Talk:Andreas Papandreou

Regarding the future of the article

As promised, I am finishing the cleanup (one more subsection to finish). I nearly rewrote everything, and the text size was more than tripled. The latter is kind of an issue given that the length is just below 15000 words, which is the upper limit, see WP:SIZERULE. Some trimming is required. Eventually, some parts can be reduced by transferring into a new article, e.g., the Koskotas scandal deserves a dedicated article.

• Most non-peer-reviewed sources were removed. Sources were expanded to include reliable sources (books, academic journals).
• All the references are neatly organized into different categories, and the Template:Sfn is exclusively used. I cannot stress enough how important this is for the quality of the article... Please use the new template instead of the "< ref >" in the future.
• I have added as many figures/photos as possible without violating copyright. However, more are needed for an article of this size and importance. So if you have any, please include them.
• The most relevant events of Papandreou's life are now accounted for, except for a few things I will explain.
  • I did not touch his psychological problems. For example, before 1981, he was in "deep depression" and recovered with the help of meditation and counseling with a psychiatrist, and again in 1987. Featherstone & Papadimitriou book provides briefly some info on this. Stearns also touches on Andreas's dark moods.
  • I did not detail how the press haunted Papandreou regarding Liani (Liani's nude photos, Papandreou indifference to national mourning for the 1986 Kalamata earthquake victims, making Liani into Eva Perón, etc.), his family fights, or the "pink villa." I found this distracting despite having dominated the political discourse at the time. Some are described in Kaplan's book, but still.
  • I did not include the story in his early years, where he might have snitched against his friends under the Metaxas regime. Stearns provides enough details in his book.
  • I did not include much on the failed separation between State and Church. I only found one good source: Journal of Hellenic Diaspora, 23:1 (1997) by Adamantia Pollis. Maybe for the future. In the current version, there is a tiny mention in the "women's rights" subsection.
  • I did not include how the 1996 Olympic Games were given to Atlanta, Papandreou played a key role in this. A brief description is in the text as a comment (visible only in the edit mode), along with the relevant citation.

I will submit it for assessment in the following days (after finishing the remaining task on populism), and it would be a good idea to keep the article as is till we receive feedback.A.Cython (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

A future note, EgyptAir Flight 648 that was another plane hijacked from the Athens airport in 1985.A.Cython (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Verification needed

There was a verification needed request. I refined the page number and added two more references to reinforce the statement in question. I will provide a few quotes as it is unclear where the issue is. Upon request, I can provide more info for others. Clogg 2013 p. 159

[...] Moreover, the continuing political turmoil and uncertainty served to feed the paranoia of the extra-parliamentary right and to create a dangerous climate of disillusionment with politicians among the population at large. Papandreou had consistently argued that new elections offered the only way out of the most serious political crisis to date in the postwar period. Eventually, these were scheduled to take place, under a non-political ‘caretaker’ government, in May 1967, following agreement between Papandreou and Panayiotis Kanellopoulos, who had succeeded Karamanlis to the leadership of the National Radical Union. But the campaign was overshadowed by demands that Andreas Papandreou’s parliamentary immunity be lifted so that he could be charged with complicity in the Aspida affair. Wrangling over this issue led to the downfall of the ‘caretaker’ government and the king, unusually, charged Kanellopoulos with overseeing the elections. But, within a matter of days, on 21 April, a group of relatively junior officers mounted an efficiently executed coup, the purpose of which was to pre-empt an almost certain Centre Union victory at the polls.

Clogg 1996 p. 383

Andreas Papandreou became a deputy in 1964 and was appointed by his father as alternate minister of co-ordination, the key economic ministry. But the old guard politicians in Georgios Papandreou's entourage did not take kindly to this 'parachutist' who had not worked his passage to high office and who appeared to threaten their own chances of succeeding to the leadership of the Enosis Kentrou (Centre Union). [...] After resigning ministerial office, Andreas Papandreou became the focus for a group of more radical younger deputies on the left of the Enosis Kentrou. There were also allegations that he had links with a 'Nasserite' group of young army officers that went by the name of Aspida, or Shield. When the always somewhat fissiparous Enosis Kentrou fell apart in 1965 and Georgios Papandreou's government collapsed, Andreas Papandreou increasingly became the target of ultra-rightists who feared that following any new elections, which Georgios Papandreou would be likely to win, his son would be the real focus of power in the party. Such fears were among the factors that prompted a cabal of middle-ranking, professionally disgruntled and viscerally anti-Communist army officers to launch the coup of 21 April 1967, which ushered in a seven year period of military rule.

A.Cython (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Recent "too-long" tags

I removed the two tags recently placed because it is unclear if they follow WP rules for two reasons. First, the article is on the waiting list for GA review, so given the controversial topic, placing tags without clear reasoning may be viewed as disruptive or worse. This is not the first time this has happened. Second, the lead is within the range of what is expected for an article of this kind (four paragraphs that adequately but briefly cover the main body). Now, as for the main body, the article is below the 15,000-word limit, see WP:SIZERULE, currently at 14836 words. Note that Winston Churchill has 14850 words and no tags. Given the controversial topic, a lengthy but accurate description vs. a concise description, the former is preferred. Note that three articles (Koskotas scandal, Yugoslav corn scandal, and Greek constitutional crisis of 1985) have been created to reduce some of the text in the main body. A.Cython (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Ya that's not convincing, per sizerule this article is 5,000 words past the point that it "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." You want to talk about Churchill then go talk about it there. As for leadlength, this is 477 words which is squarely in the "too long" category. As for the GA review list, that is exactly why I added these tags there is no prohibition about that. Finally this article does not have contentious topic rules applied. Czarking0 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0 No, you are not convincing, and you are not respecting WP:BRD. First, you have checked the history or, at the very least, asked about it. There was already vandalism by placing tags as [1]. A topic does not need to be in protection to be controversial.

• The average maximum length for a lead is about 400 words, but this is not a strict rule depending on the importance or complexity of the subject as in this case. 77 words is not too long. Read MOS:LEADLENGTH. "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the complexity of the subject and development of the article. [...] Few well-written leads will be shorter than about 100 words. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words." Emphasis added. Note that I attempted to reduce it; it now stands at 445 words.
• There is a difference between "Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material." and "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed". "Probably" means that it is judged case by case, as in Churchill's case; this illustrates the consensus on how to read the rules. You have not made the case as to why this topic is not justified to be that long. So unless you demonstrate your case, I will consider your insertions as vandalism. There is "no prohibition" if the edits are done in good faith, but I do not know that, and by your cavalier reasoning, I become suspicious, and if this continues, I will have to make a report about this. If there are tags like these, it may lead to speedy rejection, which is why I am not particularly tolerant of this. So, no, I do not like the cavalier attitude of including a tag without consensus. Either provide concrete examples in the talk page for me to work on towards achieving this reduction or move to another article and place tags there. You can start with Churchill. Either way, respect WP:BRD. A.Cython (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The Probably ... quote is the 9,000 word guideline this is 5,000 words past the 9,000 word guideline. This talk page is not about Churchill. "but I do not know that" WP:AGF. "If there are tags like these, it may lead to speedy rejection" - right that is why I am adding them. It is hard to give specific feedback on how to shorten the lead without being a subject matter expert but I suspect you can delete the whole final paragraph. The edits you already made are probably a good start. The lead does not cover his personal life much nor his academic career. I think it should cover those as well and then you should find areas to trim out.

You don't tell me what articles to work on. Czarking0 (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I would also remove all the notes from the lead. Anything that needs notes should try to be handled in a way that the notes are not needed. Czarking0 (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

@Czarking0 The response that is why I am adding them as I read is that you admit to vandalising articles. You want to fail them with disruptive behavior. Either justify or provide concrete examples, or you will be reported. As I said, and I apologize if I am blunt, but I do not have a particular tolerance for this; it took me three months to write it and organize the references and double-check them one by one, and while doing this, I had several vandalism attempts derailing the effort. And no, the academic career should not be on the lead as it was not significant, nor it is extensively covered in the main body. Please carefully WP:LEAD, the intro must reflect the main body; and the academic part is not the major part. If you are so interested in his academic career, then create an article about it. If you dislike my suggestions, do not unjustifiably add tags without understanding what you are doing. A.Cython (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I find calling the academic career of the chairman of the UC Berkley economics department insignificant rather odd. Saying it does not belong in the lead as it is not not sufficiently weighted in the body is probably fair. Separately, more article weight should be given to his academic career.

I am adding these tags because you submitted the article to GAN and I believe the tags are warranted. A reviewer may agree with me and QF or they may disagree and something else will happen. If you want to report me for that go ahead and start WP:DR. Either way stop threatening to report me.

"If you are so interested in his academic career, then create an article about it." There is probably a fair point/admission here that his academic career may warrant its own page. As it currently stands, there is not one which may create a coverage issues under GAC. I'll ensure the GAR considers this. Czarking0 (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

No, do not remove the notes, they are there for a reason.A.Cython (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

If you are unfamiliar with the topic, please read the sources first. Andreas's academic career is considered minor compared to his political career. The lead already covers enough on this topic by stating that he became a prominent economist. The same thing with family, with the highlight of his divorce. Otherwise, covering everything under the 400-word limit is impossible, which is why this is not considered a strict rule; again, see Churchill.

Just because you believe that the tags are warranted does not mean anything. Some people believe that the earth is flat. So? You need to convince **me** since I am the lead author or any other leading author on how to improve the article, and you have not convinced me, not one bit. So, drop your high horse and act as an editor instead of a vandal.

As to how prominent he actually was as an economist, I am skeptical, even though I was the one that wrote it. I think some sources say that he is called prominent mainly due to his excellent social skills in academia and later political career, not necessarily due to the impact of his academic body of work.

The fact that you are making the case by slashing without understanding or even listening the person who rewrote the damn thing means that not only you do not understand the WP rules or/and you have an agenda. Also, let the reviewer argue the case. All you are doing is making a vandalism case. Making edits in another's work without the consensus is grounds for vandalism. I am not convinced that you are acting in good faith. For example, you removed the quote of Avrakotos [2] by introducing a subtle WP:POV, i.e., and you removed the information that Avrakotos considered that Andreas was vindictive. I am reverting the recent WP:POV.

Also, stop calling him just Andreas. The consensus in WP is to use the surname out of respect. Your edits by calling him Andreas are disrespectful.

This is my final warning. A.Cython (talk) 02:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I actually do not need to convince you of anything. There is no such thing as a "lead author" on wikipedia and you have no more write to determine what tags belong on this page than I do. Wikipedia operates on consensus if you and I have a difference of opinion and no one else weighs in then there is no consensus you do not get to override me just because you wrote more of the article.

The tags are warranted not because I believe them to be but because the guidelines indicate they are warranted.

"I think some sources say that he is called prominent mainly due to his excellent social skills in academia and later political career, not necessarily due to the impact of his academic body of work." If some sources say that (and they are RS) then that debate over his prominence should be covered in the article. I still smell coverage issues here.

"The fact that you are making the case by slashing without understanding or even listening the person who rewrote the damn thing means that not only you do not understand the WP rules or/and you have an agenda. Also, let the reviewer argue the case. All you are doing is making a vandalism case." I warned you to stop making accusations. This has crossed into uncivil discourse. I'll begin WP:DR in the appropriate venues.

As per the article Among both his supporters and his opponents, Papandreou was referred to simply by his first name, "Andreas," which was a novelty in the Greek political world but necessary for Papandreou to keep some distance from his family name, which had been involved in turbulent politics of the past that brought the 1967 dictatorship and eventually the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. It is reasonable to call him the same thing as many sources. Additionally, the areas I have been editing are constant back and forth between him and his dad which further warrants using first names. Czarking0 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

It does not matter what he was called at his time. In WP, as an encyclopedia, we use surnames. This is a consensus that exists for every biography. Point to me any FA article that violates this. I am telling you that you are **not** familiar with the rules of WP. I still have not seen a solid justification for reductions from you, and until I see some, I will remove the tags tomorrow. If you persist in doing damage in the name of unnecessary reductions, I will consider you a vandal; this is not an accusation or threat. All I have been telling you above is that the way you interpret the rules is based on your personal viewpoint, which does not reflect consensus. You may say it is my opinion, but if you have a problem or disagree, then call an administrator to sort this out. I am reviewing your edits carefully and will undo anything I consider problematic. A.Cython (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I think what this specific person was referred to is more relevant for how his biography refers to him than what other FA articles use. WP has guidelines instead of rules because there are always exceptions. You have seen solid justifications for reductions in accordance with the guidelines and are refusing to recognize them. Czarking0 (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how the Avrakotos quote is important enough to keep. To me, what is important here is the unofficial suggestion to execute Andreas, the exact wording is not really the point. If you had all the space in the world, then the quote is somewhat interesting but it is a fairly easy thing to slash when looking for ways to make the article shorter. Czarking0 (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Either we remove the whole thing with Avrakotos or keep it with the quote. Otherwise, we pick and choose, and this creates a WP:POV. Specifically, it might give some the illusion that Andreas is the good guy or victim and the others are the bad guys. As I mentioned above, Andreas Papandreou was a controversial figure, so sticking to facts and exact quotes is preferable. This increases the size, I know, but it avoids potential angry supporters vandalizing the article. Supporters of Andreas like this quote because it verifies the conspiracy theory that Americans were responsible for the Junta. Go figure.

As for the message that you left me on the talk page. I am all for improving the article, which is why I kept most of your edits. There are some good edits here. However, if you want me to assume good faith, then remove both tags, as I strongly consider them unwarranted. As I said, I am sensitive on this issue, and some editors, including me, do not like tags without the issue being discussed and resolved on the talk page first. A.Cython (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Paraphrasing a quote does not necessarily create a WP:POV issue. If you think my specific paraphrasing of this specific quote is creating a POV issue, then I suggest the you provide alternative paraphrasing or explain why the quote is so important. Maybe MOS:QUOT is useful. "Either we remove the whole thing with Avrakotos or keep it with the quote." This is just a false dichotomy. We must pick an choose as editors that is what makes the encyclopedia. The part of WP:POV that is relevant here is WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. Given the article's size, we should cut things in a manner that does not make a bad balance. One good strategy for doing that is to paraphrase the quotes that are the least worthy of their current weight.

"However, if you want me to assume good faith, then remove both tags, as I strongly consider them unwarranted." This is not how WP:AGF works. You have the responsibility to WP:AGF given my edits without quid pro quo. Czarking0 (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

You are not just paraphrasing; you (accidently) insert a particular point of view on a very sensitive topic in Greek history and, on top of that, on a very controversial figure. No, I do not dare to paraphrase, as I prefer to be as exact as the quote was. It would avoid WP:POV accusation down the road. I have mentioned repeatedly that this topic requires precision instead of conciseness because it creates issues. You are not showing good faith since several of your edits (keep insisting labeling by the first name, POV, etc) tend to be more disruptive than constructive. You have not justified the reductions or the presence of the tags. I'm already cleaning up your mess. A.Cython (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)