Talk:Afroditi Latinopoulou

seek consensus
User:Michalis1994 The 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)
 * He literally has a palestinian flag at his main page...
 * He did that to me too... 2A02:85F:F85C:671B:2859:A139:83FA:26B (talk) 07:37, 13 July 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.

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)


 * As per a message left on your talk page by, 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)

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.  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:  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)
 * "Whitewashing" maybe is not the most diplomatic way to voice concern that an edit removes or downplays negative information, but it is certainly not a personal attack. VQuakr (talk) 05:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Highly unreliable sourcing
The sources used to justify the more colorful characterizations of Latinopoulou are extremely poor. Just on a first look, I see Lifo.gr cited multiple times. Lifo, according to Wikipedia's own description is "known for its alternative approach to cultural happenings, its progressive and tolerant view on social issues and the presentation of Athenian life. Pluralism and tolerance in diverse opinions are the main characteristics of the site's contents, as well as its anti-racist, anti-clerical and socially progressive stance" This is obviously not a good source for finding facts about a conservative political party (not to mention Lifo is a magazine about lifestyle, not politics). We then have: Athensmagazine, a magazine about travel in Athens (?), Athens Voice, yet another lifestyle, utterly progressive magazine that barely hides its political stance, and Bigpost.gr a website which is frankly not that well known and its reliability cannot be adequately shown. At least a third of the citations in this article need to be removed and the obviously politically motivated characterizations fixed. 2A02:587:5468:2800:4989:A431:675F:9860 (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If your chief complaint about a source is its tolerance and anti-racism, you probably should leave the assessment of whether a source is reliable to others. Regardless, sources with a clear bias are not automatically unreliable; see WP:BIASEDSOURCE. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My complaint obviously isn't that the sources claim to be anti racist (but you already knew that), but that they are self described progressive publications. Progressivism, I thought, wasn't synonymous with being neither correct nor factual, and will most certainly mean that they will have a faulty assessment of any political facts situated on the right wing (just like the reverse happens). With your own bias though, perhaps you should leave the editing of this supposedly encyclopedic article to other, more neutral editors, since you do not seem up for the task. 2A02:587:5468:2800:4989:A431:675F:9860 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * sources 8,16,18,19 and 29 are immensely unreliable. 2A02:587:5468:2800:4989:A431:675F:9860 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The worst part is not the unreliable sources! This source https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/inside-marine-le-pens-secret-brussels-meeting/  does not verified the claim A notable incident occurred in 2022 when she was banned from running with New Democracy after making comments
 * and that source https://www.protothema.gr/politics/article/1511268/afroditi-latinopoulou-stin-proti-lexi-tautizomai-me-ti-lepen-eimaste-kai-oi-duo-kedrodexies/ does not verify this lie. In June 2024, she called for Pride Parade to be dissolved, saying, "It is a celebration of vulgarity, emphasising the sexuality of sadomasochists and other various abnormalities in public view. Check for yourself. D.S. Lioness (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are either closely connected with the party and the politician in question, or you are unaware of how your previous actions resulted in your ban from Greek Wikipedia. Your recent attempt to remove well-cited content about a highly controversial figure, without any supporting evidence and filled with accusations and fabrications, is quite astonishing. It is disappointing to see an experienced user like you resort to continuous, unprecedented rants, accusing others of lying, distorting facts, and displaying such blatant bias. Regarding the video you mentioned, it was embedded in the Proto Thema article. However, you are evidently attempting to distort the truth again and whitewash Latinopoulou, who has even posted those same words on her own website. The whitewashing continues. Michalis1994 (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a personal attack towards another user, will anyone do something about this? @VQuakr It's clearly against the rules. This user has accused others multiple times of being bought and paid for by political parties! This is a personal and unfounded accusation. He should be warned. 2A02:587:5468:2800:F59D:B81D:687F:791D (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, if you checked Lioness' user page, you can see she is a *Marxist*. How in the world does a Marxist align with a clearly conservative party? My assumption is that she just wants a fair, unbiased Wikipedia, just like myself, a leftist. 2A02:587:5468:2800:F59D:B81D:687F:791D (talk) 15:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 🙂 Michalis1994 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you find unreliable about the sources? Your claims of unreliability lack specific evidence and appear to be attempts to whitewash the article. Let’s address the sources one by one: Reference 8 includes various claims she made, which can be verified by searching the exact wording online. She has publicly endorsed Bardella and Le Pen on Twitter. Reference 16 is from Athens Magazine, one of the most popular magazines in Athens, Greece, focusing on cultural aspects. It ranks among the top 22 most visited websites in Greece, demonstrating its reliability and high-quality reporting. Reference 18 is from Politico, highlighting her body-shaming comments, which have been widely covered by the Greek press. Lastly, LIFO is a highly respected source for political news in Greece. Xronos, labelled by you as unreliable, is a reputable local newspaper based in Rodopi. Why should we exclude reliable local sources? There seems to be a clear attempt to whitewash the article. Changes should be made by seeking consensus, as your actions are not aiding the discussion around improving the article. Instead, you are removing cited content due to ideological disagreement. Michalis1994 (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since when is Lifo a "highly respected sourse" haha. Because it carefully aligns with your political views? It is obviously not a good source on the matter, which is apparent from the language it uses when referring to both Latinopoulou and her party. 2A02:587:5468:2800:F59D:B81D:687F:791D (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Source: trust me, bro. Michalis1994 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Source for Lifo being a respected magazine? I'll wait. 2A02:587:5468:2800:F59D:B81D:687F:791D (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There you go, sport. I added even more citations next to LIFO, just for you! Michalis1994 (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

What about this?

In June 2024, she called for Pride Parade to be dissolved, saying, "It is a celebration of vulgarity, emphasising the sexuality of sadomasochists and other various abnormalities in public view."

First source does not mention her statement. Second source is primary, for her website, clearly pov-pushing. D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Three citations added, backing the exact same statement which can be seen on all her social media. You are trying to justify deletions at this stage by openly distorting the contents of sources. Michalis1994 (talk) 23:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * you are distorting the contents of the source
 * https://www.protothema.gr/politics/article/1511268/afroditi-latinopoulou-stin-proti-lexi-tautizomai-me-ti-lepen-eimaste-kai-oi-duo-kedrodexies/ no mention to your quote
 * even her page https://fonilogikis.gr/dilosi-tis-afroditis-latinopoulou-gia-to-ntropiastiko-athens-pride-2024/ does not verify your statement. Your statement has quotation marks - unless you don't know grammar and don't know how to use quotation marks. D.S. Lioness (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging Voice of Reason (political party) to this page, Afroditi Latinopoulou. As an effectvely single-person political party, it is far more practical to cover the subject within the biographical, and impossible to avoid substantial repetition when coverage occurs in two articles. There do not appear to be any article size length concerns that will occur from covering both subjects in the same article. VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree - no point in keeping two articles - would be great to avoid pointless repetition. Michalis1994 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Disagree it doesnt matter whether the content is similar they are radically different entities. Merging them implies that as long as Latinopoulou exists so does her current party, which defies logic. Takis S1 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * can you expand on your reasoning? WP:MERGEREASON discusses reasons to merge articles and the essay WP:SED also is relevant. I believe items 2 and 3 from WP:MERGEREASON apply here. There is no implication whatsoever that as long as Latinopoulou exists so does her current party; if the party ceased to exist we would simply say so in this article. VQuakr (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Duplicate: In this sector it fits little to no criteria there are not more than 2 pages about the same subject there is just one paragraph (paraprased) describing ideology; for now the party has the same ideology as Latinopoulou considering it is her party and by assuming that she wont change the party/leave it etc in the future leading to a different ideology we are engaging in WP:RECENTISM.
 * Overlap: Again 2+ similar pages which obviously dont exist.
 * Short text: The party page will expand not to say independantly from the leader's page merging them due to this reason would also be a kind of WP:RECENTISM.
 * Insufficient notability: This may be the sole reason for a merger but still the party is very new and notability will grow as it grows along with so still WP:RECENTISM.
 * Context: "If a short article requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it." This could also be a reason but considering Greek Solution is the same in this context with its leader Kyriakos Velopoulos I highly doubt its a credible reason.   Takis S1 (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Disagree the party is more than just Afroditi. There are also examples of parties with a single member that are branded after the member, namely in Australia, with Katters, Jacqui and Nick Xenophon. Scu ba (talk) 04:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Disagree The party might have a single MEP as of now, but it is in no way shape or form the party of Latinopoulou herself and includes other people in the political space. To merge the two articles would be counter productive.
 * HighDunker (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)