Talk:Eva Kaili

Fair use rationale for Image:Kaili 024.JPG

Image:Kaili 024.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Arrest and corruption

I see this as potential something that may become a large part of this article relating to her arrest. I’m opening this thread to discuss any up dates beyond the first 24hrs. For the time being I think we should maintain the facts as they are reported from the initial arrest until thing become clearer. Jo Jc Jo (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Two days into the developing scandal, I think it has become significant enough to deserve at least a couple of sentences in the header, with due mention of course that it is an on-going development and that things might change. 90.112.72.149 (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Weasel wording

The expression a video resurfaced implies that it was suppressed, or somehow inaccessible to the general public. Which is not true, it's a speech at the plenary of th European Parliament, and widely reported on Greek media right away. paa (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Paa: I’ve updated the language and hope there’s WP:CON. Please tag me if further discussed. I’d be interested to follow. Jo Jc Jo (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC) Jo Jc Jo (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Corruption context

Kaili was advising Bankera, a failed 9-figure Lithuanian cryptocurrency ICO in 2017-18 together with Antanas Guoga, an Australian poker player cum Lithuanian MEP. Bankera also was involved with an American "fintech entrepreneur" who has been arrested in the USA and with an Australian ICO promoter (securities broker-dealer) that ran into legal troubles there. Following the ICO Bankera bought a bank in Vanuatu from a Lithuanian company (Lewben) connected with sanctioned Russian and Belarusian individuals. What I am saying is that Kaili's arrest is just a culmination of a long story. I'll try to gather references over the weekend. Anybody want to look into this as well? Elmenhorster (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Lon Wong, founder of NEM (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEM_(Kryptow%C3%A4hrung) was also involved. It would be strange not to have a Chinese crypto entrepreneur on a project like this. Elmenhorster (talk) 09:30, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: the ICO was successful (one of the 10 largest ever); it failed to deliver almost everything it promised in its investment prospectus, leading to ~100% losses to retail investors. The investment opportunity was unregulated. Bankera was fined 9-figures by Bank of Lithuania, the Lithuanian regulator, but decision was reversed in court on appeal. Elmenhorster (talk) 10:16, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Elmenhorster: I would be careful to see any other allegations as context to the corruption leading to arrest and tread carefully around linking any previous incidents with this one without a very reliable source doing so. Remember WP:NOR. Especially as this is a WP:LIVE, requiring extra care to be taken.

If other allegations can be found with reliable sources then I would say it can be added but with clarity around the fact that she was not charged/ acquitted/ innocent (whatever the case maybe) and also try to find a response from her to those allegations inline with WP:NPOV.

My suggestion would be that any addition surrounding this should be done in draft and hidden until we have WP:CON in this thread.

Happy to help on this. Jo Jc Jo (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Context (Varoufakis)

The following is a context reference that may lead us to some interesting juxtapositions as the corruption story develops. I checked where Kaili stood on the key Greek issue of the last decade: https://www.evakaili.gr/en/varoufakis-departure-is-positive-for-talks/ Gives food for thought. Elmenhorster (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Profession

Ive added Kaili’s CV to the references and updated the article accordingly:

I’ve removed Architect from her profession in the info box. According to her CV, Kaili studied a bachelors in civil engineering and architecture and no further studies in the field. She has no professional experience listed on her CV in any related field or discipline.

I have added Newscaster to her profession in line with the article lede and her CV having worked for Mega Channel between 2004-2007 listed as “newscaster & journalist”. Jo Jc Jo (talk) 11:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Change section title (from "Corruption and arrest")

Change to

• "Arrest on charges of corruption".
• "Arrest on charges of ..."
• "Arrest" or "Arrest in 2022".

(While glancing thru the section, the current title seems like a "Crystal ball thingy", while the paragraphs on the other hand, are down to earth.) 46.15.84.92 (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"and bags of cash were found at her home" (change or remove)

Reminder: two Euro-coins in one bag and two Euro-coins in another bags, is one way of saying "and bags of cash were found at her home".--Now, if you can say

• "and bags of cash with thousands of Euros were found at her home" ... 46.15.84.92 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the implication is clear to most. However, please feel free to update the article if you can find a source that state either;

• The bags did indeed have thousands of euros in them

Or;

• The bags did not contain just two bags each containing a two-euro coin. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 10:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe the common understanding of "bags of cash were found..." implies more than just a nominal amount of currency. This would be the common understanding of the phrase and I believe it is appropriate even though we do not have the exact amount. When a bank is robbed, articles typically report "money was taken" and it is assumed and generally accepted that it was more than two pieces of currency. Just my two cents (no pun intended). Jurisdicta (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Father is/was a politician (let's add this to early life)

There are English-language references stating this. I hope someone can look into this and add. Elmenhorster (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

parallaximag.gr/thessaloniki-news/poios-einai-o-pateras-tis-eyas-kaili-kai-poy-empleketai-sti-thessaloniki/amp?espv=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:D808:7390:68B4:ACB6:E2CA:53A4 (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

https://info-war.gr/oi-scheseis-tis-oikogeneias-kaili-me-ge/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:D808:7390:68B4:ACB6:E2CA:53A4 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.tovima.gr/2014/05/09/opinions/ti-gyreye-o-adwnis-me-toys-karamanlikoys

Her father had been elected as the president of a state hospital by adonis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:D808:7390:68B4:ACB6:E2CA:53A4 (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Not all accomplices with Wikipedia pages are listed

I hope someone can look into this and add relevant links. An Italian trade unionist comes to mind... Elmenhorster (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Elmenhorster:. If you there are articles missing from Wikipedia that you think meet the criteria for article creation then please feel free to be bold and create them. Wikipedia has lots of resources to help with creating your first article. If you’d like to work with others you can also find a WikiProject related to the relevant topic.

It’s also always best to be direct so we all understand what you are requesting. If you are talking about creating an article for Luca Visentini you are welcome to develop and expand.

If you instead mean that other people arrested this weekend, such as Visentini, are not included in this article and you find references relevant to Kaili then you can be bold and make the edits.

My view on that would be that I’m yet to read any information linking the two individuals explicitly beyond the fact they were arrested as part of the same investigation. They may not have know of each others involvement for example or are not linked at all. In such cases I would struggle to find a justification for including this information in the Kaili article. Remember, this is an article about Kaili and not the scandal in it’s entirety. Maybe it will become clear that this scandal deserves its own article where, when the information is available, the whole scandal can be discussed within the entirety it’s context.

Happy editing! Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 00:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Article Image decision for Consensus

Image 1 Original image	Image 2 Deusestlux's suggestion	Image 3 TurnipWatch's suggestion
Arabic, Dutch, Egyptian Arabic, Estonian, Finnish, German, Greek, Persian, Polish, Spanish	Italian, Bulgarian	Basque, Catalan, French, Hungarian, Norwegian, Russian
2,897 × 3,410 pixels Blurring in foreground	3,701 × 5,551 pixels Not level	1,440 × 1,811 pixels

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddy1 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have recently undone @Deusestlux:'s change of image for this article to maintain status quo while we gather consensus. The images in question are;

• The original and long standing image for this article. Image1
• Deusestlux proposed change. Image 2

The rational behind retaining image 1;

Poorer quality image. Image 2, I believe to be a low quality image of the subject. The composition of the subject is not level, the subject appears to be mid-speech and the image is a wider shot than the image 1. Objectively, image 1 is a better image. I believe the original is a stronger image for this article.

Image similarities. This article is relatively brief and the images and very simular. I do not believe this warrants both images being included in the article as per Deusestlux's edit. One image only should be used until such time as the article is developed further warranting additional images. At such time, we should only add an addition image if it adds further context to the article that is not provided by the main image.

Please join the discussion to get consensus on selecting an article image.

Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 12:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Concur that only one image is necessary at this time. But I would like to see a better image. Ideally without headphones/microphone.

This doesn't get all the way there (still have headphones), but I think that one, in use on Russian and Hungarian versions of the page is better than the one in use and the one suggested by Deusestlux. TurnipWatch (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @TurnipWatch: I'd love to know your suggestion but that link appears to be broken. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 18:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies: this one. TurnipWatch (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Headphones on the other hand might be appropriate for someone who apparently is famous in part as a former newscaster? 90.112.72.149 (talk) 21:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

My preference would be image 1. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 22:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Image 1. I do not like seeing people's nostrils and it makes them look arrogant. Also, image 2 is not leveled. Cinadon36 09:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually none of the images are level - they are all tilted - for example File:Eva Kaili 2016.jpg is a cropped version of File:Greek_part_-_Citizens’_Corner_debate-_Migration_maze_–_policing_Europe’s_borders,_whose_job_is_it?_(27093780463).jpg. But this can be fixed by rotating and cropping the original photograph in Photoshop. Have you ever tried removing the tilt from photos taken on a smartphone? They have too much spherical aberration. Fortunately these photographs were taken on real cameras (e.g. CANON 5D Mark III) so they are fixable.

All the photos that have her face in them, also show her nostrils. Personally, I like (2) and (3) more than (1).-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Revert of Eva Kaili suspension from infobox

Moved from User talk:Jo Jc Jo

Hello, First of all, I believe it is neccessary for the suspension date in the infobox to be kept, to inform the viewer and give them a better overview of what happened, and she was not suspended for one day but from December 9 until December 13. Kind regards, Vosle — Preceding unsigned comment added by VosleCap (talk • contribs) 13:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@VosleCap: Okay. I don't really feel strongly about it but it is clear from the text of the article about the suspension. It's just a question of what is in the infobox. I think if we consider WP:NOTNEWS then the test of time will put into perspective that she was suspended on Saturday and removed on Tuesday as an unimportant detail (unimportant in the context of what should be included in an infobox). Of course, it should remain in the body of the article. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 13:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Disputed sentence i.e. about Kaili repeatedly defending PM Mitsotakis's administration

The following sentence has been disputed by an IP editor:^[1][2]

For example, she had repeatedly defended the administration of right-wing Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

The citation certainly supports the preceding sentence in the article: Following her arrest, PASOK president Nikos Androulakis described her as "a Trojan horse of New Democracy", and announced that she would not be a candidate for PASOK again. The citation was there to support she had strongly opposed the Prespa Agreement, proposed by Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras in 2018, but that was deleted by Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης on 16 December 2022.^[3] I do not see how the citation explicitly supports the sentence it has been left against.

I am moving the citation to the sentence it supports and adding a FACT tag to the existing sentence.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe it appropriate to include a section called “controversy inside PASOK” at all. This gives undue bias to Androulakis comments and criticism. Kaili has been a member of PASOK for a long time and it is natural that a the leader would attack a rumour led future competitor. It maybe true to say Kaili is on the right of PASOK (indeed, in Brussels she’s considered on the right of S&D) but there is no source claiming this is controversial.

Being a member of a political party and disagreeing with some aspects does not make a controversy.

I would suggest this section be reworked as “political views” which can include broader research on Kaili’s views. Particularly of interest could be her pro-business views, views on tech & crypto for example. Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 17:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Jo Jc Jo I think it needs to stay because she was indeed very controversial inside PASOK since at least 2011-12 (it's not just Androulakis wanting to naturally distance himself after her arrest). The problem is that PASOK as a party has a very complicated history (in short, it was simultaneously very leftist and very nationalist from its founding in 1974 until the death of Andreas Papandreou in 1996, then became pretty much mainstream social-democratic, but still retaining a nationalist wing). Among the controversies that Kaili caused inside PASOK were the claim that benefits are for lazy people, trying (just last month) to downplay the Greek wire-tapping scandal where Androulakis himself was a victim, and the fact that in Brussels she regularly voted against the party line, most prominently last September, when she endorsed the center-right Alessandro Chiocchetti. However, her opposition to the Prespa Agreement (which is sometimes provided as proof of her right-wing stance) was in fact the position of PASOK as well. In short, she was (very) controversial when it comes to economic issues (PASOK supports labor unions, civil servants, farmers etc. while Kaili is very pro-business) but on foreign policy she was rather mainstream and, in fact, her support for Qatar was the one thing that stood as massively unpopular, because Greece is strongly allied with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE (these relations, ironically, were strongest under PASOK governments). When she was elected Vice President in January 2022, New Democracy MEPs supported her and voted for her. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης, what would really help would be if the article had this as content, with citations to reliable sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης: That’s really interesting, thanks for engaging in this topic with me! I appreciate your rationale but if this is the case the arguments you have made above need to be in the article to warrant the section being titled as such as the current content is not a controversy. But even taking into consideration your arguments here, it seems to be a systemic party issue that is not necessarily because of Kaili. (making this whole section an example of WP:coatrack and further justifying its removal, or, as I suggest, renaming and expansion). From what you suggest PASOK is a broad church (nationalists and social-democratic and left wing coming together). If this is the case, then Kaili having different views to others in the party should be expected not “controversial”.

Claiming benefits are for lazy people is a political position (not a controversy). Opposing Prespa is a political position (not a controversy). Being pro-business is a political position (not a controversy). Etc. etc. You could write a “controversies” section on ever political that has ever lived if it all it took was when they disagreed or voted against their party.

It is certainly interesting that her politics is different to her party’s but this is a biography about her and I believe “political views” is more appropriate and neutral. I’m yet to see any controversy. A paragraph here could be given to how she regularly disagrees with her party, how she’s part of the nationalist wing of the party, but beyond that I think it’s giving undue prominence to a difference of opinion between a party member and it’s (current) leadership. I think, if you are able to find a reliable source, you could go as far to say “Kaili is controversial inside the party” but that is different from a whole section on “controversies inside PASOK”.

I would even push you to consider the alternative. To have some balance in this biography surely we should then have an “agreements inside PASOK” and I’m sure we can all see how preposterous that suggestion is.

I’m going to @Toddy1: here too as a fellow editor who’s been working on this recently for his view on the matter. But having engaged in the topic in more depth now I am more convinced the section should be changed.

Jo Jc Jo^{Talk💬Edits📝} 23:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Jo Jc Jo and Toddy1, of course these are political positions (and perfectly legitimate ones), but they were massively controversial inside PASOK (especially the "benefits are for lazy people", back in 2019). PASOK isn't a broad church, at least in economics. It's social-democratic, drawing its power from organized labor, farmers' associations and civil servants. So, Kaili's positions were massively controversial, and she became even more so by continuously ignoring the party line in EP votes and by downplaying the wire-tapping scandal. Toddy1, I'm sure one can find citations for some of the above if one puts some effort. Here (in French) is quoted her "benefits are for lazy people" opinion, and here is her downplaying of the wiretapping affair, where Androulakis himself was a victim. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is meant to be a biography of Kaili. Citations dated before the corruption scandal would be best (i.e. ones written before various people felt the need to distance themselves from her). Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης, I assume that you are fluent in the Greek language, so you ought to be able to find such citations.

Wikipedia guidance is to avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. In my opinion, the political positions she adopted during her political career should be expressed in the sections that cover her career. If these positions were controversial within PASOK, there should be citations to reliable sources saying so. And this is where we hit a problem. We have a citation that gave her opposition to the Prespa Agreement as an example of her siding with the Greek conservative party and distancing herself from PASOK.^[4] You deleted that, because you said that the Prespa Agreement was opposed by PASOK as being against Greek national interests, so in this particular case she did not act against her party.^[5] We need to base the article on what reliable sources say. Yes, sometimes sources written by foreigners misunderstand (or misrepresent) Greek politics. That indicates a need for contemporary Greek sources that explain the correct position.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Toddy1, you are correct. I'll try to find some contemporary sources. Regarding Prespa, yes, PASOK opposed it. Here (it's in Greek but you can use Google Translate) is PASOK's declared position from January 2019, when the agreement was about to be brought to Parliament for vote.

"The Movement for Change has made it clear that it will vote against the Prespa agreement. We believe that it does not serve the national interests, because instead of closing wounds of the past, it opens new ones. It creates the risk of strengthening irredentism in the future."

Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References

That is a good way to solve the dispute @Toddy1:. Cinadon36 06:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe that sentence has to go. It is really hard to find strong evidence supporting it cos of the subtle way Kaili was supporting New Democracy. If we keep it, we should add a qualifier or attribution. Cinadon36 07:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Iefinerida.gr is not a RS

I would suggest avoiding iefimerida.gr as a source. No proven reliability. Cinadon36 20:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

See el:Iefimerida.gr – translation.

Because there is some question about the site's reliability, I have added additional citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I have removed iefimera. I also removed a ref pointing to Star Channel, for the same reason.[6] Cinadon36 08:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Also CNN.gr has nothing to do with CNN.com. Cinadon36 08:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Star Channel is not a RS

Star Channel (Greek TV channel) is not a RS. It focuses on gossip and entertainment. There are 499 results of Star channel at hellenichoaxes.gr, a site that spots fake news in greek media. They do not verify their content. Should not be considered RS. To add more pain, greek media freedom of press is really really low, (see for example politico's analysis), so it would be prudent to include only the very best of Greek media as Kathimerini.gr and a few others. Certainly Star Channel should not be included. Cinadon36 10:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC) ps-Also, generally, greeks distrust their home media on political issues much more than any other country in a 2018 Pew research [7]. Cinadon36 11:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Freedom House ranks Greece very highly. The whole "Greek freedom of the press is low" thing is dubious, and has now become part of partisan narratives in the coming election campaign. It its mostly promoted by SYRIZA, because most mainstream news media in Greece are indeed very anti-SYRIZA, just like mainstream media in the U.S. are very anti-Trump. It didn't help that, when in power, SYRIZA tried and failed to shut them down (MEGA being the most prominent example). This talk began with the Reporters Without Borders (RSF) report that ranked Greece lower than Zambia and Chad, and has been thoroughly criticized. Then some NGO activists blamed Greek media for allegedly suppressing information on the push-backs of refugees. But Der Spiegel was forced to retract its story of Greek authorities suppressing information, a story based on NGO reports. [8]

Regarding Star Channel, since the early 2010s it has resumed a strong focus on news programs, and Mara Zacharea, the current news anchorwoman, is a well-known and respected political commentator in Greece. But since I want to be constructive and respect your concerns, I will try replacing it with another source. It won't be be difficult, since Kaili's quote and claims about her daughter are all over the Greek media (I saw it at Ta Nea and Lifo for example, so right now I will proceed to replace Star Channel). But please do not make such sweeping changes in such a way. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Freedom House reviews the country, not media landscape. There are many articles that comment Greece newspapers in foreign press, so it is not merely a partisan opinion that quality of greek media is low. For example, look at the articles of

• politico How Greece became Europe’s worst place for press freedom
• NYT, How Free Is the Press in the Birthplace of Democracy?
• The Guardian Record 28 countries rated ‘very bad’ in press freedom index

Regarding Star Channel, I couldnt spot a single report that claims it is a reliable news media.

I would suggest removing Star Channel (and the likes, Newsit, CNN.gr) and replace them with foreign or greek media (ta Nea or lifo, will be an improvement)Cinadon36 14:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that there's no problem with Iefimerida. Because Iefimerida is a news site with conservative and right-wing political commentary, it is being denounced by SYRIZA. For the same reason, pro-SYRIZA news sites such as koutipandoras or tvxs and newspapers such as Ethnos are denounced by New Democracy. This is to be expected, and it's part of the political fights in every country. The Iefimerida source that you disapprove was a news item, not a commentary/opinion/analysis. Also, I believe it's very unfortunate to make so sweeping generalizations that might even appear somewhat racist. You have already denounced and simply discarded many of the leading news sources in Greece. I don't think CNN.gr or Newsit are particularly partisan or unreliable in any sense. This is a collaborative effort, we need to assume good faith and work together. Therefore, I assume good faith and I will not again use Iefimerida in this article as a source. I have already acted to replace Star Channel with Ta Nea as a source. I strongly disagree with your assessments of Greek media quality, however, and if you read carefully my original comment above, some of these stories have been already retracted (such as the Spiegel story). Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Your or mine personal opinions have little weight. What matters is the evidence. There is not one single indication that Star Channel is reliable. Cinadon36 16:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

As long as we use some Greek sources, I do not care which ones. I am happy to be guided by others as to which are more reliable.

It is very important that we do use some Greek sources because (a) the article needs to tell readers what Kaili would like us to believe and this is more likely to be in Greek sources, (b) because foreigners sometimes get Greek politics wrong (especially foreign journalists whose interest in Greek politics started in December 2022), and (c) because Greek sources may have details and background that enrich the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Toddy1 for your message. To be clear: I am not suggesting removing all greek media. Some greek media are quite decent (Kathimerini, toVima, taNea, efsyn et cetera). Star Channel or iefimerida shouldnt be included. 08:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Cinadon36 08:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Mantalena Kaili

One of the odd omissions from Eva Kaili's biography is Mantalena Kaili (Eva's sister). See:

• Volpicelli, Gian (22 December 2022). "A family affair: How the Kaili sisters intertwined lobbying and politics. As Eva Kaili rose through EU politics, her sister was running a parallel structure — Made Group — that ran with many of the same themes". Politico Europe.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The lead

Is opinion of lawyers so notable to be quoted in the lead? The page is intensively edited by unregistered users. Maybe protection is needed? Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. That means that this article must represent fairly and proportionately both side's published views on her arrest and the charges against her. Kaili's lawyers (Michalis Dimitrakopoulos and André Risopoulos) were making statements on her behalf. Since we all agree that her arrest and the charges of corruption are sufficiently notable to go in the lead, we should also accept that what she wants us to believe regarding these events also needs mentioning in the lead.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

"This user does not understand English (or understands it with considerable difficulty)." Who writes your texts? Xx236 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I am making some changes to the lead. The details of interview with lawyers and waiver belong in text not intro. The language was in any case unencyclopaedic ("seismic uproar" etc). Enough to say she says she is innocent. No need for references in intro as everything is referenced in text. Anyway first reference is a link to photo that doesn't work, second link is to her website which is already given in infobox. The other two are foreign language sites and one is subscription only so not best for introduction. Southdevonian (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with most of what Southdevonian wrote regarding the lead. But the foreign language, subscription-only sites are very important in this particular case, especially the original Le Soir story (it's in French, and subscription-only) which describes the whole 9 December 2022 operation in detail. Le Soir are the ones that originally brought to light the whole Qatargate affair and enjoy excellent access to the Belgian judges and police (Kaili's lawyers regularly protest that Le Soir have access to, and publish, information about Kaili's personal data). Here in Greece, Kaili's claims that she was tortured (not in prison, but during her interrogations by police), have received wide publicity (but not always wide acceptance). Maybe there should be a small sentence in the lead describing that Kaili has denounced the conduct of Belgian police and the conditions of her detention. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

If Kaili makes a formal complaint about her treatment then it can go in introduction.Southdevonian (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of sister's name

I had spelled her sister's name Madalena as that was how it was spelled in the source, but happy to go with Mantalena if that is the more usual (and her own!) spelling. No need for two references to make one point, so have removed one that didn't add anything, moved the Knews ref to cover parents' names and adjusted wording of sentence about sister to reflect Politico source. Southdevonian (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

References for personal life

I agree that it is important not to rely exclusively on one source for controversial facts, but one source is sufficient when something is entirely accepted and uncontroversial. Kaili and Giorgi are partners and have a child born 2021. All the media agree. No-one has suggested otherwise. Certainly no need for two sources for one simple undisputed sentence and, where there is a choice, better to go with an English language accessible source for the English language Wikipedia (nothing wrong of course with foreign language sources when they introduce information not available in English language sources). There is a useful essay here Wikipedia:Citation_overkill Southdevonian (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)