Talk:Metapolitefsi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Additional information: This article is supported by the Politics and politicians task force. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 Averoff's role in the Metapolitefsi 2 Excessive color 2.1 Fixing report 1 2.2 Cosmetic work 2.3 Tags 3 Post-Metapolitefsi tensions 4 Heads up : Rastapopoulos tags dictator Dimitrios Ioannides as a "political prisoner"

[edit] Averoff's role in the Metapolitefsi

Image caption: Junta President Phaedon Gizikis and the heads of the armed forces convene with old guard politicians to hand over power. Panagiotis Kanellopoulos is originally selected, but Evangelos Averoff's levers, cranes and pulleys bring forth the Deus ex Machina Konstantinos Karamanlis. This is the legend I had included for the photo of the historic meeting that triggered the metapolitefsi. An anonymous friend removed it, as he felt it was humorous and unwikipedian. Granted, the legend was expressed in a whimsical flair that is quite in line with the style of this informative but not-too-wikipedian article. It draws on the theatrical Deus ex machina parable suggested the article, and highlights the notion (documented by various historians but also by Averoff himself) that the final choice of Karamanlis over Kanellopoulos resulted from behind the scene machinations (levers, cranes and pulleys) of the late Evangelos Averoff. Rastapopoulos 06:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect to inaugurate the discussion page of the article so soon. I removed the image as images are not normally incorporated in talk pages. I left the caption. I also happen to agree with anonymous because the Deus ex machina section was meant to be an analogy with a political situation and as such it advanced the understanding of a non Greek reader in the context of the culture of the country that the phenomenon took place in. Moving this analogy to the actions of an actual person brings it to the level of comics. I am rather disappointed but, this being Wikipedia, correction of a mistake is just an edit away. It's just happened to be an anonymous one. C'est la vie! Dr.K. 13:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I donot know the story of the caption, but Rastamopoulos is right about the historical role of Averof. He was the one who imposed Karamanlis' solution, although Kanellopoulos was initially chosen. Even Karamanlis himself in his archives mentions Averof's role. Averof should be mentionned in the article because of his central role. I intend to edit and, if Dr. K wants, he can then copy-edit my initial edit.--Yannismarou 14:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I now read Dr. K's initial edit. He writes that Gyzikis consultated the dormant "democratic political elite" before calling Karamanlis. This is poetic and romantic but totally untrue! The only persons he consultated were Averoff, a "furtive" (do not misjudge me! I am an admirer of Averoff!!) but shrewd politician (his "machinary", Rastapopoulos, may have saved our democracy!) and the heads of the armed forces. It is characteristic that when Karamanlis heard Averoff's and Gyzikis' voice in the telephone, he couldn't believe in his ears!--Yannismarou 15:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job Yannis. Believe me I wasn't trying to be romantic (or poetic)! The details you provided made this section even more compelling. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. 21:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

> (his "machinery", Rastapopoulos, may have saved our democracy!)

Indeed, Democracy was saved. But as Averoff had prophesised a few months earlier, the dreaded Junta was to fall as a result of a "national tragedy." I think it is high time to start a Cyprus File article. Rastapopoulos 06:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is already an entry on the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

By the way, Rastapopoulos, I'm highly doubtful that Averoff himself described his proposal of recalling Karamanlis to overhead the restoration of democratic rule, as a "machination", considering how "machination" is defined by dictionaries as "a plot to achieve sinister ends". I'm sure it looked that way to supporters of dictatorial rule, though. Porfyrios 10:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Porfyrie, the Cyprus File is not confined to the 1974 events, it deals with the policies undertaken by Greek and Greek Cypriot political and military rulers and spans from the 1950s onwards. Averoff is certainly a case study in this respect, as he is the architect of the London-Zurich agreements. Moreover, he is the one who first devised the notion of Cyprus's partition, and actually suggested it to the Turkish side. Hence, the redirection you suggested does not fully capture the issue. Why do you consider that research on the blunders made by the Greek and Greek Cypriot side constitute, ipso fact, "junta apologists' conspiracy theories"? On the contrary, I am intrigued by the fact that the Junta protagonists of the Cyprus debacle in 1974 were not tried and punished for their role in the Cyprus tragedy. Was Ioannidis tried and punished for the Cyprus disaster? No, he was actually promoted from Brigadier to General by Averoff, before being charged for other crimes (the coup, the Polytechneio - but not his role in Cyprus!). Was Gizikis tried and punished for the Cyprus disaster? No, he remained interim President and was publicly thanked for assisting in a "bloodless" metapolitefsi. Were the heads of the Greek military under the Ioannidis Junta tried and punished for the Cyprus disaster? No, the likes of Bonanos, Arpakis, and Galatsanos -- the very people who orchestrated the coup against Makarios -- were not only not only not tried, but were actually publicly thanked for their role in the Metapolitsfsi and were allowed retain the titles of honorary heads of their respective Army corps. It is crystal clear that there was a cover-up, to the extent that nobody prosecuted for the Cyprus tragedy, ostensibly for reasons of "national security," to quote Karamanlis. Rastapopoulos 11:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also the Modern history of Cyprus entry. You should get some facts straight, as Ioannidis was suspended immediately after the regime fell. As for the Turkish invasion of Cyprus being part of some nefarious plot of the republicans in order to overthrow the dictatorship (which is where the "junta apologetics" comment refers to, and what most all σταγονίδια claim), I'm sorry, but my tin-foil hat won't fit well enough to make such a theory palatable. Neither Ioannidis, imprisoned for life in Korydallos, nor for that matter anyone in Greek politics has ever substantiated an accusation that the partition of Cyprus was planned by the then repressed (not to mention incapacitated) democratic world. In case you forgot, Greece was being governed by a Junta at the time.

I have no sympathy for the Junta, please put no words in my mouth - and am puzzled as to why the Metapolitefsi did not prosecute them for the Cyprus debacle. If you feel that Ioannidis was jailed because of his implication in the Cyprus issue, then I shall have to ask you to adjust the antennae of your tin foil hat :P Rastapopoulos 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, how, exactly, could Averoff have been both a "proponent of partition" (and under what conditions?) as you insinuate, as well as the architect of the Zurich agreement? Need I remind you that Zurich created an independent Cyprus and not a partitioned one?

Indeed, Averoff was the architect of the Zurich agreement. He provides a post-mortem of this failed agreement in his book "Ιστορία Χμένων Ευκαιριών". As far as my comment on partition (διχοτόμηση) is concerned, I am referring to an 1962 interview of a Turkish diplomat (Ambassador Icsel) who claimed that in 1956, when he served on Athens, Averoff had proposed to him the partition of Cyprus as a possible solution to the Cyprus problem. Averoff has denied having held such conversation with Icsel in the aforementioned book.Rastapopoulos 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And yet you reported it as an undisputed fact. That's a poor show, I'm afraid. Some might even call it "in bad faith". Porfyrios 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, I checked my sources and took the initiative to revise and qualify my previous comment; and you call that poor show? Now who is acting in bad faith, I wonder? Rastapopoulos 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

National security, as far as I can tell, might mean Greece would do well not to bolster Turkish arguments for the invasion by documenting the then governing junta's support for EOKA-B's campaign. In any case, I am not really interested in debating this idle speculation. There are Wikipedia entries on Cyprus already ; use them if you have substantiated facts to add. Porfyrios 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would the crimes of the discredited Junta prove an embarrassment to Greece after the Metapolitefsi? I cannot fathom the argument that revealing the role of the Junta in the Cyprus crisis would hurt the reputation of the new democratic government. In any case, the fact that the Junta provoked the invasion is old hat, not a somber secret to cover up - Makarios himself, in his UN speech on the eve of Attila 1, accused the Junta of invading Cyprus. Rastapopoulos 17:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about EOKA-B's campaign of violence before the coup. Porfyrios 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus was in a state of quasi-civil war before the coup, and indeed there was bloodshed *among* Greek Cypriots (EOKA-B vs Makarios supporters) but *not* against the Turkish-Cypriots.Rastapopoulos 22:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive color

We're writing an encyclopedia article here, and that means that everything we have to say is WP:NPOV and WP:V. The way this is written, however, it comes off as a book on history that does its own research and makes its own conclusions, because it makes all sorts of subjective statements and judgements without citing the sources for them directly. For example, "Transitions especially those from Dictatorship to Democracy are difficult and fraught with dangers. During the transition there is uncertainty and anxiety. As well there exists a great pent up demand for affirming long dormant civil rights such as demonstrations. " That's a conclusion, which I'm guessing is based on the writer's own thinking, which makes it Original research.

Some of the most colorful material, though is stuff like the section headers and leadins. Calling the arrival of an individual "catharsis," and comparing it to a deus ex machina, just feels like it's being a little editoralizing, since you can't really say that a statement like "The complexity of the post invasion plot of the Greek political scene in 1974 resembled that of even the most tangled of ancient theatrical plays." is something objectively verifiable and neutral. If someone else said that, you can cite them as saying it, but to say it yourself slips out of the objectivity that we need. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It may sound a bit rude (I hope it doesn't) but why just complain? Go ahead and fix it. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a charmingly whimsical article - but I have to agree that it is not wiki-compatible. Too bad titles such as The iceman cometh and Little shop of ESA will have to go Rastapopoulos 07:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with my friend Rastapopoulos that the section headers will have to go. But I cite the section of catharsis. Athens news calls metapolitefsi some kind of catharsis and there is a citation for it (citation #19). Karamanlis was the main actor of metapolitefsi. Therefore he brought catharsis. Deus ex machina always brings catharsis. Simple logical deduction based on newspaper talk about catharsis is not original research. The concept about Transitions from democracy etc. is explained logically why they are dangerous, again logical deduction is not original research. I'll try the clean up soon. Dr.K. 18:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion Night Gyr opened is very interesting. And it is interesting for one more reason: It reminds me of my first serious attempt to thoroughly rewrite a Wikipedia article. Night Gyr is basically right. Let me point out a few things:

• The headings of the sections are not compatible with the rules of WIkipedia. They are too long and, though poetic, they sometimes become verbalistic.
• Most important than the headings is the content. Original research' is not allowed in WIkipedia (whether we like it or not!). Dr. K really makes his own conclusions, which is uncyclopedid ("This persistent lack of imagination and flexibility, that betrayed the absence of any real democratic ethos or political intelligence in all of Papadopoulos' actions, sealed the fate of his attempt at political and social engineering in Greece." (any citation?), "To freeze a body you must lower the temperature drastically and nothing freezes the temperature of politics in a country faster than fear." (says who?), "Ioannides, a serial putschist (Greek:κατά σειρά πραξικοπηματίας, transliterated as: kata seira praxikopimatias, translated as: coup instigator in series) by now, was on his way out. The country was suffering from coup overload."), and sometimes uses rherorical questions: "What better way to affirm the newly re-established political rights and at the same time test their robustness than to start a good old pre-dictatorship type student protest?". These questions are not recommended by Wikipedia.
• I insist on the verbalism! This is a characteristic that all the Greeks have (me as well!). For instance, I regard this phrases as verbalism: "in a modern political arena free from the collective trauma of the Greek Civil War". "Therefore almost like a tragic hero, except for the fact that he was despised, in the land that created tragedy he could not escape his fate from the day he appeared at the proscenium as a junta protagonist because of the inherent contradictions and non sequiturs of the coup itself". Nice phrases, poetic, but full of verbalism, slightly problematic in terms of syntax and not in accordance with Wikipedia featured prose.
• Problem with the citations. For instance: "(Ioannidis) Being a man of action, but not very careful or introspective ... " Who says that? And a criticism to myself: I also did not citate the edit I made about Averof.

My notes just intend to make clear that Night Gyr is right and he cannot fix these problems by himself. Dr. K, I think Night Gyr honestly wanted to help and I think you should take into consideration his remarks. I told you your great effort reminds me of my first article in Wikipedia. I also had similar problems, but I discussd with other native-English and more experienced Wikipedians trying to improve myself.

The main problem is what Dr. K wants to do with this very very very interesting article. Do you want to keep it as it is? Then Ok. As it is, it is fine. Do you want to go a step forward? And what is a step forward? GA or FA candidature with a previous peer-review. If you are interested in something like that, then you have a loooooooooooooooooot of work in front of you.

I'd be interested in supporting such an effort, but I repeat that I do not know your intentions. In any case I repeat, the article as it, it is not bad, but Night Gyr's remarks are asolutely right in case Dr. K wants to go one step forward.--Yannismarou 16:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with some of the criticism of this article, but commend Taso for deciding to clean it up. My concerns, which I will try to constructively contribute on, are that this article is entitled Metapolitefsi, but refers (in excruciating detail) to one regime change in 1973-74. There have been other similar (albeit less recent or colorful) Greek metapolitefseis in 1864 and 1922, 1925, 1935. Not to mention Cyprus... Maybe a new title is appropriate (The Metapolitefsi of the Junta to Democracy?) and maybe this period should be added to the end of Regime of the Colonels. In any event, we need more circumspect anaysis and less detail. I look forward to participating, but await Tasos' first clean up effort.Argos'Dad 16:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A comment to the above: it is true that other "metapolitefsies" (in the sence of transition from one form of government to another) have occured in greek history (is there any national history wihtout "metapolitefsies"?). While I agree with you that the article focuses a bit overly on the regime change of 74, I'd say that what the article doesn't need looking back to past regime changes (1922 etc), that after all where never generally known as "The Metapolitefsi". Imho the article needs to expand to the first years after the junta, up to 1981, when Pasok came to power. Those are the years that are generally called "the years of the Metapolitefsi" ("Tα χρόνια της Μεταπολίτευσης"). They were peculiar years, very polarized. It is there I think the article should head. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that it is a well-written article and I laud Dr. K for his great effort. My rekarks hd as main goal to initiate a further improvement. I also agree that we must expand a bit the article to cover the "the years of the Metapolitefsi", trying to be NPOV.--Yannismarou 06:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your constructive comments and your courtesy. Sorry for the delayed response but I've been busy lately. In the article I gave such detail to the Papadopoulos liberalization measures because apart from forming the precursor to metapolitefsi they were also a failure that has to be understood and analysed if one is to fully appreciate the true significance of the democratic metapolitefsi. Anyway I'll try to further clean up the article, meanwhile be my guests and add your own material as you see fit. Dr.K. 00:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing report 1

Hi, Just to let you know I fixed the following concerns by Yannis: Quote "::::*Most important than the headings is the content. Original research' is not allowed in WIkipedia (whether we like it or not!). Dr. K really makes his own conclusions, which is uncyclopedid ("This persistent lack of imagination and flexibility, that betrayed the absence of any real democratic ethos or political intelligence in all of Papadopoulos' actions, sealed the fate of his attempt at political and social engineering in Greece."--fixed. Dr.K. 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (any citation?), "To freeze a body you must lower the temperature drastically and nothing freezes the temperature of politics in a country faster than fear."--fixed. Dr.K. 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (says who?), "Ioannides, a serial putschist (Greek:κατά σειρά πραξικοπηματίας, transliterated as: kata seira praxikopimatias, translated as: coup instigator in series) by now, was on his way out.--This is fact. Dr.K. 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC) The country was suffering from coup overload." --fixed. Dr.K. 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC) ), and sometimes uses rherorical questions: "What better way to affirm the newly re-established political rights and at the same time test their robustness than to start a good old pre-dictatorship type student protest?"--fixed. Dr.K. 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC) . These questions are not recommended by Wikipedia.

• I insist on the verbalism! This is a characteristic that all the Greeks have (me as well!). For instance, I regard this phrases as verbalism: "in a modern political arena free from the collective trauma of the Greek Civil War". ---fixed. Dr.K. 18:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)"Therefore almost like a tragic hero, except for the fact that he was despised, in the land that created tragedy he could not escape his fate from the day he appeared at the proscenium as a junta protagonist because of the inherent contradictions and non sequiturs of the coup itself".--fixed. Dr.K. 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Nice phrases, poetic, but full of verbalism, slightly problematic in terms of syntax and not in accordance with Wikipedia featured prose.
• Problem with the citations. For instance: "(Ioannidis) Being a man of action, but not very careful or introspective ... "--fixed. Dr.K. 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Who says that? " End quote.

Plus a few more. I'll be working on it some more. Take care. Dr.K. 17:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I initiated some further improvements. I expanded the lead according to WP:LEAD, added some information in the last section concerning especially the Greek Constitution, Tsatsos' role (I also mentioned Papandreou and PASOK) and replaced a citation concerning junta's trial with one of my own. Previous link was not correct.--Yannismarou 08:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Great idea about the lead. Dr.K. 13:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Added more sources. Worked more on the last two sections. Dr. K can check all my edits.--Yannismarou 10:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Great job. Thanks for the excellent contributions. Dr.K. 13:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Yannis. Nice contributions, but I have reservations about using Ino Afentouli's remarks in the entry ; her interpretation of the political climate of the era is particularly subjective (bordering on the arbitrary, even), and I'm afraid she is a bit of a political partisan. 84.254.42.43 12:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix this anon. Dr.K. 07:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cosmetic work

Did some cosmetic work and NPOV pruning in the "Papadopoulos' liberalization process: The metapolitefsi that never was" section. Hope it is viewed favorably. Rastapopoulos 14:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Dr.K. 15:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Did some editing of "First years after transition" Rastapopoulos 09:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Just did "Back to (dictatorial) orthodoxy" Rastapopoulos 15:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

The article is in the process of improvement and some things are already much better. Thereby, I donot think that there will be any objection, if Tassos removes the "noncompliant template" and transfers the "ActiveDiscuss" template on the top of the talk page of the article. Of course, this is a personal proposition and I do not know if the editors who first placed the templates agree with me.--Yannismarou 14:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is still not NPOV, and contains language that is not stylistically appropriate and contains too much analysis as opposed to fact. I will try to make some of these changes today and then, if they are acceptable, we can talk about removing the tags. The changes made so far are quite good and the article is coming along. I think it still too long.Argos'Dad 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The analysis provided in the article is necessary to provide context to the facts presented. Metapolitefsi is a complex phenomenon. People are still confused to this day as to its real causes. Was it Polytechneion that brought it? or the Cyprus crisis? Putting some context and background to the facts based on logical deduction is not unreasonable. Analysis when based on logic and facts is not POV. Further no article is POV free. Yet they are not tagged for every POV statement that they include. I think it is time to remove the tags and if editing has to take place, it can be done without the presence of these tags that scare readers away. Also length of an article by itself is not a criterion of quality. Dr.K. 15:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has made great strides due to the efforts of a lot of people. I removed the NPOV tag and hope that my edits have helped to tone down the POV that was there. There is still a lot of colorful language and metaphors that do not belong in a wikipedia article about a historical event, but they certainly capture the flavor of the time. As far as length goes, it is not a mark of quality either way, but for stylistic reasons we should consider whether the article covers too much ground and should be split into 3: a)The Markezinis Experiment/Politechneio, b)Ioannides and Cyprus, and c)Karamanlis/Democratic Metapolitefsi.Argos'Dad 05:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

We could limit the length of some sections (especially the first ones, who are indirectly connected with metapolitesi), by creating sub-sections. In any case, I'm very happy the article is getting better and better through co-operation and creativity.--Yannismarou 10:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work. I appreciate the effort all of you (us?) put into this and I thank you for it. I am really happy with the end result and with the depth of your perception of the zeitgeist of the article and the sensibility and sensitivity of your editing trying to preserve it. Dr.K. 13:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Metapolitefsi tensions

When I get some free time, I plan to incorporate into the article information I found here (in Greek). That is, information about the (sometimes extremely) tense and insecure political situation after Karamanlis' arrival; the failed "pijama coup" of February 23rd 1975; the "dejuntafication" (my neologism from denazification, in greek the existing word "αποχουντοποίηση") process, with its adversities and tribulations; important acts of political violence and terrorism (from neo-nazis and junta supporters to leftists and former junta resisters). After all, this is the time 17N appeared. Well, ok, I'm skinning the bear before I kill it here, but since so much work has been put into this article recently, I thought I'd let you all know. Maybe someone could even find a better source than mine. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Dr.K. 13:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The article from Ios is a very strident polemic, falling quite short of wikipedian standards for a neutral point of view. I'm not saying that we shouldn't incorporate their point of view at all, but I am advising caution in presenting their interpretation as a calm depiction of the events. Their breathless, adjective-ridden narration does not nearly merit this much. Editor emptor. 85.196.4.169 21:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a point here: sources need not be NPOV, unlike articles. And I'm sure the other worthy editors working on this article can smooth anything I miss. Anyway, this discussion is pointless until I (or someone else) actually goes on and write the darn thing :-) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

There are a few cases where dejuntification had effects on the economy: A couple of weeks ago, Sunday Kathimerini had an article on the circumstances under which Emporiki Bank was nationalized by Karamanlis - teh article attributed teh nationalization to the dejuntification of Andreadis, who was governor of teh Bank (Andreadis had apparently, at the request of dictator G. Papadopoulos, thrown out Karamanlis's personal belongings out of an appartment Andeadis had allowed Karamanlis to use as a guest in the early 60s). Ironically, the very same bank was re-privalized under teh government of Karamanlis's nephew. The privatization of Olympic Airways may too have been a result of dejuntification.Rastapopoulos 06:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up : Rastapopoulos tags dictator Dimitrios Ioannides as a "political prisoner"

Umm, I thought political prisoners were persons "held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, because their ideas or image are deemed by a government to either challenge or threaten the authority of the state." Does organizing juntas and imposing dictatorships by force of arms qualify as an "idea" in Rastapopoulos's mind?