User talk:A.Cython

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

Your nomination of Andreas Papandreou is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Andreas Papandreou is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Andreas Papandreou is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article Andreas Papandreou has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Z1720 -- Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph on Andreas Papandreou

Hey there. I see you have done a great job revitalising and modernising the page pertaining to Andreas Papandreou. I do have to ask about the opening though, because there are quite a few citations when many such articles do not have them in opening bodies, and there is not enough word space to more properly mention a few things, like the Iouliana, the Koskotas scandal, and the 1986 constitutional amendment. I do agree with your assessment of keeping the opening body at four paragraphs, but I do want your opinion on the aforementioned considerations.

Thanks for your time! Bill L. Hal (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bill L. Hal: This article has been the bane of my existence for almost a year (I had to go though most of the literature and 9 articles were created in the process) and I hope to finish the ongoing GA review soon as I wish to work on other articles. I also would like to find way to mention these events, however, the current version was a compromise with different editors as my version was slightly longer. We have to operate under specific constrains:

four paragraphs is the ideal structure for into/lead. No more.
length should not exceed far off the 400 words.

So we have to make priorities.

The issue of length in WP is taken very seriously and there is little benefit arguing [1]. While intro was re-written by Mmemaigret to deal with the length at the intro. Right now I have to trim the whole article to deal with the other too-long tag as the reviewer considers it part of the GAN.

Note that while citations are not needed in the lead, except if it causes edit wars. Far too many people read only the intro and not the rest of the article so they edit the intro based on their beliefs rather being reflective of what has been written and supported by sources. So I introduced the citations to the intro in response to unjustified edits.

Now which topic to prioritize is not easy. Let me outline what seem to come to mind:

Iouliana (an article that needs a serious upgrade) is not as important as explaining his impossible comeback in 1981, by starting with the admission that his father blamed him for the dictatorship. The latter also ties from where his anti-American stance was coming from (his narrative was: it is not my fault but the almighty Americans did it), despite being American educated. Biographers call him "maverick" for his improbable comeback, so this needs to be mentioned as it was his defining political trajectory.
Koskotas scandal was only one of 200+ scandals, so we need to be careful not to imply it was the only one. The wiretap+Junta filing scandals (not written yet as independent articles) was in my opinion much more serious than the Koskotas scandal. In the current version simply mention "numerous scandals" which is good enough. Note that while Koskotas scandal took the lion share, people voted him out of power may have been influenced by other scandals as well.
The constitutional crisis is mentioned at the intro, though without details.
Of course we also need to mention the positive aspects of his governance (better access to services, family laws, social reconciliation, etc.).
His soft stance on terrorism is another important aspect that is often forgotten to be mentioned, but it was no less important. While not mentioned in the article, Athens was described a war-zone (or Cairo) after all the terrorist attacks and lack of investments by the end of 1980s and Papandreou's refusal to collaborate with Mitsotakis government resulted in Athens losing the chance to have the Olympic Games in 1996. Should this be at the intro? Probably not, but I found it fascinating. I only mention the "soft stance on terrorism".
Populism and patronage are important aspects of his governments.
I can go on (Liani, attacking the courts, the press, etc). In the end, there is not much space to cover everything at the intro. 400 words is too confining for a topic like this.

If you find a way to express the complexity of this controversial topic with the above mentioned constrains, I am ok with, but I would prefer to us to work it in a temporary page till a consensus is found or the GA review finished. A.Cython (talk) 00:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you make valid points and as stated before I applaud you for your work on an article about such a controversial personality. I will take these points into consideration and mostly chime in with random corrections so to not compromise the neutral POV the article is meant to embody. I don't have any particularly strong positive or negative opinion of Andreas Papandreou, but seeing a better wikipedia editor than I try to revitalize it into a good article piqued my interest.

Again, thanks for your time! Bill L. Hal (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, but I am not an experienced editor at least not until I have a couple FA article under my belt. I know that I have dominated the particular article lately, only I want to reach the GA milestone after which I want to disappear; I am exhausted by it. For me, the most important contribution in a WP article is the reference section. If you have a reliable source that provides a different description please share it in the talk page. Happy editing! A.Cython (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now I do know that it is a bit early for celebrations, but regardless, I congratulate you on the perilous work you have put in order to elevate the article to GA status. I think your rest away from wiki editing will be well deserved. Best regards. Bill L. Hal (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer is indeed very helpful and his edits are elevating the article. I also wanted to thank for the George Papandreou addition. I removed the last statement because it was without a reference. For the GA status, we need a reference at the end of each paragraph. If you can find a reference to support this, feel free to add it.A.Cython (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the comment. Bill L. Hal (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenon

I do appreciate your copyright concerns. But I would point out that it is a list a technical terms, something that might fairly be covered by Scènes à faire. What would you suggest? I won't revert it, but there was no need to delete the entire contribution.NoontideDemon (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have to describe everything in our own words as much as possible. Until this is cleared out that there are no violations in the rest of the text, the whole contribution is a suspect. WP takes copyright violations very seriously.A.Cython (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions

	Thunder of the Gold Order
	For a great amount of contributions to articles relating to Hellenic culture, history and more... here is the highest honour I can bestow on Wikipedia. Why vegan (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am standing on the shoulders of giants (other editors who have done so much more).A.Cython (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]