Talk:Eleni Antoniadou

An opinion
Her case was actually politicized by leftist media, when earlier this month she received an award from the current Minister of Education Mrs Nike Kerameos, of the right-wing party New Democracy. I am not sure if she is "encyclopaedic" in english, but the Greek left and liberal media are making a party. --Skylax30 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Total false claim In.grKathimerinithe same arguments from right wing newspapers. Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not quiet. You link to an opinion article by a certain Tsitsinis in Kathimerini. The article focuses more an the "systemic deficit" (συστημικό έλλειμμα) of the greek media, not entering into details about Antoniadou. The article is more of a (rightful) comment on the self-promoted personas of the media. He actually says that "the scandalism may be exagerated". By the way, as you know this morning I was insulted (idiot etc) and threatened (legal threats) by an anonymous user, who claims to be an academic and believes that I care about politics (and especially PASOK), which I don't. He was funny enough to question me about the laboratory conditions (temperature, solutions etc) during the construction of the synthetic trachea! If he is really an academic, my opinion is that the systemic deficit is not mostly in the media.--Skylax30 (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Total untrue claims. ALL the Greek media says the same Lifo (central right magazine)], Protagon(central right magazine)].Proto Thema ( a popular right or far-right newspaper) Greek English speaking newspaper of Greek Immigrants in USA (right politics) You made a statement you have the duty to prove it. It is nothing but your personal opinion and ONLY your personal opinion. You can't even find one person in Greek/English language with the same arguments as you. It is your personal beliefs and nothing more. I don't care to discuss a single Wikipedia user beliefs. If you manage to find anyone in the Press/Tv we can discuss it then. Until then ...you can talk for ...legal threats and academy and other weird staffΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * What is relevant here is not my personal opinion but how the article presents the case. I added some publications to show that this person is not a "pan-ignorant", as an extraparliamentary left scientist claimed, who is cited by all those sources you mentioned above. Btw, the "Proto Thema" (First theme) is cleverly called "Proto Psema" (First lie) by leading left n.papers, when they don't like it's articles (e.g. EfSyn ). I think I did my duty in the article and I quit this discussion. You can have the last word.--Skylax30 (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

AfD
Delete. She does not have any "fame". There are Greeks, with 2 Master's and 3 PhDs. She has 6 publications, she is "first author" only in three publications, she has an h-factor of 7. Nothing special. She was, also, general secretary in the Youth Section of the political party PASOK. Of course, these "achievements" do not qualify her as a "scientist". Scientist is someone who has at least a PhD. She is just a scammer.--2A02:587:3F2D:6F00:28F1:1BC1:C815:D1AD (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Politician
There is no RS claiming she is a politician. Being a member of PASP when student does not make you a politician. Cinadon36 07:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree.Αντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Prod
Hi, I am inclined to de-prod the article as this would probably warrant a deeper AfD discussion, though that would be the third one. I believe at the time (in 2017) there was merit in deleting the article for BLP issues, however the story has changed. We don't quite know yet how the latest revelations will play out, but the alleged NASA "hoax" is widely covered internationally. This itself is probably BLP1E, however the participation that led the the transplantation scandal could be considered another E - although even her role in that one is now disputed. There are factors to be considered in aggregate: i) coverage of the transplantations, ii) other work since then, iii) the "crowning" by having a special edition Barbie doll modelled after her, iv) the award presented by the Greek education minister and the resulting "hoax" allegations. I'm not saying the article is inevitably a keeper, but will probably need more evaluation than a PROD can offer. The article definitely needs more work... I'm also including and  from the AfD discussion back then. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Check HereΑντικαθεστωτικός (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries - as I said in my nom, I wasn't quite sure about it myself. I do think it is borderline at AfD, but I would tend to go with the fact that it is WP:BIO1E. I'll let another reviewer take a look at it.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what this article is about--it's negative BLP information combined with a resume-style list of publications. I do not know if User:Cinadon36 thinks that this is how you achieve balance: it is not. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Publications" section was added to the article by user Skylax30, not by Cinadon36. He had done the same thing before @ el/WP, and this contribution of his has been called into question by myself, remarking that WP articles are not CVs. Obviously this addition was concieved by Skylax30 as a "possitive" counter-balance to what he thinks is a false negative image of Antoniadou created on purpose as such by supposedly left-winger Greek Wikipedians following a call from political parties and media opposing the right-wing Greek government (besause Antoniadou recently recieved an award for her scientific "achievements" from the Greek Minister for Education, who called her an outstanding NASA scientist etc.) as user Skylax30 commented above: I am not sure if she is "encyclopaedic" in english, but the Greek left and liberal media are making a party, and so are some Greek wikipedists in the discussion of the greek article (this is the original version of it, before the "lifting" he performed, because of the negative reactions against it and him for this @ the Village Pump of el/WP; I myself is one of those "certain greek WPdians" who "misunderstood and misrepresented" poor Skylax30). ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , I need you to look at this., , and whoever else is available (, you up yet?), you too. I am beginning to think of deleting this on the spot as a serious BLP violation. First of all, it is STILL a clear issue of BLP1E. Second, it's a hit job: one could write up all kinds of stuff, including the Barbie and all that, but the author chose not to do this. (I see now that the subject's resume was introduced by another editor, here). What says is correct, that there is more to this than the allegations and may warrant an AfD, and thus User:onel5969 PROD could be removed--but at the bottom, I believe this is a BLP violation. I'd love to hear some more admins look at this; if I look at the article one more time I might just end up nuking it myself and that will cause more trouble than I want to handle on Sunday morning. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Awake and reporting for duty, . In its current form, the article is a BLP violation and when did the fact that a biography has been changed on another language Wikipedia become worthy of mention on English Wikipedia, cited to that other Wikipedia ? The tone is really poor: reported this, reported that, scrutiny, misrepresentation and so on. Is a doll sales website a good source? Obviously not.


 * On the other hand, I believe that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources going back quite a few years that I conclude that she is notable, and I think it goes beyond BLP1E. Any acceptable biography would need to be written with great sensitivity and care. This isn't it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  16:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Who prodded the article after two previous AfDs? Don't do that. Also, president of EHP and model for a special edition Barbie doll indicate clear notabiity. Once notable, always notable. It's unfortunate that, after she's become a public figure, there's all this negative material that now needs to be included, but it doesn't make her less notable. And it is not a BLP violation to have negative material included in an article, as long as it is properly sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

BLP violations can be fixed. did a fine job improving the article. (well done Jake for removing Bild as non-RS, to Pontiki is not RS either, maybe we should remove it as well). Also, it is clear that Antonidou meets WP:GNG. Cinadon36 19:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have looked at all the material here, including the Google translation of the Greek WP. I consider this a notable group of hoaxes. I do not consider this BLP1E, because she seems to have bene involved in several separate deceptions, all of which have now received reliable international publicity. Quite apart from the deceptions, she is notable because oft he claims originally made about her. Basically, I agree, as I almost always do, with David E.
 * I consider the current version  as revised by Jake B, not to be a BLP violation, though I do not consider it yet to be a really adequate article--it's much too sketchy. It would be better to build on it than to remove it.  DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , that is a version I might could live with., if had tagged this version of yours as an attack page I would have granted it. Drmies (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Point taken. This version of mine was certainly unbalanced, something that was more evident after the edits by other users. Nevertheless, I wouldnt call it an attack. It is what RS are claiming. At least, it wasn't my intention to attack E.A. I get it thought that some may view it as an attack. Anyway, the problem has been sorted out. I invite you to my talk page to discuss it any further if you wish. Cinadon36</b> 06:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

False claims
Should we mention her false claims? These are the main issues her story reached world class media. It could be an independent paragraph, something like:

According to Kostas Kallergis, four claims of Antoniadou were heavily critisized: a)taking part in a successful trachea transplantation, the results were disastrous though, b) she was employed by NASA while she just attended a summer school. c) Antoniadou claimed she was awarded with a PhD (she only holds two master degrees). d)Antoniadou claimed her enterprise (Transplants without Donors) was successful, while there is no activity of it.(citing this article)

I understand there might be concerns regarding BLP policies, so I 'd like your comments. Most probable a rewording is warrant. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

PS-More informative article on her false claims regarding trachea transplantation, by Huff.Post (Greece). <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 07:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO the sourcing about E.A. is a bit all over the place. It seems at the heart of this are allegation that various bodies did not properly check her background when talking about her, giving awards, etc. So I'd approach this from a position of extreme scepticism when looking at sources, specially those dated pre Sept 2019. The revelations now may be perceived as "just" counterclaims. This is complicated further by political bias claims. Are there any reliable investigative sources that actually confirmed all those claims by Kallergis? At the moment, this is very much "he said, she said" territory - unless there are some sources I did not find or understand as they are in Greek. I appreciate the article needs more work - the quick fixes I made over the weekend were never meant to turn this into a finely crafted article, but into minimum viable stub that carefully reflects the ambiguity of sources.
 * Having said that, I believe your proposal is too "definitive" and POVvy. Do we even know, e.g. she actively claimed to have a viable company? This interview sounds more cautious... pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * See this (The National Herald; May 30, 2019). ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually she said about the company that "It is a startup, in the prototype phase" (2016). She didn't claim that the company is active. The article in National Herald is of 2019, not citing E.A. but probably re-serving her previous interview as the author understood it. Companies open and close, and even when they "open" are not yet open for business. All the fuss is mostly about other peoples claims and not about what she claimed. --Skylax30 (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand your skepticism on various claims that are spinning around but I think the case of E.A. highlighters the importance of WP's policy on RS. Her myth was built mostly by media that, wouldn't fit for being RS. So if it is on BBC, and if no other media as reliable as BBC (or somewhat less reliable) tells a different story, it is enough for me. As for the political bias, there is non of it. , thanks for the link, proves a lot, there is an interesting comment dated 31st of May and the title is a little bit funny. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 09:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced addition
please add a citation to the source of the information you added about "space projects". We may remove content that has no source.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)