Talk:Afroditi Latinopoulou

seek consensus

User:Michalis1994 The Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle specifically states : Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change. My comments about your changes are:

there is no need to point out in the introduction that her party is far right. In English WP, it is not common. You can check at the articles of Jordan Bardella or Nigel Farage. D.S. Lioness

Why did you remove cited sentence in Life section ?

Why did you remove this ? In August 2022, Afroditi Latinopoulou announced that she would join the "Patriotic Force for Change" a party of Konstantinos Bogdanos [6] as Vice President. In March 2023 when Bogdanos, decided to cooperate for a joint election with the Patriots – Prodromos Emfietzoglou, Latinoupoulou disagreed and was removed from the coalition.[7]

Please see very carefully EDIT SUMMARY because i explain my changes. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Also Michalis1994, we do not remove other editors comments at talk pages. BabbaQ (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of sources and other minor problems

User:Michalis1994 I am still waiting for your answers. Since I intend to continue to add content to the article it would be good if you could answer my questions so that we can move forward. Do not move the sentence about followers again. You should discuss first.

1. She has repeatedly sparked reactions with her views on women's nature, and human rights, which many Greek journalistic organisations have condemned as hate speech Where exactly do the sources talk about hate speech?

2. "A notable incident occurred in 2022 when she was banned from running with New Democracy after making comments[18] about Greek TV presenter Danae Barka" as I mentioned in edit summary there is already in the paragraph above. Why do you put it twice?

3. Although the party's manifesto lacks information on economic policy, Latynopoulou's ideology is often described.... it's obviously wrong syntax

4. Why don't you write her name as it is in the title?

5. ...and has expressed transphobic views Where exactly do the sources talk about transphobic view?

6. ...It is a celebration of vulgarity, emphasising the sexuality of sadomasochists and other various abnormalities in public view... Where in the source is written ?'

7. Why it is necessary to point out in the introduction that her party is far right? In English WP, it is not common. You can check at the articles of Jordan Bardella or Nigel Farage. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

1) Fixed the sources, which are now backed by proper links. 2) Rephrased to clarify that it was the reason she got banned from running. 3) Fixed grammar. 4) Sure? 5) Fixed. 6) You previously removed that source. 7) Seek consensus; I don't care about other pages.

(Personal attack removed) You didn't attempt to engage in any discussions on this talk page, indicating you'd rather make removals than point out parts you disagree with. Also, nobody cares about a three-year-old statistic from 2021—she has 100k followers on Instagram now, but that doesn't make it relevant at all. Michalis1994 (talk) 06:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Michalis1994 As per a message left on your talk page by Berchanhimez, whom has requested you strikeout your message above as it appears to conflict with Wikipedia's policy on civility, I would advise you to do so to lower the risk of an accusation of a personal attack. - Harpick (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Which part of my text goes against policy on civility? Michalis1994 (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Bringing up an editor's block log on another project without any reason. If you have accusations to make about that editor's conduct on the English Wikipedia, you've already been made aware of how to do that (on the administrator's noticeboard, where you've ceased commenting). While it may sometimes be appropriate to discuss conduct of another editor on a talk page, it is not appropriate to make a comment threatening another editor to attempt to win a content dispute. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Michalis1994 (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Unacceptable whitewashing

As previously mentioned, D.S. Lioness is up to her usual tricks. She's revising entire articles to suit her preferred narrative, prioritising political correctness, calling someone 'obese' without a second thought, and imposing her own skewed view of Greek beauty standards. Frankly, it's astounding. If anyone is on board with her edits, I dare you to take a closer look at the wholesale additions and deletions she's made, even to properly cited academic sources. Here's a gem from her latest round of brilliance:

"The first time she became known to the broader public was in June 2021 with a controversial post where she condemned, among many other things, women's unshaven legs and armpits, referring to unattractive beauty standards attempted to be imposed by minorities."

"This post was followed by other equally controversial ones such as her support for a fertility conference which was annuled due to political correctness as she stafed, her disagreement with the term femicide, the instrumentalization of the victims by the Left, such as the heroisation of Pavlos Fyssas mother or Zak Kostopoulos, her post against Giorgos Kapoutzidis and the extreme rightism of the LGBT community, where, as the article in TO VIMA newspaper says, "self-identification, paedophilia and incest were (deliberately) confused. The more pompous, the better."

"In June 2021 another post about the obesity of a Greek TV presenter caused, apart from many discussions in the media and social media, the following announcement of the New Democracy: "The politician Afroditi Latinoopoulou has no office or position in the organizational chart of the New Democracy, neither at local nor at central level and will not be a candidate in the next national elections."

Also, questionable statements full of grammatical errors, overemphasising the politician's words have been added. This was done to show that the size of addition was constructive:

"Almost all the media perceived and reported the announcement of the New Democracy as the deletion of the politician, she pointed out that "...in my case no procedure was followed and of course no deletion was made, since no body met and no secretary signed any deletion decision. On the contrary, leaks were given to the New Democracy-controlled sites through circles that informed me that I would not be a candidate in the coming elections with the New Democracy party."

The entire controversial section, including consensus through a variety of high quality and respectable articles common in the Greek press, was erased without any discussion. The author brough in questionable sources and even axed scholarly articles addressing her party's extremist tendencies in Greek politics. To cover her tracks, she threw in some meaningless numbers to make it look like she was adding content rather than gutting it. This approach is both deceitful and drastic. I urge other users to review this mess ASAP before it escalates into an edit war. Also, I can't help but wonder if there's a cosy relationship between the author and the party. Michalis1994 (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The content I added was fully verifiable. If you disagree with something you can make changes (improvements) but not reverse my entire edit, which is days of work The content I added was fully verifiable. If you disagree with something you can make changes (improvements) but not to reverse my entire edit, which is days of work unlike you who just copied-paste the party's article. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Response to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements:

<response> D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am responding here to a request for a third opinion. My impression is that there is fundamental disagreement about the tone of the article, which probably is not going to be solved via the lightweight process that is third opinion. I think this dispute is a good candidate for mediated discussion at WP:DRN. I do, however, have a few observations:

• The description of the subject as "far-right" seems uncontroversial. If this is disputed and not merely a casualty of the edit warring, consider attributing the description rather than using Wikipedia's voice, but where they land on the political spectrum seems like important context to include early on in the lead section.
• The paragraph beginning "The first time she became known to the broader public was in June 2021..." seems very trivial and I don't think it rates any mention whatsoever. In general, tabloid journalism about social media posts should get very little to no weight in a WP:BLP. Meanwhile, the revision here does appear to remove some salient information about their political stance such as opposition to same-sex marriage and abolition of pride events, that was cited and certainly relevant to a biography of a politician.
• As discussed at WP:VNOT, content being "fully verifiable" is an insufficient standard to guarantee an edit's or the information's inclusion in an article. Consensus is required, and the onus to achieve consensus is on the editor proposing the addition.
• I have several concerns about source quality in general, but unfortunately I am not familiar enough with Greek-language sources to have a well-informed opinion. The WP:RSN may be able to help with assessment, and a neutrally-worded request for more eyes at WP:GREECE might be helpful as well.
• During a content dispute, it is more important than ever to focus on content, not editors, as discussed at WP:TPG. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope I am allowed to respond to the comments of the user who was kind enough to address our dispute. If during the third opinion process this is forfeited, please reverse my edit.

1. There is no question of reliability of the sources - both Michael's and my edits are based on credible sources. (Personal attack removed) If you take a look at the other articles of Greek politicians you will find the same sources. And besides, if a source can be considered unreliable, it can be replaced. He is revered the entitre text.

2. In essence, my editing consisted of extending the content by incorporating the information provided by Michalis1994 in his own version. There are two differences: that the user did not provide the relevant quote from the sources that verifies what is written while I quote. You can see here, for example: The first time she became known to the broader public was in June 2021 with a controversial post where she condemned, among many other things, women's unshaven legs and armpits, referring to unattractive beauty standards attempted to be imposed by minorities. My reference quotes: "Finally, Latinopoulou managed to go viral!" |quote= ...It condemns unshaven calves, hairy armpits, speaks of unsightly beauty standards that are attempted to be imposed by minorities. There was no shortage of condemnation of cellulite, blotches and all forms of imperfection.

and most importantly the tone of the article. I tried to follow this BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.

There are also other minor problems but I don't want to bore you any further. D.S. Lioness (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I clearly stated the expectations for talk page behavior in my edit above, yet your immediate reply contained an accusation of bad faith leveled at another editor. Quite frustrating, to be honest. Please consider striking that bit. To repeat: I think WP:DRN is the best path forward should the current discussion at WP:ANI not result in an administrative solution. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the contribution. Michalis1994 (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed my personal attack style comment. Now there is only the whitewashing personal attack. D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)