Talk:George Papadopoulos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents 1 Torturing by the junta 2 Beloyannis Trial 3 POV 4 Papadopoulos as a conspirator in the '60ies 5 Family 6 Miscellanea 7 Papadopoulos and his regime: a terrorist group? 8 Mandatory church

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 OJ 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)