Talk:Georgios Karatzaferis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
Whoever it is deleting Karatzaferis's expulsion from the New Democracy party, as well as erasing references to his chauvinist and anti-semite statements -- stop doing it. You're not making Karatzaferis look any more sympathetic by attempting to rewrite history and erase all traces of his controversial statements ; you're only succeeding in proving yourself to be a LAOS-party bigot.
[edit] R U sure U R neutral???
What does Anna Vissi have anything to do with this!!! Is this so important after all???
- If Karatzaferis considered it important enough to ask for an investigation by the European Parliament on the matter, it is certainly important enough to warrant mentioning in here. If you find the fact embarassing, take it to Karatzaferis who made the inquiry, not the wikipedia editors who added the fact to his entry.
If you are as informed as you want to appear that you are, then you should know that he has achieved many important thing in the European Parliament in the last 1,5 years. Doesn't the fact that you are leaving these out of this article make you look biased against him?
- By all means, add those "important achievements". All I'm asking is that you do not erase substantiated data that is already there, and that you cite and referrence what additions you have to make.
P.S. Velopoulos is no longer a member of the party.
[edit] Also...
He was NOT expelled for the statement about the '100.000 of our boys'. Read the articles of that time. He was expelled at least 3 months after the elections. The statement was made before the elections. Also the statement is taken out of context. The statement was about the fact that after 20 years of PA.SO.K's rule all positions were held by the so called 'green-boys' of PA.SO.K. and he finished saying how long are our boys going to wait? Everybody assumes that he refers to the boys of 'Nea Dimokratia' but with evidence to back this up. It is the well-known attitute 'Well, he is a politician, whta else could he possibly mean?...' I am not ruling this possibility out. Don't take me wrong. All, I am saying is that it is NOT a FACT.... So if we put it inside the article we should be talk about it a lot!... Right now it is NOT an objective truth! It should not be forgoten that this is an argument that his political enemies are using. If we reproduce it while it is still not clear what he ment (he claims that he was talking about ALL non-green boys) we would not serve public or the causes of Wikipedia in a right way! Last but not least, the name of his academy is 'Academy of COMMUNICATION Studies' NOT 'Media' so please stop changing that too. About the Anna Vissi statement read what I wrote above. In 1 year (if not 6 months...) this will be at least irrelevant anyway with this article...
[edit] My point...
No, the inquiry is not embarassing it is just the least important inquiry you could had possibly chosen to put in here!... And not only that but as I stated above, in a year or two this issue will be at least irrelevant and by that not we won't be of any service to the people who visit Wikipedia asking for a coherent and comprehensive profile of politician. Mind you that this is an internet encyclopedia and as such the people you use it want something short and coherent. If you go to any encyclopedia and look up 'Karl Marx' you will find two pages at the most, NOT a full detailed biography. People want an outline, not an online book, because they will simply not read it!
Also, if I start writing down the really important inquires he made (out of the more than 500 he made in the 1,5 years he is there) the text will be huge, boring and dealing MORE with LA.O.S's positions and activities and LESS with the man himself. Don't forget that he is not there only as a person. He is there representing a political party and he is also the vice-president of the European party he is member of (IN/DEM). There are decisions taken inside the party according to which he acts. So where do we draw the line between the PERSON and the political party he leads? Are we talking about in this article? His party's positions or the man himself? They are not quite the same, u know... Template:Mahann
This inquiry made headlines for itself in the Greek press and media. That makes it notable enough to be included in here, whether you like it or not. Porfyrios 13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A brief answer to some ironic comments....
To begin with, in his official site you can see the part of the article that referes to Karatzaferis SCANNED!...unsigned
The article scanned only mentions Karatzaferis being prolific in the number of questions in the Europarliament, and does not mention anything about being "selected among the four best MPs" and the rest of your blurb. If that is your source, I am deleting the "selection" as there is no mention of it therein. Porfyrios 13:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, I have searched the web-sites of both Ha'aretz and Yedioth Ahronot and to my surprise (and if I didn't overlook something...) I did not find ANY archive section at all!! So, how come and you say with so much certainty that "In fact, no such articles have ever been published by either newspaper."??unsigned
Umm, because they weren't. Do you have any understanding of the burden of proof notion? What Karatzaferis reproduced is an urban myth that was propagated by Islamic fundamentalist papers. Porfyrios 13:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Finally, there are many citations needed, if we want so much detail, don't you agree?!... ...which means that... The citations must be given within a reasonable timeframe or else THEY will have to go!...unsigned
Hogwash. Stop vandalising the article. A citation has been given on the newspaper article which reprinted Karatzaferis's antisemitic and chauvinist statements verbatim. These were statements made on his Teleasty television broadcast, so there cannot be a "scan" provided. The newspaper citation suffices. Porfyrios 13:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Let's get somethings straight....
About the Ha'aretz and Yedioth Ahronot articles. Yes I know what the burden of proof is. But what I'm saying is not that he did not make that statement. What I am saying is that you should not swear on your soul that these articles were not written since the newspapers' web-sites have no archive section at all and therefore (even statistically) there could indeed be a possibility that such articles actually exist. Unless, of course, you have other sources that can support your certainty, in which case you should share it with us!... Do you have any understanding of the benefit of a doubt notion? Did you check those archives? Didn't think so... My advise is "don't put all your money there, kid, until you see those archives yourself".
Finally, you write "The newspaper citation suffices". If that is the case, then what you are telling us is that 'if somebody else has written about it, it's ok'... Oh, really? No, son!... We cannot accept the citation of the citation of the broadcast of somebody else's citation and so on! Can you point to the SOURCE? Can you point one that knows nothing about this to something more solid than a... broadcast??? A simple date means NOTHING! It cannot lead anyone anywhere. Anyone could do that. One could even write that this politician once said: "I like f***ing babies" (24/07/02). Is that a valid quotation??? Can ANYONE double-check it??? Just a single date??? Sorry mate! U have got to try more than that!! ;) And if that is the case, then my quotation about the "The European League" should be accepted as well! What the hell... It's so much more than just a date!... So Billy-Boy, if no REAL citation is provided, I am deleting that material. Because what YOU are doing is vandalism and you are OBVIOUSLY biased against this person! We are not trying to purify nor destroy ANYONE in Wikipedia! Got that??? Mahann 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Please wipe the foams off your mouth. You have been trolling these entries from day one, beginning with anonymous deletes of all data you didn't like for the sake of supporting your leader. These statements were made, and the relevant citation has been given - end of story. Porfyrios 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And another thing. How is your European League claim "so much more than an article"? My problem with it is, exactly, that you don't have an article to provide, no citation to give, nor a leg to stand on. I gave you the benefit of a doubt, and the article you provided as citation stated nothing to the effect of "a selection amongst the four most gifted European MPs".
Bah. Come to think of it, one should expect Karatzaferis's band of holocaust deniers to have a confused understanding of what constitutes evidence and proof. Their leader is talking about an Auschwitz myth to appeal to them, fer heaven's sake.. :-) Porfyrios 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Modelling career
Since Karatzaferis was a model in his early years it should be mentioned here, or at least make a category for this. Don't mistake me for ironic or something. I am an inclusionist and that's my motivation. Pictureuploader 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
He was not a model. In his early twenties he was a weightlifter. His wife was a model and she had a modeling agency. Mahann 21:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] U need 2 B more carefull....
The citation cannot be acceptable because it is just a date with nothing more to move on to! Anyone could write anything, put any date next to it and call it a "valid" quote! Dream on, boy...
-
- Not quite. You seem to have forgot the link to the print newspaper which reproduced these statements. That being the whole point of a citation and all? :-D Porfyrios 21:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Also I would advise you to read twice what others write and that because I didn't write "so much more than an article"... What I wrote was "so much more than just a DATE!..." The quotation I gave is the part of the article that refers to him. And if the citation of a newspaper's citation is valid (as the case is for your examples) then the same goes for my quotation. You cannot have it all.... Mahann 21:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This is so funny. What part of the citation you provided does not substantiate your claims do you not understand? Can you provide a citation that mentions Karatzaferis's "selection" as "most gifted MP", yes, or no? Porfyrios 21:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Is that good enough?...
If we actually accept newspapers and articles that cannot be reached from the internet (like your 'broadcasted' citations...)
-
- Again, you blunder. It can be accessed from the internet. It was posted both on the newspaper's internet site and the print edition. Porfyrios 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
then the whole article, and not part of it, was reprinted (and scanned in case somebody would doubt it) in the December 3rd 2005 edition of the A1. You may not like that newspaper, kid, but all of it is there. Is that a valid quotation now, your Honour??? Mahann 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that you posted a citation, supposedly substantiating "Karatzaferis's selection as gifted MP", but in fact, referrences to that selection were hidden in another part of that newspaper, which for some reason are missing in action? Oh my.. :-D Porfyrios 22:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ....
Are you really stupid or you just pretend that you are stupid??? The citation I gave was his personal web-site, where one could find the scanned picture of the actual article itself. The edition of the newspaper I refer to has the whole article where you can read about the rest of the MPs chosen by "THE EUROPEAN LEAGUE" as well. We are not talking about the same newspaper. We are talking about a web-site and a newspaper. So nothing was hidden "in another part of that newspaper"... Anyway,it is really silly trying to convince biased people about something. What I am really worried about is the way we 'inform' the people who visit of Wikipedia, something that you don't seem to care about that much at all. Taking statements out of context, citating biased journalists, cutting & pasting infomation as you like... I know, I know! You will say that I do the same thing... Not quite, son. You refer to 1% or even 5% of a man's work. All that there is to blame him about, you wrote it. But are you willing to give to the public the remaining 95%? You don't have to answer... You will have the whole article itself as soon as I get it. I am not sure who can help me with this, but you will have it. Not for any other reason, but simply because one must at least try to keep some balance in wikipedia, in the extend he/she can be of some use to it. And since you are so obviously taking one side, I choose to defend somebody I'm not even sure I ever want to meet... For your information, I am not even Greek. I donnot even vote in Greece either. I just live in this blessed country for the past 35 or so years... So don't ever try to throw that "your leader"-shit to me again, boy... Your's truly Mahann 22:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I took the liberty of underlining your recognition that what I added in his entry are true statements he made ; so you were knowingly vandalising when you repeatedly attempted to remove them from the article.
If you are going to be this bigotted and offensive about a simple disagreement, then I don't see the point of reinstating the quote as a show of good faith, or taking your unsubstantiated claims at face value (as I had done in the meantime). As for the man's "work", which I'm supposedly "withholding", no one is keeping you from adding material, so long as it is properly cited and notable.Porfyrios 23:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Temper, temper....
Did I break you? Because this is what I get from your reaction... I don't remember calling you any names or using the F word... Offensive?? If you say so.... I guess I shouldn't expect anything better from you... I will have to apologize, but I do not intent to follow you down to your level. Maybe my expectations about a decent dialogue were too high. I should had known better. In any case, at least you are decent enough not to deny the fact that indeed you are taking sides... Not caring about objectivity and leaving me...to write the rest. It's ok. You just prove me right, giving basis to my worries and my decision to take the 'other side' for the sake of balance... Someone has to do that after all.
As for the underlined phrase, you are just proving again that you just cannot get it. We could upload a shitload of info about anyone. All I have been saying is that we must make wikipedia a useful tool for the public, with useful info. I am not saying that he did not make these statements. What I am saying is that we need decent citations so that the user can go and double-check the info we provide him with. Whether he likes what he reads or not, he/she must be given the right to make up his/her mind about any subject. To read a statement inside its context. The 'ios' group you so eagerly quote, for example, cannot claim objectivity to be among its virtues.... So where does that leave the user? I just seriously doubt that the info provided is taking the article towards an objective direction. Mahann 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I may add that you have been much more offensive and provocative from the beginning... Here are the comments you wrote as one can find them in 'history' section: "(you are a slow one, aren't you?)", "(:-D)", "(oRLY?)", "(CYL8RALG8TR! :-D)"... Not to mention the ironic "Adonis" at the end of some of your posts (i.e. your "citation" does not match your claims. Better luck next time, Adonis). Not to mention "Hogwash", "the rest of your blurb", etc.... As for "reinstating the quote as a show of good faith, or taking your unsubstantiated claims at face value" I had not checked the article for quite sometime. What is important is if something is right or not. Thanks, but this is no place for favours. Mahann 00:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
''Riiiiight...' I'm sure Mahann only had "balance" and "fairness" in mind when he was deleting the "4000 Jews did not attend work" statement, despite the fact it was the only controversial statement of his leader in the article at that time, and the rest of the entry read like some awkard translation of Karatzaferis's PR-office biography. Or when he was deleting mentions that Karatzaferis was "expelled from New Democracy" and replacing them with a vague "former New Democracy member". No point in pursuing this discussion any more ; he is being as fanatical as he is inarticulate. Porfyrios 08:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No point in going on. U R right...
At least we agree at something. There is no point in pursuing this discussion any more... You are not adding anything new to what you are saying. You are still being provocative... An you still cannot get it. Thankfully my job has made me able to tell when certain techniques are being used. If using in an article cerefully picked words and expressions that can create the most negative image for a person is your sense of objectivity then I just rest my case... It's all right. No point in going on.
One last thing, though. In the 'history' section you have the comment: (better get used to the fact you won't be able to turn this entry into a hagiography of your leader.) I am forced by this to state yet again that: 1) I do not even have the right to vote in Greece, so 'my leader'?... I do not think so... 2) If you have anything to say, use the main disscusion section were everybody can read it. Do not hide comments especially when they are provocative. 3) We are not trying to purify nor destroy ANYONE in Wikipedia. 4) Last but not least, you have the same rights in here that I have... Mahann 10:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Extreme right politician?
I'm not sure that the caracterization "extreme right" is correct for Karatzaferis. He may be affiliates with other extreme right parties in Europe, but his own ideological background isn't the background of an extreme-right politician. According to my opinion, he seems more like a populist politician and his party has certain similarities with the populist party of Portugal. I think we must distinguish between the far-right and the populist movement and I think that Karatzaferis and LAOS represent the ideological movement of populism and not of far-right.--Yannismarou 10:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
