with simple discussion. Evlekis (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The point is that as you put it, this city would have been impossible to liberate in any case, since neither Albanians nor Serbs, nor Bulgarians could liberate the city since no one was a majority during the era, (if someone adds the non Albano-Bulgaro-Serb population into the city). More important, if we apply your argument to the rest areas of the European parts of the Ottoman Empire (Macedonia and Thrace) then there was not a single liberated area during the war either from Bulgarians Serbs or Greeks, being all “captured” according to your definition of liberation. I suspect that no Bulgarian Serb or Greek editor is willing to accept such a rationale (since among others it is also contradicting to any known bibliography). --Factuarius (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Factuarius. You have new messages at BrianKnez's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

Sure I'll post them soon in wp:commons. Have a nice day. Take also a look at [[3]]. Thank you.Alexikoua (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Name

Hello, Factuarius. I saw that you've uploaded A Synvet 1877.jpg, and, as I am out of options, I came to ask you if by any chance you know the first name of Synvet? Greetings and sorry for the disturbance.--89.215.37.29 (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry no. I'll try to find out and update the file's log. If you in the meanwhile be more lucky please inform me or feel free to update it. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. I'll let you know if I find it before you. Regards, --89.215.37.29 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Xenos

Hmmm, it does read like him. If it is truly him, more's the pity. He is clearly intelligent, and if he had access to sources & a less biased mentality he'd be a great contributor. Δε σου κρύβω ότι πολλά από όσα λέει για μας ως χώρα και έθνος τα έχω κατά καιρούς σκεφτεί και πει κι εγώ (δεν είναι και δύσκολο να απελπίζεσαι με την Ελλάδα άλλωστε), πλην χωρίς τις γενικεύσεις και το βρίσημο, ή την απόλυτη πεποίθηση ότι ξέρω καλύτερα από όλους. Ο τύπος είναι ο κλασικός αγγλοσάξονας που έρχεται να χαρίσει τα φώτα του στους βαρβάρους, τους οποίους ταυτόχρονα οικτίρει και βρίζει, αυτοεπιβεβαιώνοντας έτσι τη δικιά του ανωτερότητα, αντί να κάτσει να κοιτάξει τα χίλια στραβά που υπάρχουν στη δικιά του (και σε κάθε άλλη) χώρα... Τελικά είναι το ίδιο ανώφελο να μιλάει κανείς μαζί του όσο και με τον κλασικό Ελληνάρα που έχω συναντήσει πάμπολλες φορές σε Γερμανία, Γαλλία και Αγγλία, όπου πάει, βλέπει απίστευτα μουσεία, τεχνολογία αιχμής, τα πάντα οργανωμένα και σε τάξη, και επιστρέφει στην Ελλάδα χωρίς να έχει μάθει τίποτα και πεπεισμένος ότι ζούμε στον επίγειο παράδεισο επειδή έχουμε ήλιο, θάλασσα και μπορούμε και περνάμε με κόκκινο. Κατάθεση ψυχής τέλος...:P Constantine ✍ 12:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Report me for what? For giving the proper explanations to the problems on the contrary it you who need to explain how a division of 25 battalions has the strength of an Army and keep in mind we are not talking about the Greek Army here in which you have better knowledge and more sources.--Avidius (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

First I believe the Bulgarian War Ministry knows better the structure and organization of its own army then Erickson,the Ottomans etc., if you can prove otherwise please do.Second the book uses official Ottoman documents with the orders by the commanders like Abdulah Pasha quoted to the letter.Third I can give you a detail breakdown by division and should I remind you how you are citing Greek sources because they also supposedly use Bulgarian official documents when regarding the Bulgarian Army.--Avidius (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Also the inaccuracy of that map is something which I can't omit indeed but please do tell me if you think Eastern Rumelia was populated mostly by Greeks.--Avidius (talk) 10:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No Factuarius you don't understand. In an Army not all units are combatants e.g Germany mobilized 11 million in WW1 but only a fraction of them were part were combatants and were fighting. In the Bulgarian case the main burden was on the Active Army which did the fighting , the National Militia which by the way had two calls one of them was by law to be used only within the borders of the country the 1912 and 1913 levies were called upon to fill the losses in the Active Army. Not to mention that in the entire army there were around 350 000 rifles which marks the real strength of the army unless affcourse you think the rest fought with stones or spears.On top of that in every devision there were medical units , logistical units and administration who were not combatants. By the way what about Eastern Rumelia?--Avidius (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't answered me about Rumelia question.

So according to you they fought with stones good. Also ask yourself why hall says that the Serbs deployed 348 000 out of which 252,000 were combatants. That is right it is because the 252,000 is their rifle strength or in other words the maximum amount of armed infantry and cavalry in the Serbian divisions. So get over the Bulgarian medical stuff,logistical units etc were not line infantry or cavalry like you try to make them look.--Avidius (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are not sure heh? Why do you bother adding the map then? Also if you haven't noticed according to the census it say over 5% other ethnicities apparently the Greeks are included here, they may be 2,3 or 4 %. But lets simplify the question! Do you believe that the Greeks were the majority of the population as this map implies including in are of Sofia?Also I don't think that the greeks are very innocent when it comes to assimilating other peoples so lets drop this particular argument.--Avidius (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You placed that map in response to an other map which designated the ethnic distribution in the Balkans which leads to the conclusion you did it not because the English map was important for the Congress of Berlin but because you want to show it as a map of ethnic distribution. However you openly admit that the map is wrong in that aspect so I don;t see how it fits in the article.--Avidius (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes by the looks of the scale of the map it seems the the supposedly predominantly Greek territory begins somewher around 5 km to the south and east of Sofia.Perhaps this English cartographer has never set foot in the Balkans--Avidius (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My objection is to the statement that a bulgarian division had the strength of an army when it was actually the equivalent of a corps.--Avidius (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it do you. 9 (3 brigades each) + 1 cavalry = 366,209 not 600 000. Otherwise in the next paragraph it say that there were 600 000 mobilized and i have given explanations in brackets.--Avidius (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all of the 600,000 took part at the same moment in time. For instance the 1912-1913 levies(90,000 men) were used when losses had to be filled.Isn't it also true that there were many volunteers in the Greek army in addition to army divisions I don't see them mentioned here.--Avidius (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. How many volunteers did the Greek Army had outside its divisions and how did it fill it losses. Because on the Bulgarian Army the levies of 1912 and 1913 were used to fill losses and were not seperate units. Its like the example of Germany I gave you.--Avidius (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok but the newly conscripted formed additional divisions didn't they? So how did they fill up the losses of the divisions? And the Bulgarian volunteers are numbered over 14,000 men and are included in the 599,000.--Avidius (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, two divisions created on the course of the war: 8th and 9th (there were 7 at the outbreak). And the cavalry regiment became brigade just before 2nd BW started but this is disputed among the Greek editors. As you can understand 42,000 men is more than enough to create two (Greek) divisions and fill the light losses (I think less than 10,000), the Greek army had during the 1st BW.--Factuarius (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map

Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map

The mistakes in Stanford's 1878 Ethnological map that contradict with the census results (Serbia 1866, Austria-Hungary 1850, Russia 1856).

I've seen you removed the Stanford's 1878 Ethnic composition map of the Balkans from the Balkan's article. This map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders. I also noticed that you also removed it from any other article of wikipedia including the very article of the Berlin's Congress by saying that it is wrong. Wikipedia is not judging an historical document as it is a 1878 map as right or wrong, especially a map upon a treaty was determined. WP works with references, documents and facts, leaving the reader to judge for himself what is right and what is wrong. So if you have censuses that denying what the map is picturing, you have to put them into the articles, with the necessary references. My opinion is that in the Balkan's article is better to avoid such maps because I believe that a day will come when the article will have 20 or 30 of them. But since for the time being had only one, of somewhat pro-Bulgarian view showing even eastern Thrace having a Bulgarian majority, it is good to give also a second opinion about, from a very well known cartographer of the era, enough serious as to influence a major treaty. Regards --Factuarius (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We canot include maps in WP if there inaccuracy is proven, though the author created them (probably, but not for sure) with good faith, but unfortunately unprofessionally. We cannot include this map just because it was created by Stanford though even on that time many more accurate maps have been already created. For example, in Serbia, the 1866 census counted 127,545 Romanians (10,5% of Serbia's population) in the Eastern part of the country. See the last lines of this text - I can help you on the translation if you want to. Most localities of Eastern Serbia had a Romanian majority. This fact was concluded even before this census took place: Guillaume Lejean in his work "Ethnographie de la Turquie d'Europe, Gotha. Justus Perthes 1861" mentioned already a Romanian majority in most Eastern Serbia and in the ethnic map attached to his work he had shown it clearly. Lejean's map was the most apreciated ethnic map of that time. See also this ethnic map published by F. Kanitz in 1868, created in accordance with the census results. They are also other ethnic groups missing in Stanford's map, wich are counted in the 1850-Austro-Hungarian census: the Germans and Hungarians in Vojvodina, Banat and Transylvania. In Southern Bessarabia, the Russian 1856-census reflected a mosaic of Russians, Bulgarians, Gagauz, Germans - where are those peoples in Stanford's map? Note: I'm talking about census results here that already took place in 1877 and respected by other authors of ethnic maps of the region.

Concerning the Ottoman Empire proper (not the vassal states): of course, in the Ottoman Empire proper no census took place. But seriously now: did the mostly-Greek-inhabited territoy extend until the Balkan mountains? Now, seriously...

As you can see, this map doesn't even ilustrate the point of view of the Balkan ethnicities of that time. We have maps that are undoubtely much better. Here some examples of maps created before 1878:

• 
  1861, by Lejean
• 
  1877, by Synvet
• 
  1877, by Sax
• Before 1878, by Ravenstein
  Before 1878, by Ravenstein

So, therefore, I ask you politely to remove this faked-information map from all the articles. We have enough better maps created before the Treaty of Berlin. Regards, --Olahus (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that you seem to have understood nothing from my previous msg, I found your argument about inaccuracy totally POV to say the least. In the "Demographic history of Macedonia" article, one of the articles from where you removed the E. Stanford's map (although has 19 other ethnological maps) I found a map showing the eastern Thrace being populated mostly by Bulgarians, another being populated mostly by Greeks and another being populated mostly by Turks in the very same period. I found a map showing Vardar Macedonia being populated mostly by Bulgarians, another being populated mostly by Serbs and another by Slav-Macedonians in the same period. I found a map showing Epirus being populated by Albanians and another by Greeks. A map showing half of Albania being populated by Greeks and another being populated by Albanians. A map showing Kosovo being populated entirely by Albanians and another entirely by Serbians. Even a map showing half of Greece being populated by Albanians. So politely spare me with your inaccuracy accusations over the Stanford's map. Regards, --Factuarius (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote above: "Concerning the Ottoman Empire proper (not the vassal states): of course, in the Ottoman Empire proper no census took place." Concerning the proper Ottoman Empire, they are some "excuses" because the missing of a cnesus data. But what's about Serbia, Austria-Hungary and Bessarabia? They are no excuses for those ridiculous mistakes. That's why I ask to remove the map. Not because it shows a Greek territory that extends to the Balkan mountains (though we know very well that such claims are nothing but bullshit). --Olahus (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please restate your msg. I am not sure what you say. --Factuarius (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I say that the mistakes of the ethnic representation of Serbia, Austria-Hungary and Bessarabia are leading me to ask you to remove the map and insert it with a more accurate one. --Olahus (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you read any of my previous answers? Is like a dialogue between deaf. Please reread my two first answers. (BTW not that is mattering, but only for my curiosity, what mistakes?) --Factuarius (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I say that the mistakes of the ethnic representation of Serbia, Austria-Hungary and Bessarabia are leading me to ask you to remove the map and insert it with a more accurate one. What is so hard to understand? Do you understand Enghish at all?

Give me a reason why we should keep the map of Stanford insead of one of the maps by Lejean, Synvet, Sax or Ravenstein? --Olahus (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Because:

• Reason one This map is of historical significance since upon that map the Congress of Berlin created Bulgaria as a state in 1878 and shaped her borders until 1913.
• Reason two Wikipedia is not judging an historical document (as it is a 1878 map) as "right" or "wrong", especially a map upon a treaty was determined. Wikipedia works with references, documents and facts, leaving the reader to judge for himself what is "right" and what is "wrong". So if you have censuses that denying what the map is picturing, you have to put them into the articles, with the necessary references.
• Reason three In the "Demographic history of Macedonia" article, one of the articles from where you removed the E. Stanford's map (although has 19 other ethnological maps) I found a map showing the eastern Thrace being populated mostly by Bulgarians, another being populated mostly by Greeks and another being populated mostly by Turks in the very same period. I found a map showing Vardar Macedonia being populated mostly by Bulgarians, another being populated mostly by Serbs and another by Slav-Macedonians in the same period. I found a map showing Epirus being populated by Albanians and another by Greeks. A map showing half of Albania being populated by Greeks and another being populated by Albanians. A map showing Kosovo being populated entirely by Albanians and another entirely by Serbians. Even a map showing half of Greece being populated by Albanians. But they are all present in the article (and in many other articles in WP) and no one thought it to remove them because of their ridiculous mistakes, including YOU. And you are coming saying me about Stanford's inaccuracies in ..Bessarabia?
• By the way (not that is mattering, but only for my curiosity), what mistakes over Serbia, Austria-Hungary and Bessarabia? --Factuarius (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I will accept to keep Stanford's map only if it is mentioned that it contradits with the 1850-Austrian-census, the 1859-Russian-census and the 1866-Serbian census. --Olahus (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just outside Belgrade to the north, German majority? Just outside Belgrade to the south, Romanian majority? Are you sure? What about that map also in the article? Is it right or is it wrong? Or this? all three are also in the article also not agreeing with what you say about Stanford's map. --Factuarius (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  That map was drawn by the Serbian geographer Jovan Cvijic and he is trying to present an as much as possible large Serbian ethnic space. Where the Serbians live in a minority he says that they are half. The map is very propagandistic. I repeat: on that time, most localities of Eastern Serbia had a Romanian majority. This map mentioned by you shows a Romanian majority in most Eastern Serbia. However, I have a more detailed data from the 1921-census and those administrative divisions had a Romanian majority: Ključ (86,5 %), Brza Palanka (82,2 %), Poreč (72,7 %), Zvižd (57,6 %), Homolje (56,6 %). Other administrative divisions had a significant Romanian population: Negotin (45,1 %), Zaječar (37,8 %). Concerning the German majority north of Beograd, I recommand you to see this map (census 1890). --Olahus (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• No problem if you do the same also with the other maps that including "mistakes". Because if we do it only for that map and not for any other indirectly we leading the reader to the conclusion that this is the only map having "mistaces" and the other maps are correct. --Factuarius (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Agree. If any map disregards a census result, it should be mentioned in its description.--Olahus (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, Can you give me an idea of how you are thinking to do it? The censuses are giving total numbers. How are you thinking to link the censuses with the maps? Just wonder. --Factuarius (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Very simple. For example, on Stanford's map we can add this note: The map information doesn't reflect the last census results for Serbia, Austria-Hungary and Russia. --Olahus (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• And you will do that for every map in the articles? I mean one of those articles has 19 such maps.
• Did you find my msg? What about the map you had downloaded, in accordance to the Stanford's map?
• Could you give me an e-mail address as to sent you an other version of the map to tell me your opinion?--Factuarius (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. But only if they contradict to census results (I mean the censuses that took place before the maps have been created) .
• Yes, and I answered in my talk page.
• olahus.olahus80@yahoo.com --Olahus (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. Turkish bibliography isn't too npov in such topics, according to imri.bg.Alexikoua (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? It seems he is quite good customer for a Mental disorder clinic.Alexikoua (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If I were you I'd try to be a little bit less biased especially when you removed Hall's estimate about Macedonia and put Erickson only because according to him the number is bigger but interestingly he doesn't give numbers about Thrace. Very convenient.--Avidius (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Really and a source that reallies solly on Ottoman sources is not a POV? Though I must say that my sources also usually use official Ottoman documents after all the Ottoman empire sold its archive to Bulgaria after WW1.He is such a big expert on the Ottomans but he can't give their strength in Thrace heh?--Avidius (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)--Avidius (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And when you use Greek sources for the Bulgarian Army in the Second Balkan War and make hazy calculations based on little real value that is not POV too?--Avidius (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Corinthian helmet

Δεν έχει σχέση με Χριστιανισμό ή ταμπού, απλώς με το ότι είναι παντελώς και προφανώς μη εγκυκλοπαιδικό, καθώς και καθαρά προσωπική σου γνώμη. Ναι, τώρα που το λες, υπάρχει κάποια ομοιότητα, αλλά το ίδιο μπορεί κανείς να πει για χίλια άλλα αντικείμενα. Αν μη τι άλλο, τη σεξουαλικότητα στον αρχαίο κόσμο δεν την κρύβαν και καλά κάναν, αλλά εδώ μου φαίνεται πολύ άκυρο. Επιπλέον, το αφαίρεσα επειδή μάλλον θα είχε συνέχεια (trolling) αν παρέμενε εκεί... Αν άρχιζα να πηγαίνω στη σελίδα του Saturn V και να γράφω ότι είναι φαλλικό σύμβολο (έχεις δει φαντάζομαι Dr. Strangelove), το ίδιο θα γινόταν... Constantine ✍ 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems a multiply times blocked user, continues his activity now in irc. His last effort was to nominate template:Northern Epirus, for deletion [[4]].Alexikoua (talk) 07:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)