Talk:Georgios Papadopoulos

Beloyannis Trial #2

Unless citation is given for Papadopoulos's alleged vote against the death sentence of Beloyannis, I am removing it. I have searched left and right and can find no substantiation for this, apart from anonymous junta apologisers and right wingers' claims on internet forums. I'm afraid that won't cut it. Giving the editors some days to substantiate this allegation, in the spirit of good faith, nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.55.226 (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Torturing by the junta

This article seems to have been written by right-wing fanatics intentionally keeping out the many reports of torture under Papadopoulos' regime. I have included some information about the torture which was commonplace under his rule. This is written in many records which can be found on the internet. Such as http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Greece_KH.html

I find the "right-wing fanatics" accusation too far fetched... At least I am not one... The article already mentions the Amnesty International report. If you want to add more references like the one you linked to above, go on ahead and do it, it would be more than welcome. I would only argue that this article is about Pappadopoulos, not the junta. It would be much more constructive to refer to the torturing elaborately in the junta article and in fact that I think is also needed there. Maybe a brief summary of the junta atrocities would be enough for the Pappadopoulos article, although that is to be discussed upon and decided. For the addition you made in the Beloyannis section please see below. Michalis Famelis 21:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Beloyannis Trial

I took out the POV phrase "parody trial" in reference to the Beloyannis trial. If we can find a famous person who called it a show trial (and I'm sure Pravda et. al. did have authors who called it just that at the time) then we should include it. But this is unsourced and sounds like the personal opinion of the Wikipedian who put it there.--Jpbrenna 01:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I added the "parody" comment again. The events of the trial contribute to this fact.Judging from the movie about the trial, there were at least two events:

1) Beloyannis disputed the validity of evidence documents; although it was stated that some of the encrypted documents were destroyed, the key was supposedly found. Beloyannis stated that a person would first destroy the decryption key, if encryption has a purpose at all. The court, however, did not consider this statement; it would not even consider the documents at least as "disputable". 2) Statements of a witness were contradicting after being questioned by Beloyannis. The court did not consider this.

Furthermore, the trial of a citizen under a military court while a state is not in war contributes to a parody trial.

And although the term parody is higly acceptable by Greek People(yes, even non-Pravda readers) here is a link to an issue of a greek newspaper of canada that uses it [1]

That is an op-ed piece that is extremely POV, not a Greek reference work! There are totally different standards for the two types of publications. This even calls Beloyannis a Hero with a capital "eta" in its title. If this columnist wants to say that, fine. But that is Ellinikos Typos, not Wikipedia.

Look, I'm not saying that the trial didn't have problems. But even the O. J. Simpson trial is not described as a "farce," "parody," "show trial," "comedy-of-errors" etc. on Wikipedia, even though many users might agree with one or more of those terms. Why not? Because it is a POV expression. Most people (myself included) would agree that Hitler was a "murdering bastard", but that isn't how the Adolf Hitler article opens. Seeing the pattern here? This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for your political views. I'm not trying to censor your content - if anything, you should add information about the trial and Pappadopoulos's participation in it, but your POV phrasing is unacceptable.

--Jpbrenna 19:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added some information to the trial section. Here is the "parody" qoute excerpted from that article. If you want to translate it and cite it as that columnist's opinion, I have no objections. Presenting it as a "fact" when it is clearly POV, however, is a problem.--Jpbrenna 21:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Η θανατική ποινή από την πρώτη δίκη στο έκτακτο στρατοδικείο δεν τους ικανοποιούσε, ήθελαν περισσότερη «νομιμοφάνεια». Έτσι οργάνωσαν μια δεύτερη παρωδία δίκης, την θανατική ποινή την οποία έσπευσαν να πραγματοποιήσουν γρήγορα, γρήγορα, φοβούμενοι την αντίδραση του λαού, αλλά και την παγκόσμια κατακραυγή πού φούντωνε σαν παλοιριακό κύμα.

I removed the frase "Right wing fanatics claim that", that User:62.103.254.103 added. It seems too POVish, and also:

• it is not quite relevant who makes such allegations, imho
• Using "claim" and "alleged" in the same sentence twice is unecessary. If you are a greek speaker compare to this: "Ισχυρίζονται οτι ο Παππαδόπουλος φερεται να..."
• Even if Pappadopoulos had voted for life sentence there is no way to know that, as the vote was secret.

On the grounds of the latter, I would argue that maybe the "what Pappadopoulos secretly voted" should not be mentioned alltogether. The only fact is that he was one of the judges. In fact I removed that part too ("be bold in editing" isn't it?)! Michalis Famelis 21:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

POV

This article is very negative and POV. It needs more information and better wording.

Articles about traitors can only be negative Elp_gr

Guy Montag 03:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have been rejigged now.....do we really need POV warnings slapped all over the article still? (Have to admit I have a problem with them anyway, if something is POV just rewrite it rather than embarress the original author!! Thats the power of Wiki!!) 80.177.152.156

I poved the wording of the current information, and I don't know how accurate it is. I will redo the article, when I have the time sometimes next week.

Guy Montag 20:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the POV warning because I don't think there is anything POV left in. It has been worked over enough to achieve a level of NPOVness. Michalis Famelis 21:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Here in Greece, we have an "awakening" of extreme-right wing and pro-nazi elements close to an opportunist extreme-right wing party named LA.O.S. (this party is led by Giorgos Karatzaferis and it includes such... intellectual gems as Kyriakos Velopoulos, a rather prominent peddler of books containing nationalistic conspiracy theories mixed with a great deal of UFOlogy, religious fanaticism and smidgens of archeolatry) and they've launched lynch mobs against anyone who criticizes the dictatorship or nazism. Elp gr (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Papadopoulos as a conspirator in the '60ies

I have added a section of his career in the '60ies. It may be accused as POV, but my sources have been

1. the encyclopedia "Hydria" (Υδρία), a school student oriented and well known encyclopedia (publ.company Aksiotellis & Co)
2. a 60ies chronicle by the right wing newspaper Kathimerini of 12 December 1998, written by K.Giourgos, K.Liontis, G.Delastik.

I believe that these are reliable, NPOV sources and I have not twisted what they said. I merely translated and mixed the two texts. (that's not a copyright violation right?)

Concerning the Sabotage of 1965 I couldnt find exactly HOW and WHEN it was proven that Papadopoulos did it, but in both texts it is said that it was later proved he was guilty. Also the MP's public accusation of 1966 I believe proves that he was Guilty.

Michalis Famelis 2 July 2005 14:52 (UTC)

Guy Montag, I see your point for deleting a big part. Indeed "voter fraud and sabatoge needs readable source". So here Aleksis Papachelas's (Αλέξης Παπαχελάς) book "O Viasmos tis Ellinikis Dimokratias" ("Ο Βιασμός της Ελληνικής Δημοκρατίας", "The Rape Of Greek Democracy") (bookstore link in greek here).

Also there is a reference here on the sabotage. Again in greek at the website of the newspaper Eleftherotypia on the sabotage of 1965.

Michalis Famelis 2 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)

Sadly, I cannot read Greek. Hence, I cannot see the character legitimacy level of the source. Perhaps it came from someone with an axe to grind, or a propagandist, or even a legitimate source. I cannot confirm it. I need an English source to clear up the controversy. If you can provide an English source, I would not see a problem with including it. If it is widely known, there is no reason for the same information to not appear in other historical documents.

Guy Montag 2 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)

The problem is that finding sources in English for minor events in Greek history (such as a sabotage) is mostly impossible. I think I can only provide greek sources. And as I have cited before my sources include a school-oriented (for christ's sake!) encyclopedia, a mainstream right wing newspaper (Kathimerini) along with a mainstream left-of-centre newspaper (Elefhterotypia) and a book writen by a journalist (Papachelas) that is considered credible in Greece. A piece of a review on his aformentioned book can be seen here. I think my sources are reliable. What do you think?

Michalis Famelis 3 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)

I think that they may be reliable sources. But can you link to the article in these journals that cite this information? Is it historical fact that he sabotaged equipment, or simply an accusation? Is it historical fact that he tried to rig an election or an accusation? If it is a fact, what is the context for his actions? It is not enough that something is mentioned, it needs to be carefully checked. For some reason, European strongmen get more detailed information in their biography, but such an important figure from Greece did not. We need to fix this.

Guy Montag 3 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

Family

This was a very good source: http://archive.enet.gr/1999/06/28/on-line/keimena/politics/pol2.htm We don't have anything about the wives and family, and we should incorporate that here. --Jpbrenna 3 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)

Miscellanea

• What were the first names of Col. Kourkoulakos & Gen. Gogousis?
• Were these Patras-based "Evzoni" regiments just re-activations of Evzones? Some of the officer corps and some troops got away to Crete and then British Headquarters, Middle East, right? So the Germans probably raised new regiments with built around as many as the old troops whom they could find. Whether I'm right or I'm wrong, we need more details. If they were something else entirely from the Evzones, we should probably start a separate article for them. --Jpbrenna 3 July 2005 06:09 (UTC)

About the "Evzoni"

• In fact I wrote the word "Evzoni" as the plural form of the word in greek is pronounced: εύζωνοι. Maybe "Evzones" would be better as an article already exists.
• BUT there is an issue here. During the occupation the Germans did raise new regiments, which were fashioned after the Evzones. But I have serious doubts if the old evzones soldiers and officers had anything to do with that. In fact the regiments that the Germans raised, never fought against the allies and were primarily concerned with fighting the Resistance. The contemptuous word "Γερμανοτσολιάς" "Germanotsolias" (the word "tsolias" refers to the way the Evzones were -and are still- dressed) was used for these troops which are considered as traitorous scum. The more general name for those troops (which were not all dressed as Evzones) is "Τάγματα Ασφαλείας" ("Tagmata Asfaleias": "Security Battalions") and the word "Ταγματασφαλίτης" ("Tagmatasfalitis": a member of the aformentioned battalions) is still used by greek leftists to denote a "far-right winger that works for the police": they were generally far-right winger anticommunists, and usually even harsher than the Germans. Maybe a seperate article for them would be proper. It would be wrong to assiociate the Evzones with them the same way as it is wrong to eg assosiate the deGaulle government in exile with the Vichy Quisling.
• And something important about Papadopoulos here. The sources I recited do not mention that he was a "Tagmatasfalitis", but rather that his boss created the Patras branch. Papadopoulos may have something to do with that, but it remains to be found.

I thought he was first lieutenant with the "security battalions"... Elp gr 15:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I created a subsection at Evzones. The Germanotsolies should have their own article.

Michalis Famelis 3 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)

There is a cnn source that says that George Papadopoulos fought in the resistance during the German occupation, but thought of the communists a bigger threat than the Germans. Can this be confirmed?

Guy Montag 4 July 2005 00:37 (UTC)

So far, he's known as a member of the "security battalions", not as a partisan. Elp gr 15:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Have edited the page to correct information on Papadopoulos family life, explaining how he got a divorce in 1970 and correcting the information that he had issue from his second wife (he did not). Have also edited the section about the Beloyannis trial, distinguishing between the two trials (Papadopoulos was only involved in the first one). There is a rumour doing the rounds on the internet and off it that Papadopoulos voted for a life sentence, but I have never seen any proof and have thus put in what I hope is a very careful reference. I note the controversy above about the trial. I would not myself call it a "show trial". In my opinion the problem was not in the trial itself, but rather the Greek legislation of the time. In the first trial, Beloyannis was certainly guilty of what he was being charged with (being a communist) and had no problem admitting it himself. In this sense, the trial was not a "show trial" although very many people (myself included) would question laws punishing someone with death for what he believed in. There is also no doubt that Beloyannis was involved with the transmitters, they were part of the Communists' underground network of which he was in charge. Whether this should be called "espionage" is another story, they were used to communicate with the exiled Communist leaders in the Soviet Union and not the Soviets themselves. On the other hand neither the Greek Right of the time nor the communists themselves would find it easy to distinguish between Greek Communists and Soviet communists. I have preferred a more general reference since, after all, this article is not about Beloyannis. My intention is neither to present my own POV nor to offend anyone.

Papadopoulos and his regime: a terrorist group?

This Greek-language article [2] attributes the blowing up of a cypriot Comet 4B plane with its 59 passengers and 7-member crew on October 12, 1967 to the junta, which was the only party in Greece or Cyprus that could make this high-tech kind of bomb (radio-operated) back then. They seemingly wanted to get rid of their own Georgios Grivas. Elp gr 15:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

--

I lived in Greece and went to school throughout the junta's years. So I know for a fact that the works of Aristoteles and Sophocles were not banned. Such a thing would be ludicrous. Also I know for a fact that martial law was declared, people were rounded up, were beaten (I saw such in the street), and censorship was widespread. Church attendance was not made mandatory, as many people then (as now) do not attend church.

It is well known that some torture took place. Books have been written about it. (See: Amnesty International, Torture in Greece: The First Torturers' Trial 1975 (London: Amnesty International, 1975); James Becket: Barbarism in Greece: A Young Lawyer's Inquiry into the Use of Torture in Contemporary Greece with Case Histories and Documents.) This is a very charged matter, but I think it is fair to say that the Greek junta was far less bloody than other dictatorships of that time, and probably less bloody than some democracies of today, for that matter.

I dispute that there were 8,000 victims of the junta in the *first month*. I don't know the exact number. I think that the more general expression that thousands were thrown to jail throughout the junta years is more appropriate. Dianelos 15:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Mandatory church

Etz Haim asserts that church attendance was made mandatory. What is your source, Etz? By "mandatory" do you mean they were actually rounding up people on the street at gunpoint, or was it a more subtle situation where you risked losing your government job or being disciplined in the army etc. if you were a known church-skipper? --Jpbrenna 16:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Even before the coup, church attendance was mandatory in schools. Also, during the junta, university students were required to go to church every week and even confess their sins (!!!). This information comes from my parents who were university students at that time - and also their old friends from that period. Even to this day, when you go to serve the Greek armed forces, it is claimed that you are required to go through mandatory catechism (not just mandatory church attendance), unless you identify yourself as an atheist. Elp_gr

Even if the above is true the original general phrase in the main article "church attendance was made mandatory" would be misleading. Now I must say that the idea that hundreds of thousands of university students were forced to go to church every week and confess their sins is implausible. Maybe there was some such directive issued somewhere in the junta government, but it certainly was not enforced in any way, shape or color to the student population at large. What I can unequivocally state is that during my 7 years at school (not university) during the junta we were only once driven to a nearby church, and I guess this has always been part of religious class. Dianelos 20:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's perfectly plausible. If you didn't go to church and didn't confess, there was an assistant there taking notes of who was present and who wasn't and, if you weren't, you simply didn't pass the class. At least, that was what was happening in the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and, more specifically, the School of Philosophy, which basically mostly produces literature teachers for high schools. Elp gr (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Papadopoulos' record during the Axis Occupation

I hear that Georgios Papadopoulos was a captain in the infamous Security Battalions created by the Nazis during their occupation of Greece. I find it odd that nowadays very few people talk about it... Elp gr 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the main problem. Without references or citations these are just allegations, rumours or hearsay. I haven't heard this before. However if you can find any reputable references feel free to add them to the text. Dr.K. 02:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:21April1967emblem.PNG

Image:21April1967emblem.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Junta.jpg

Image:Junta.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletions by user TheTimesAreAChanging

On 3 October 2015, User:TheTimesAreAChanging deleted (here) longstanding content from the lead, leaving the following edit summary: "Removed discredited nonsense from worthless sources." The content in question:

. . . , and in the postwar years he received intelligence training in the United States and has been claimed he became a CIA agent. . . . It has been claimed that Papadopoulos was the first CIA agent to govern a European country.

He did this without explaining how it was discredited or why the sources are worthless. I decided to independently dig for some answers on the matter and found a variety of sources confirming these suspicions.

• Randall Bennett Woods, History Professor at the University of Arkansas, in his book Shadow Warrior: William Egan Colby and the CIA, a book inspired by the story of CIA whistleblower William Colby: "In 1967, a group of neo-fascist colonels had staged a coup and and seized power in Greece. They installed George Papadopoulos, who had been on the CIA payroll off and on since the 1950s, as president."
• Tim Weiner, former New York Times reporter and Pulitzer Prize winner, in his book Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA, which won him the National Book Award: "Most of it came from members and supporters of "the colonels"—the Greek junta that seized power in April 1967, led by George Papadopoulos, a recruited CIA agent since the days of Allen Dulles, and the KYP's liaison to the agency."
• Dr. Andreas Constandinos again confirms in America, Britain and the Cyprus Crisis of 1974: Calculated Conspiracy or Foreign Policy Failure? that William Colby had admitted "the agency had 'worked with' George Papadopoulos in the Colonel's 'official capacity'".
• Daniele Ganser in NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe writes: "The new ruler George Papadopoulos had operated as KYP's liaison officer with the CIA ever since 1952 and within the KYP was known to be the trusted man of CIA chief of station [Jack] Maury."
• In The Independent, in George Papadopoulos's Obituary, Dr Robert Shannan Peckham (Democracy 2500 Fellow in Aegean Studies at St Peter's College, Oxford) writes: "Between 1959 and 1964 [Papadopoulos] served as a staff officer in the Greek Central Intelligence Agency (KYP), following a period in which it is claimed that he was trained by the CIA in the United States."
• According to The Economist, in their Obituary post, there is an even further reaching claim that historians are divided over: "It is unclear whether America’s intelligence service, the CIA, had a hand in the coup that installed Mr Papadopoulos and his military friends: historians are divided on the matter." Apart from that, they also confirm earlier claims: "He had been attached to a Greek army intelligence unit that had links with the CIA."
• William Blum wrote a lot more about Papadopoulos than just in his book. He is an acclaimed Historian and writer, so should not be brushed off so easily. An excerpt can be found here: "A CIA report dated 23 January 1967 had specifically named the Papadopoulos group as one plotting a coup, and was apparently one of the reports discussed at the February meeting. Of the cabal of five officers which took power in April, four, reportedly, were intimately connected to the American military or to the CIA in Greece. The fifth man had been brought in because of the armored units he commanded. George Papadopoulos emerged as the defacto leader, taking the title prime minister later in the year. The catchword amongst old hands at the US military mission in Greece was that Papadopoulos was "the first CIA agent to become Premier of a European country"."

So, does this somehow not warrant the required material to say that he was at least claimed by some to have worked for/with the CIA? And yes, it IS important and notable, as this discussion and these sources both indicate. It deserves to be in the lead and I will reinsert it if no one else does.

PS: Does anyone else notice that all English sources use "George Papadopoulos" instead of "Georgios Papadopoulos"? Shouldn't this be changed per WP:UE? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice that all English sources use "George Papadopoulos" instead of "Georgios Papadopoulos"? No. A simple Google book search shows that "Georgios Papadopoulos" is quite common in English books with 3860 hits and it is more common than "George Papadopoulos" with only 3260 hits. Dr. K. 23:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Why those search terms? I'm probably missing something but with quotation marks it's different (see Georgios-8,400 vs. George-142,000). Anyway, that's not really the priority. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Those search terms were chosen so that only the Papadopoulos associated with the junta would be searched, as opposed to every other Papadopoulos on the planet. "-llc" is a search term excluding Wikipedia mirrors. Your search, is a general Google search, not a Google Books search which searches academic sources, and has caught all people called "Georgios Papadopoulos" or "George Papadopoulos" including their emails, twitter and facebook pages. I don't think these people are the dictator. For starters he is dead and second I don't think he ever had an email, twitter account or a facebook page. Dr. K. 23:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah but you see, you didn't use any quotation marks. That means it will include those results where "George" was used or where the names Georgios and Papadopoulos were seperate and referring to seperate people. The search with quotation marks gives 555 for Georgios and 1,820 for George. Anyhow, can we please focus on the matter at hand? As I said that's not all that important. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 09:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

With no other responses, I guess I'll reinstate it with the new sources to back it up. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The article currently states: "He underwent military and intelligence training in the United States during the 1950s, and had connections to the CIA." I tagged the term "connections" for needing clarification. The footnotes use a shotgun approach here: he was "on the CIA payroll", he was "a recruited CIA agent", he was "the KYP's liaison to the [CIA]", the CIA "worked with" him, he was the "KYP's liaison officer with the CIA", he was a "trusted man" of a COS, he was "trained by the CIA", his Greek Army intelligence unit had links (also vague) to the CIA, he was "the first CIA agent to become Premier of a European country".

Well, what does it mean to be "on the payroll"? Was he a CIA officer? (I am pretty sure that you cannot be an employee of the CIA if you are not a US Citizen.) Was the CIA giving him money, and for what purpose? Similarly, what does it mean to be a "CIA agent"? Those who are employed by the CIA are called "officers"[3]. What was he supposedly recruited by the CIA to do? - Location (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

William Colby answered these questions during the hearing to nominate him to DCI.[4] I will come back and edit this some other time. - Location (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. I am not familiar with Greek politics, but it seems like the claims overstating Georgios Papadopoulos's "connections" to the CIA originate with Andreas Papandreou's statements in 1973. The potential for sour grapes exists as it was his government that was overthrown by the coup led by Papadopoulos. I have added information on this and preserved the links above, however, I think those could be cleaned up. - Location (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, addition statements by Papandreou in 1968 and 1972 here. Given that these pre-date the article and allegations in The Observer, there should be some mention of this. (Probably not relevant here, but Papandreou reiterated the conspiracy theory that Korean Air Lines Flight 007 was on a CIA spy mission.) - Location (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Location: You may find this academic source useful.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Good find! - Location (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm responding to this after seeing it three years later, but since your response was also four years later, it feels fitting. The changes are largely not appropriate. We've basically returned to the state of the article before my initial edits, where any CIA involvement claims are given only the briefest editorialized ("claimed") mention while contradicting sources are given a detailed paragraph each. I'm seeing the same thing at the reports of him having collaborated with the Nazis during WW2. You see 7 sources stating that he did and 1 source stating that he didn't, and somehow it's still phrased as if he didn't... This is blatant POV. I've tagged the article as undue and will start making some edits to fix this. It's a lot of work though. I'll address some of the specifics here first and make clear what I'm going to change to start with, and why:

• It shows a clear bias when every supporting source merely "claims" and every opposing source "states", "finds evidence", "determines" etc. (see WP:SAID). Also note how much attention is given to each source. I'll try rewording and summarizing them to account for due weight.
• The fact that the sources don't unanimously describe the exact same type of CIA ties is no argument against them, and none of the sources treat it as a problem. We're talking about CIA involvement with a foreign political leader. It's not exactly going to be a contract with a written job description. Whatever it was and regardless of whether he was paid, we have many high quality sources all agreeing that he had connections to the CIA. That much has been established. Leaving it at "various sources have claimed" and following that by three paragraphs discrediting this is not neutral. I removed the OR parts and reworded the rest to conform to the sources.
• "The source for much of Foley's story was Andreas Papandreou" as a quote is heavily misleading. For one, it's original research, as the two articles cited make no such claim. But upon further inspection it's also simply untrue. The crux of the argument, that Papadopoulos had connections to the CIA, was not sourced to Papandreou. Papandreou is the source for the KYP having been an arm of the CIA during his tenure. For the entire rest of the article, the Observer names numerous other independent sources directly and leaves some other unknown sources unnamed, as newspapers do when it comes to sensitive information. I'm removing this part. Wikipedia reports sources. To start personally questioning their sources too sets an absurd burden of proof.
• The third paragraph is written by a CIA agent who is reported by at least one other source as having been directly involved with Papadopoulos. Fine since it's mentioned, but it is curious how his credibility isn't brought into question when Papandreou's was. Anyhow, the excerpts from the article used once again paint a misleading image. Too much attention is given to an early plan to support moderate opponents that was discarded anyway, and the paragraph falsely writes that it "caught everyone off guard" when Maury phrases it very differently. It's also unnecessarily wordy. We don't need to cover the whole article. Shortening and rewording this to account for due weight. Finally, shouldn't this paragraph be in the coup article? It barely discusses Papadopoulos. Adding a relevance tag.
• The fourth paragraph is curious. TheTimesAreAChanging uses a review of a book as a source (but attributes it to the book?) to deny there having been any US involvement in the coup when on the Alexis Papahelas article this exact source is used to support material that states the opposite. The book is described in several places as specifically seeking to uncover the CIA connection, and the review twice talks of the "American involvement" and "U. S. role " in the coup, citing the book. This makes me highly doubt that the book claims there is no connection. I suspect these claims are either out of context or only part of the story. I can't access the source myself so I don't know what can be done. Tagged for now. Also same issue as above, it doesn't discuss Papadopoulos. Tagged this for relevance too.

Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Honorific

Why is the photo preceded by the honorific "His Excellency"? Must we bend the knee to the leader of an illegitimate government? I suggest it be removed.Actio (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georgios Papadopoulos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929105041/http://archive.enet.gr/1999/06/28/on-line/keimena/politics/pol2.htm to http://archive.enet.gr/1999/06/28/on-line/keimena/politics/pol2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

awkward phrase

"Those 1940B officers who took refuge in Egypt with the king immediately after the German invasion had become generals when their still-colonel classmates undertook the coup of 1967."

unsure what it means. an easy way to fix it is to remove 1940B, but maybe someone here can make sense of it?--Greece666 (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The opening party has demonstrated a slight preference in English-language sources for the English-form of the name, but not that the requested target is an overwhelmingly more common name. Nor is there any evidence that the dictator is the primary topic for the proposed target. DrKay (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Georgios Papadopoulos → George Papadopoulos – The anglicized version of his name is more common in reliable sources, so the article should be moved in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH—see below (t · c) buidhe 17:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: the name George Papadopoulos titles a page with content, which is ineligible unless it is also renamed. This request has been modified to reflect that fact. See also Talk:George Papadopoulos#Requested move 17 September 2020 for a related move request. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have struck the other request because it is being addressed separately. You can't have two RMs open for the same article (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right of course. Don't know what I was thinkin'. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 02:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

As closer of the other RM (there was no consensus) I note the original point here is valid; for this proposal to be executed the article currently at the destination has to be moved and that should be clear in the proposal. I suggest adding it and relisting. —В²C ☎ 13:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Google scholar hits for "George Papadopoulos" dictator (413) are higher than "Georgios Papadopoulos" dictator (276); compare also "George Papadopoulos" junta (350) with "Georgios Papadopoulos" junta (303), "George Papadopoulos" colonels (369) vs "Georgios Papadopoulos" colonels (243) — (the subject is known for running a military dictatorship known as "Greek junta" or "regime of the colonels) (t · c) buidhe 17:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. There's an ongoing move request for George_Papadopoulos based on the existence of this page. You don't say where you want the American's page moved to. I assume the same place being discussed at Talk:George_Papadopoulos#Requested move 17 September 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I ask the closer to disregard this vote as it does not address the merit of this move proposal, namely that the current title of this article isn't what it should be based on policies and guidelines. (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

    Then the closer can also look at the move discussion you started at Talk:George_Papadopoulos#Requested move 17 September 2020 and see that is approaching consensus against making this very proposed move. And I can repeat my points about this being unnecessary disambiguation and hat notes serving well to distinguish the two separate topics. WP:SMALLDETAILS applies. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Based on your counts for only Google scholar hits, that would be (413+350+369) = 1132 total for "George" and (276+303+243) = 822 total for "Georgios". So 1132/(1132+822) = 57.93 percent. IMO, that percentage still would fall under WP:DIVIDEDUSE for me, and thus we should leave the article name as it is. Maybe if the percentage was higher and other types of reliable sources were used, I would be more comfortable. A percentage that is still in the 50s and only based on works cited on Google Scholar is not very convincing as a "significant majority" under WP:COMMONAME to me. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
• Weak support for the move, but not for the creation of this malformed discussion fork. Google Ngram shows that during the years this man was in power, English-language sources seem to have mostly called him "George". It isn't even close. But then there is the more difficult issue of determining whether there is a primary topic, and if so, who. This requires a judgment call balancing the two criteria, current pageviews, where the Trump advisor leads, versus long-term significance, where I believe the Greek dictator leads. It's possible though that historians may be gravitating away from George towards Georgios, and the Trump advisor may be helping to accelerate that trend. Indeed Britannica has Giorgios Papadopoulos (dictator of Greece) and George Papadopoulos (American foreign policy advisor). Maybe best to keep the status quo. – wbm1058 (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New definition of Fascism

In a recent article, an author uses a definition of fascism developed by the writer and retired businessman, Laurence Britt. To develop his theory, Britt compared the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, George Papadopoulos and Suharto, all of which he deemed fascist. Can we now accept this new definition and change this article to reflect its findings? Please discuss at WP:RSN#Proud Boys. Note that while the source is used to label the Proud Boys as fascist, it could also be used as a source for other articles if it is deemed reliable. TFD (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Criminal conviction

Shouldn't we add criminal conviction in the infobox? He was sentenced to death for his crimes but was later given life imprisonment. Στάλιν και παραλλαγή (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)