Talk:List of heads of state of Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve List of heads of state of Greece, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
List This page is not an article and does not require a rating.
NA This non-article does not require a priority assigned.

Contents

[edit] Dictators

Dear 194.177.207.180, I rolled back your edits. Ofcource they were dictators, the whole period is listed under "Dictatorship". The president/regent (antivasileas) distiction is important, and needs to be preserved. Second, whether people liked it or not (I didn't) Gizikis was president for a period of time even after the metapolitefsi, and for this reason he needs to be listed in both sections. Cheers, Sysin.

[edit] Merge?

I think the two lists of Presidents and Kings should be merged into one list of heads of state. Currently the two have holes in between, directing the reader to the other.

Also, in the case of Kapodistrias it is unclear whether he was a President or a monarch. In the case of the colonels' regime, we have two regents for the exiled king - currently the regents are listed on the presidential list though they formally acted in the name of the king who is listed on the kingly list.

The explanation of the status of the President can be moved into a President of Greece article. It seems that this refers to the post-73 presidents and not necessarily to those of earlier times.

Any thoughts? Any objections? If not, I will go a head. Str1977 (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose They are two different entities. The Presidents represent the republics of Greece, while the Kings represent the Kingdoms of Greece. El Greco(talk) 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Kings don't exist in Greece anymore. The current and future head of the Greek State is called the President of Greece. Dr.K. (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Obviously I support my proposal.

We have lists like this for many nations. Even for those had even more changes in the form of government than Greece has.

The nation state of Greece is still the same nation state of Greece right? What about Kapodistrias or Papadopulous?

The new article would be called "List of heads of state of Greece" (or the like). Of course, this article would explain the transfer of powers.

Also consider that there is only one List of Prime Ministers of Greece. Str1977 (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on: Also, in the case of Kapodistrias it is unclear whether he was a President or a monarch. (above).
Quote from the Ioannis Kapodistrias article: Kapodistrias retired to Geneva, where he was greatly esteemed, having been made an Honorary Citizen for his past services to Swiss unity and particularly to the cantons. In 1827, he learned that the newly-formed Greek National Assembly had, as he was the most illustrious Greek-born politician in Europe, elected him as the first head of state of newly-liberated Greece, with the title of Kivernetis (Κυβερνήτης - Governor). In Greek Κυβερνήτης means Governor not Monarch and he was elected by the Greek National Assembly, something that no self respecting Monarch ever did. Κυβερνήτης is equivalent to President. Papadopoulos was a (junta) President. Dr.K. (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
That's your interpretation of the things. Governor means Governor - was the Greek state back then called a Republic? There are indeed elective monarchs. But that all is beside the point: I think my proposal is justified in itself because republic and monarch alternate in Greek history and are sometimes blurred (the Colonels' regime). Str1977 (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
There could have been elected monarchs, but not in Greece. And certainly they wouldn't have called them Governors. Papadopoulos was a president. Dr.K. (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
After 1973. Before that he was "regent" - but he is placed in the presidential list. That's what I mean: if we had one list, we could clearly distinguish without having to send readers back and forth. Str1977 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
He was also Prime Minister and... and.... He did like to try offices for size as if they were clothes. What can you do? That was Georgios. Anyway to address your proposal, my concern is that Greece has now a Presidential system. Presidents, therefore, are a growing population. The list of Kings or Queens is not growing. The List of Presidents is a dynamic thing that will keep on increasing. To deny their presidential status and call them generically "heads of state" because of a historical and bygone era, just so as to accommodate the past monarchs on the same list, seems artificial. It's like trying to shove a living thing in the same place as the outdated relics of the past. Dr.K. (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No one is denying their presidential status. The list would clarify what the individual title of each head of state was or is. john k (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how joining the two lists makes them more encyclopedic. If anything you're comparing apples and oranges. The kings were the rulers of the country, and the presidents were the heads of state. Let's join them just for the sake of having one list rather than two? They are two different political entities that have nothing in common with each other. That doesn't qualify joining them into one list. El Greco(talk) 01:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You caught it John. I knew it would happen. I used the phrase deny their presidential status colloquially. I should have rephrased it as to not explicitly state their presidential status in favour of a generic term such as head of state. Dr.K. (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
We would, of course, explicitly state their presidential status, just not in the article title. john k (talk) 03:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict): Further clarification: My original comment referred only to the title of the proposed new article (list) not on the actual description of the presidents inside the actual list, where they would, of course, appear as presidents. (How did I get into this?) Dr.K. (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure presidents would be called presidents, kings kings, regents regents, governors governors etc. I prefer the more general "heads of state for the title". If we must use "Kings and Presidents" in the title, the first line should at least state "This article is a list of Kings, President and other heads of state of Greece". Str1977 (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC) (PS. Do retain the gap between these comments John's vote in the next line. Thanks.
  • I agree with str - it makes sense to have one list, since there've been two distinct periods of republican and monarchical government, each. john k (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I also support a single list. It could contain separate sections for the various eras, indicating kings or presidents or whatever, but with the alternateing titles that have historically been used I think it makes most sense to merge them into a single list. John Carter (talk) 02:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I support merging the list, since the state, Greece, is the same whether ruled by kings or presidents, but for descriptive purpose I suggest List of Kings and Presidents of Greece. Also, I don't think this merge is urgent or needed, but I see no reason to separate such relatively short lists which are so closely related. (Full disclosure: Str requested my opinion.) Srnec (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A fair comment. Well delivered and balanced. I also liked the attempt at compromise: List of Kings and Presidents of Greece. That was so politically correct, alas at the expense of brevity. Kudos for diplomacy. Dr.K. (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I still would call the list "List of heads of state", exactly because of those persons that were neither King nor President: Kapodistrias and Papadopolous (prior to 1973). PS. I notified three individual editors (not all my friends) and two Wikiprojects of the proposal. Str1977 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Well done. The wider the consultation the better the final decision. Dr.K. (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
A similar list for Italy exists: List of Presidents of the Italian Republic. Italy was also a monarchy. This did not preclude it from having a Presidents list. Dr.K. (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Italy had a monarchy for 85 years, followed by a republic for 62 years and counting. In Greece there was a period of about ten years with preliminary arrangements, followed by a monarchy for 92 years, followed by a republic for 11 years, followed by a monarchy for 38 years, followed by a republic for 35 years and counting. This is a more complicated situation, and there are advantages to a merge which would not be present in the Italian case. john k (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on the advantages? Dr.K. (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
We would have one continuous list of heads of state, rather than two articles, each of which contains several discontinuous lists. john k (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. Not a bad point. We risk arguing about minutiae at this stage. Not sure if it's worth it. Dr.K. (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Both John K and Str make a good point, though: the current setup forces you to jump back and forth if you are surveying the history of the Greek state, which in the Italian case is just not so. Srnec (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I support the merger into a single "Heads of state" list. It makes for a far better overview of the regime changes, and includes such 'grey' areas as the regents and presidents of the Junta. Either way, there already exists a single template for all Greek heads of state. Cplakidas (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, as the Greek Head of sate, kept going back-and-forth between 'King' and 'President'. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Compare the (almost precisely parallel) List of Presidents of the French Republic; I think both lists are confusing now. Merging them won't be much worse, but a little. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How would merging the King and President lists make things (a little) worse?
Also, just because a similar problem exists with France (though less so, as there is only one gap 1852-1870) doesn't mean that we cannot fix this problem here. Str1977 (talk) 02:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The List of Kings would be much clearer if it were a simple list of eight names, with dates; we don't need two entries for George II, just one entry with two sets of dates. Inserting Presidents between the two reigns would make this harder still. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Dr.K. (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
And taking both points together I conclude that both lists at the least must be reformatted: why is a "list of 8 names" currently so long??? Srnec (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you add the infobox and the lines of succession inside the box you soon have an inflated balloon of an article with precious little primary content. Dr.K. (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that if a king has to periods of rule he should appear twice in the list, though one wikilink is enough.
But all these are questions apart from the merger proposal. If I am counting correctly we have 5 in favour of the merge, 1 decidely against it and 1 (Dr. K) wavering from his initial opposition. Str1977 (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Given the above tally I have implemented the merger. Details (as already expressed above) can be discussed in a new section. Str1977 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further issues

I gather from above that the following issues may still be open to dispute:

  • The actual title of the new, merged list.
  • Descriptions of transitions explained in the list.

There are also issues I would like to clear up:

  • Does the "governing council" that ruled in anticipation of King Otto really belong under the Governorate or is it already part of the Kingdom?
  • Does the title "Diadochos" refer only to Otto's Kingdom, only to the Glückburg monarchy or to both?
  • Does Georgios Kondylis stint as regent belong under the 2nd Republic or already under the monarchy?

Please post any other issues. Str1977 (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Much improved! Srnec (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The pictures (including those of the Kings and Regents) should be included into the list. Str1977 (talk) 11:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to know what other editors think about the position of two transitional heads of state: Kondylis, whom Str1977 has already mentioned, and Gizikis. On Kondylis, I would prefer him straight in the monarchy period. In Gizikis' case, he was retained post the fall of the junta, but Greece was then in a constitutional limbo. He is certainly not regarded as among the presidents of the Third Republic, as it was established de jure only after the December plebiscite, after which Gizikis resigned to be replaced by Stasinopoulos (who is considered the first President of the 3rd Rep. in almost all official sources). This ought to be somehow further clarified. Additionally, between Otto and George I there was a period of Regency, although there was, AFAIK, no Regent, but again, the leadership was exercised collectively. Does anyone know anything more on this? Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I agree that Kondylis should be placed within the monarchy and that Gizikis should be moved entirely to the pre-Third Republic period. Dividing his term of office seems artificial.
If there was a collective regecny before the accession of George I, it should be included. We already have that in case of Otto's accession. The question still remains, shouldn't the latter regency be included in the 1st monarchy section? Str1977 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
PS. The "Diadochos" issue is still not resolved. Str1977 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The "Diadochos" was the term used throughout the monarchy period. However I am not sure whether the term had any official sanction as a "title", rather than being merely a "job description". "Duke of Sparta" on the other hand was a special title, although less well-known. Otherwise, I agree with your position. Good work in re-formatting the article! Cplakidas (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the info. A bit tricky to include.
Regarding the 1st governing council: since it begins in April and the London Conference decided on monarchy only in May (and after that, the decisions had to be ratified), the council should belong to the pre-Kingdom phase. Unless there was another decisive step from a "republican" council to a monarchical one.
The Regency council of 1862 I included into the Wittelsbach section for two reasons:
  • it clearly does precede the Glücksburg monarchy with its title "King of the Greeks"
  • it should not be a section of its own as a) it is quite empty, b) the fact that there's no picture would mess up the table formatting.
Str1977 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the Regency established itself exactly because Greece during that time was neither under the Wittelsbachs nor under any other dynasty. I know it looks odd, but having them under the Wittelsbachs, whom they had just deposed, is, IMHO, wrong. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no other way withouthing wrecking the format (I cannot do the "picture needed" trick here as there can be no picture.
Also, to place it under the Wittelsbach is in a certain way correct: Yes, they drove Otto out but as there was no new king Otto could still be considered the rightful monarch - at least there was no change regarding consitution or anything. That only came with the Glücksburgs.
Another solution would be if we could insert the dynastic headers into the table. Str1977 (talk) 11:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date format

Why are some commas still present in dates when the source text has no commas? If we cannot fix this, I will reinstate the commas as it is better to violate the MoS than to wreck the uniformity of this list here. Str1977 (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)