Talk:George Papadopoulos

Investigation

Lots of details might be warranted inclusion. Wikipietime

Thanks! Wikipietime (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This whole article needs to be removed and started over. It is poorly sourced and written. Sandvol (talk) 13:31 11 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.195.79 (talk)

Sandvol, please provide specific comments about what may need to be changed, and the reliable sources that support these changes. Your overly broad statement does not provide us with anything to work on. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Pertinent Doc

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4163402/Papadopoulos-Statement-Offense.pdf

Wikipietime (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I see the doc has been added. I suggested renaming it; see commons:File talk:Statement of the offense.filed.pdf. = paul2520 (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed BLP claims in lede

The previous version of the lede implicated Papadopoulos in the dissemination of emails stolen from John Podesta and the DNC. No source was provided and no sources I've read support that. The text in the court document linked above is:

• the professor had told him about the Russians possessing "dirt" on then-candidate Hillary Clinton in the form of "thousands of emails."

The source and/or content of those emails is not specified. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

You're joking, right? [1]. Volunteer Marek  19:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

He plead guilty. Put it back in.Casprings (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The source provided [2] does not state that the "emails" discussed were either the DNC or Podesta leaks. Read it carefully. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The current version is not ideal. The first sentence claims the "thousands of emails" were Clinton's (suggesting the emails in question were neither the DNC nor Podesta leaks) then the second sentence mentions the DNC and Podesta leaks (suggesting the emails in question were the DNC and Podesta leaks.) That is a contradiction but it's sourced so it's not a BLP violation. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the bait for him was "thousands of emails" with "dirt on Hillary Clinton". But they never identified the source of the emails, and the hacking of the DNC and other systems were not yet public knowledge. We should be careful not to suggest a source for the emails. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The DNC and Podesta hacks/leaks were not public knowledge at the time but the Clinton/Blumenthal hack was. [3] Diraphe (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Age?

How was his age determined to be 30? If he was born in 1987, as the article states, he could be 29 if his birthday is later this year. Not a huge issue, but we should get clarification on that. Thanks.Juneau Mike (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

He was born in August 1987 per sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a staffer?

It was claimed in an edit summary that Papadopoulos "was never a staffer." He has been described as a former Trump campaign (junior) staffer by numerous RS. Trump himself said Papadopoulos was a "young, low level volunteer named George," which seems to imply that he wasn't paid for his work. --Tataral (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Contradiction

This Wikipedia article disagrees with its self: It states that "Papadopoulos has lived for the past several years with relatives in the Ravenswood neighborhood of Chicago" and the included Statement of Facts of Guilt asserts that "In early March 2016, defendant PAPADOPOULOS learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Campaign. Defendant PAPADOPOULOS was living in London, England, at the time." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CB01:7FF0:5096:BE0:7FF4:925E (talk) 07:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of fact-check

This is my preferred version:

• Following his guilty plea, Trump described Papadopoulos as a "young, low level volunteer named George, who has already proven to be a liar" and said few people in his campaign had heard about Papadopoulos. FactCheck.Org, PolitiFact and CNN disputed Trump's statement, noting that during the campaign, Trump named Papadopoulos as one of his five foreign policy advisers and described him as an "excellent guy".

Editor James Lambden prefers a version[4] where the fact-checking is removed and has reverted twice in quick succession to ensure that this is the outcome (even though there are WP:BLP concerns and this is a page related to post-1932 US politics). Lambden says that the Wikipedia article already mentions in a different place that Trump had praised Papadopolous. But these mentions occur in a different context (the start of Pap's involvement in the campaign). Seeing as how Trump is making false (or disputed, at the very least) claims about Papadopolous (in Oct 2017), it needs to be made clear that those claims have been rebutted by fact-checkers. Otherwise, readers might miss the text that occurs earlier in the article and take Trump on his word (Oct 2017) that Pap was a low-level volunteer and a liar. There are WP:BLP concerns. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I am generally inclined to exclude statements made from Trump unless they are really and truly integral to Papadopoulos's biography. This is because so much crap spews from Trump that has no grounding in reality. It reflects more on Trump than it does on Papadopoulos. So, in this case, I would exclude both the content in dispute here as well as Trump's comment about Papadopoulos being an oil and gas consultant and an excellent guy. The purpose of this article is to summarize verifiable facts about Papadopoulos's life, not to point out potential inconsistencies in Trump's comments about Papadopoulos. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that's problematic because being a key advisor in a presidential campaign is a big thing in any normal person's life. Furthermore, being neck-deep in an investigation that can unravel a presidency is a big thing, which is why the Trump administration is now making claims about George and trying to distance the Pres from him. I think Trump's comments about George are notable and due weight, but only if given the full context (fact-checking). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that being a key advisor is a big thing. There are a number of sources going into considerable detail about Papadopoulos's role in the campaign. There is plenty of reliably sourced content about this without us having to describe the Trump camp's spin campaign. On your second point, I don't mean to suggest we deemphasize Papdopoulos's role in the investigation, just that we deemphasize Trump's comments about Papdopoulos's role in the investigation. They just don't seem that substantive or biographically significant to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I disagree but I get your point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

On the question of why President Trump called Papadopoulos an “excellent guy”, the sources appear in disagreement. The remark was made by President Trump’s at his meeting with the Washington Post Editorial Board on March 21, 2018. Trump, announcing his foreign policy advisers, calls Papadopoulos, an “excellent guy.” He made no other personal appraisal of any other adviser.

To read this in context, the article now correctly reflects that Trump was not speaking extemporaneously, but reading from a list. Papadopoulos was 3rd on the list. Trump named, verbatim:

(1) Walid Phares, who you probably know, Ph.D.,

adviser to the House of Representatives caucus, and he's a counter-terrorism expert

(2) Carter Page, Ph.D.

(3) George Papadopoulos, he’s an oil and energy consultant, excellent guy

So, after listing two Ph.D., he comes to George Papadopoulos, who only has his area of specialization listed. My take, and I believe that listening to the audio supports this, that Trump wanted some embellishment for Papadopoulos' name too, and not leave it just hanging. No Ph.D., but he adds a personal kudos, "excellent guy.”

The remaining 2 have sufficient honorifics and titles:

(4) The Honorable Joe Schmitz, Inspector General at the Department of Defense

(5) Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg

So Trump's recognition of Papadopoulos (which was surely not written down as such on the list), is not some unintentional "tell" of Papadopoulos having Trump's recognition, but he added it extemporaneously, in an effort at giving a balanced scorecard of the foreign policy advisers, including, an "excellent guy." Multiannis (talk) 09:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Four languages

We have a duty to eliminate the ad hominem biases of sources and other editors when editing articles about people. This is particularly outlined in WP:ACHIEVE NPOV. When sources editorialise to unjustifiably cast doubt on the veracity of the subject whilst reporting fact, we must distill the reporting, and eliminate the bias. Sceptical phrasings such as, "He claims to be a Jew", or, "He says he studied architecture", show the writer's disdain towards the subject. If these phrasings are retained in our editing, it serves to echo the prejudice in the source's reporting, and is out of place in a neutral work such as ours. In the instant case, the subject admitted lying to US authorities. That does not, however make him a pathological liar, or an object of our scorn. 84.176.239.161 (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I applaud your good faith effort to improve the article, but without citing a source that actually says he speaks these languages, we can’t add this content without violating our verifiability and BLP policies. If you don’t stop edit warring you will likely get blocked. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

84.176.239.161: Nonsense. We follow what the sources say. Neutrality^talk 17:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your attempt to resolve this issue by decree, Fleischman. You have not addressed my core complaint that the text you have wanted to retain is defamatory. The source says that he speaks those languages; or are you suggesting that USA Today is unreliable? I advise you resist the impulse to unilaterally revert my edit (again!) until there is a broad consensus on the issue. Now that I read what you have posted about other items on this talk page, I sense that you are a partisan. Your comment that, "this is because so much crap spews from Trump that has no grounding in reality", indicates a reckless lack of disinterest about the current US administration in general, and this article in particular. Take a deep breath. Resist knee-jerk behaviour. Think. — 84.176.239.161 (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Believe me I've thought. Now you need to read. The source doesn't say he speaks those languages. It says he says he speaks those languages. Your concern is legitimate but inconsistent with Wikipedia policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Fleischman, I think your threatening tone is uncalled for. You have again reverted my edit without having made a good-faith effort to find consensus here. Your behaviour is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy regarding editorial differences of opinion, see WP:3RR. I don't want to have to escalate this dispute. I urge you to consider the difference between the reported fact (he speaks four languages) from the gratuitous dig at his character (so he says). — 84.176.239.161 (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's you that will be blocked for disruption. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

84.176.239.161, in case you didn't see it on your talk page, I've reported you at WP:ANEW. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Kensington Wine Rooms

Why are we edit warring to say precisely where Papadopoulos told the Australian diplomat about the "political dirt" on HRC? What is the encyclopedic significance of this? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Alexander Downing

Oska, please stop edit warring to remove the content about Papadopoulos talking to Alexander Downing. Your edit summary that the reliable sources provide no "evidence" reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how our verifiability policy works (and how news journalism works). Reliable sources are in no way required to "prove" their reporting with evidence. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sentencing by Court

Hey, has Papadopoulos been sentenced? Has it been delayed? He copped to a plea, but what about him being sentenced for the crime to which he pled guilty?Television fan (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think Television fan is using these questions as a roundabout way of defending their edit war over this content. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and isn't intended to be a place where readers go to get the latest status on anything. It's verifiable that prosecutors delayed Papadopoulous's sentencing hearing, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic content. It's a juicy detail as we all speculate how long Mueller's investigation will go on, but in In 10 years time it will be biographically insignificant. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

What juicy detail? While the title of the article makes it sound a juicy tidbit of gossip, the reference still states that both sides have made a request to delay sentencing as the article states. This paragraph now conveys to the reader that a guilty plea was made, a plea deal exists, but that sentencing has not been effectuated. I agree that this sentence should be updated when changes occur because of more sentencing postponements or the actual sentence has been made.Television fan (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you've missed my point. This material should be removed. Please read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I read the Recentism link. While the status of the sentence may fall under recentism, the sentence will be important in 10 years. I'm open to any sentence which informs the reader about what sentence has been given to a criminal. Maybe something like "As of January 17, 2018, Papadopoulos has not been sentenced while providing the reference.Television fan (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course, when Papadopoulos receives his sentence then it will most definitely be included. In the meantime, Wikipedia isn't intended to be a place where readers go to get the latest status on anything. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not an "anything." This provides "finality" of the subject of the topic. A sentence handed down to a criminal provides the finality of the topic. I believe this information is useful to a student if a teacher asks "what has he been sentenced to"? I agree that the fact that lawyers meet and make a recommendation is recentism and I will amend the sentence because these facts don't pass the 10 year rule. But the broader topic of sentencing to a paragraph entitled "Arrest and guilty plea" is a nature fact and provides finality to topic.Television fan (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's absolute nonsense if you understand how the federal government conducts law enforcement and plea deals. The subsequent Durham Report (key points summarized here, as the corporate media has not done any deep-dives: https://www.racket.news/p/damn-thats-thin-i-know-it-sucks-the) demonstrates factually, with the US government's own original documentation and ensuing investigations (Mueller and Durham) that there was nothing whatsoever to go on regarding Papadopoulos having had any contact with Russians of any kind. To wit: He pled guilty for lying to the federal government which is a crime, he did not include in his plea anything related specifically to interactions with a Russian agent of any kind and "paragraph 5" upon which the entirety of Crossfire Hurricane was predicated does not provide any additional specificity.

In summary, the section on the Mueller investigation needs to be updated with the results of the Durham investigation and subsequent analysis by journalists like Matt Taibbi and others at his "Racket News" site. Other sites also have looked into it and come to the same conclusions, but most have a heavy pro Trump and GOP bias. 47.24.0.33 (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

BS. Durham's report has been covered extensively and criticized thoroughly for its shoddiness, political partisanship, defenses of Trump, and catering to conspiracy theories. Mueller and Horowitz made much more thorough and serious investigations, and Durham presents no evidence to undermine them, although he tries to sow doubt on some of their conclusions, conclusions which still stand. His investigation was an abject failure, just as he was in court. Taibbi and your source are not RS. They cannot be used here. Try writing on your own blog or go to Conservapedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Fringe nonsense

Hatting unhelpful squabbling. --MelanieN (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fringe nonsense from the Daily Caller keeps getting added to the article[5]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Daily Caller may not be considered a reliable source, but it's far from "fringe". Since you've been lately using that term to describe pretty much anything opinion-wise you don't agree with politically, perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word so you can stop using it incorrectly and inappropriately so frequently. [6] [7] [8] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Stop stalking me. You've been repeatedly warned about this. And yes, the Daily Caller is a fringe source that frequently promotes hoaxes, falsehoods and conspiracy theories. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC) The article's on my watchlist. I noticed a change to the talk page per my watchlist and responded. Nothing sinister about it. And no, Daily Caller is not a fringe source. Like I said above, look up what the term means (I provided three pertinent links for you above). Of late, you're using the term inappropriately and far too often. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Here is a list of articles on Snopes that involve the Daily Caller. They are totally unacceptable as a source, pushing random hoaxes and conspiracy theories that are disproven after the fact. It is absolutley "fringe". They push ideas that are out of the mainstream. (And one of your three "pertinent links" is just an Inigo Montoya meme.) – Muboshgu (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Unreliable source, fine. "Fringe", no. Snopes isn't a reliable source either, by the way. ;-) And of course it's Inigo Montoya. It would seem the pertinence and relevance of the meme (as well as the humor) is lost on you? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:05, 31 August 2018 (UTC) (edit conflict)My meme humor abilities don't kick in until after coffee. Snopes is useful, just like Politifact. Here's what Politifact has said about the Daily Caller. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Politifact is not a reliable source, is it? Neither is Snopes. Doesn't matter what they think of Daily Caller just as it doesn't matter with what Daily Caller thinks of Politifact and Snopes for Wikipedia purposes because none of them are reliable sources. That said, all three are useful, depending on your need for confirmation bias or if you're able to think on your own and sift through the bias and keep the NPOV content in all three. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Politifact is absolutely a reliable source. Snopes is useful, though maybe not considered RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Muboshgu, while Snopes isn't quite as highly rated as PolitiFact, it's still a RS, and obviously suitable to judge the content of a fringe source like Daily Caller. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC) @BullRangifer: I don't disagree. All I mean is that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources specifically mentions Politifact as reliable, and doesn't say anything about Snopes. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Ah! It should be mentioned there. All the major fact checking sites are considered RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Forbes, which is an actual reliable source, states Snopes' reliability is quite questionable. What a quandry. ;-) [9] -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC) That's a Forbes.com contributor blog, which is not routinely reviewed or fact-checked by anyone; it's little better than a random WordPress blog. Forbes.com uses a "contributor model" in which a wide network of "contributors" writes and publishes articles directly on the website. As per the Columbia Journalism Review, No matter their background or compensation, all contributors can publish their own work without so much as a cursory edit. [10] In short, that column is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Nowhere in the article does it say it's a blog post. The writer is a contributor, but that makes the article unreliable? Forbes is a reliable source. The writer is reputable. Sorry, I'm not seeing it the same way you are. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC) You've never edited this page before. And you've been following me to a number of pages in recent days[11][12][13], as well as expressed grievances about me on the talk page of another editor that I've had content disputes with (in addition, to sending the guy a link to a content dispute that you and I have - it's not the first time that you try to direct editors whom I am tussling with to active content disputes that you and I are involved in)[14]. Your obsession with me is creepy and you've been repeatedly warned to step off. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC) Doesn't matter if I've edited the page before. It's been on my watchlist, I responded to a comment. Not obsessed with you, but I have to ask, did you follow me to SunCrow's talk page? I could say you did just as you are saying I'm following you, but does that make it true. Regardless, I'm certainly not going to accuse you of being obsessed with me. It would be silly to think that an editor is obsessed with me simply because we have an interest in politically-related articles and show up at the same articles from time to time. I hope you can reconcile in your mind that I'm not stalking you and hope you're not concerned about it. There's nothing to be concerned with, I assure you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Of course you stalked me to those pages. Your story is going to be that that you just accidentally found your self on Charles Hurt's page 20 minutes after I was there, the Rick Scott page a few hours after I was there and the Daily Caller page a few hours after I was there? In all your years of editing Wikipedia, you, someone with well-established recent record of stalking me to pages , who has been explicitly warned by admins for harassing me, just happened to make your first edit to those pages immediately after I did? And of course I looked at your user contributions when I see you obsessively hounding me to a number of pages. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC) The Hurt page has been on my watchlist for some time, as have the pages of other Fox on-air personalities. The Daily Caller has been on my watchlist for some time, as has the Tucker Carlson page. The Rick Scott edit came after the election on Tuesday, I was reading the article as a natural progression from DeSantis' article, made some changes. I'm not sure what the fuss is about. It's not as if I spend my time reverting your edits. If I saw someone such as yourself editing an article I do and making good edits that improve the article, are not disruptive, or constant reversions of my edits, I'd be glad for it. Why? Because we're supposed to improve articles. That's why I'm here, I assume you are, too? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Photo of March 31, 2016 Meeting of Foreign Policy Team, with Papadopolous (fourth from right of Candidate Trump) from Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

We need a better photo

Maybe this one https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/02/california-candidates-compete-in-two-super-tuesday-elections/ 2A00:1370:812C:9562:3073:140:AA00:A551 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: see WP:IUPC. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I know that. We need something in public domain. 2A00:1370:812C:9562:3073:140:AA00:A551 (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If you know that, then why suggest that photo in the first place? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• George Papadopoulos.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 September 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Considerable opposition based on the position that the proposal would introduce “unnecessary disambiguation” because it’s unclear the Greek dictator is the primary topic for the anglicized title. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 06:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

---

George Papadopoulos → George Papadopoulos (Trump advisor) – I find it difficult to believe that this is the primary topic for the name. The Greek dictator Georgios Papadopoulos has much more long-term significance, and his name is frequently anglicised as "George". Using the WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY test, the majority of reliable sources which discuss "George Papadopoulos" do not refer to the Trump advisor—see Google Books or Google Scholar. (t · c) buidhe 07:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: see Talk:Georgios Papadopoulos#Requested move 22 September 2020 for a related move request. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Just a few examples from scholarly sources where "George Papadopoulos" refers to the dictator: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] (t · c) buidhe 07:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support as above In ictu oculi (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary disambiguation. If one is at "George" and the other is at "Georgios", hat notes should suffice (like the one on the dictator's page). I don't know why the hatnote on this page presently has "Stephonopoulos" in there. We should have a hat note that directs to the dictator and then to the disambig page. Also, I don't like that the proposed disambiguator has "Trump" in it. Will he keep working for Trump or possibly branch out and do other notable things having nothing to do with Trump? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Here is a google search using the encrypted method recommended by WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. The results uniformly refer to this subject. 3K008P9 (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  That method is still affected by recentism and is not an accurate reflection of long-term significance. (t · c) buidhe 02:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support I agree that it is not PRIMARYTOPIC, however I don't am not really satisfied by the disambiguator "(Trump advisor)". It seems rather personally possessive for someone who had only a very short engagement. Maybe "(political advisor)" or "(US advisor)" or simply "(born 1987)"? I don't know. Can't think of anything better right now. Walrasiad (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  I would be happy with (political advisor) as a disambiguator, or the others you suggested. (t · c) buidhe 05:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  There has to be a better descriptor than "Trump advisor." The subject's only connection to Trump was that he was on a list foreign policy advisors that Trump waived around. That was apparently reason enough for the Obama FBI to investigate him. 3K008P9 (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. As stated above, the parenthetical disambiguation is unnecessary. A hatnote to the other article is sufficient. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Muboshgu. Since the dictator isn't actually "George Papadopoulos", he doesn't really have a good claim to challenge WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over someone who actually is called that. In addition, I'm not convinced "the majority of reliable sources which discuss "George Papadopoulos" do not refer to the Trump advisor" is really all that accurate. The ngram for "George Papadopoulos" has only increased with the political advisor's prominence. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was also thinking of WP:SMALLDETAILS too when you have "George" vs. "Georgios". Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. For all of those citing SMALLDETAILS, that argument first depends on the other article being at the correct title according to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH. However, doing a search on Google Scholar returns significantly more results for "George Papadopoulos" dictator than "Georgios Papadopoulos" dictator, suggesting that the dictator's article should be moved. (t · c) buidhe 17:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Georgios in Greek names is often anglicised to George. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Previous moves

• at 18:39, 21 December 2006 Mitsos moved page George Papadopoulos to Georgios Papadopoulos over redirect (Greek name)
• at 18:34, 30 October 2017 Ixfd64 moved page George Papadopoulos (policy adviser) to George Papadopoulos (Requested by JayCoop at WP:RM/TR: No need to disambiguate.)

The Greek head of state was sitting on the title George Papadopoulos from the article's 18 December 2003 creation until 21 December 2006, i.e. for 3 years. That's hardly a "small detail". Would you consider moving another biography over the Don Trump redirect a "small detail"? That October 2017 move shouldn't have been done as a "technical request". – wbm1058 (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Those three years, 2003-06, were the first three years of Wikipedia, and are not the same as 2016-19 would be. I don't see how the Trump example applies. After all, "Don Trump" is still a redirect to him, not his son (who goes by "Don Jr.). – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgios Papadopoulos which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Predication of Clovis' approval on Papadopoulos' information

Currently, the article writes:

"Clovis, as Trump national campaign co-chairman, encouraged Papadopoulos to fly to Russia to meet with agents of the Russian Foreign Ministry, after Papadopoulos had been told that Russia had "dirt" on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails and wanted to share it with Trump's campaign."

This makes it sound as though Clovis was aware of Mifsud's allegation that Russia had emails of Hilary Clinton, and then encouraged travel to Russia, when Clovis had no such knowledge. This is a misleading arrangement of the information in the cited sources. Tachypaidia (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? Papadopoulos had been reporting everything back to the campaign (he was working for them!) and even Trump knew about it, according to Cohen's testimony. Do you think that Clovis wouldn't know? -- Valjean (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

The very first of the four sources we list for that content says this:

At one point, Papadopoulos emailed Clovis and other campaign officials about a March 24, 2016, meeting he had in London with a professor, who had introduced him to the Russian ambassador and a Russian woman he described as "Putin's niece." The group had talked about arranging a meeting "between us and the Russian leadership to discuss U.S.-Russia ties under President Trump," Papadopoulos wrote. (Papadopoulos later learned that the woman was not Putin's niece, and while he expected to meet the ambassador, he never did, according to filings.)[27]

Papadopoulos was doing his job to keep Clovis (and other campaign officials) informed.

Papadopoulos joined the campaign on March 6, 2016. The email above was on March 24. On April 26, Mifsud told Papadopoulos about the "dirt" on Clinton (which never really panned out as dirt). There is plenty of evidence that Papadopoulos regularly emailed Clovis and other campaign members about his activities. That was his job. Court records contain many emails. "Among those in the campaign who knew about the contacts was Sam Clovis, who helped supervise the foreign-policy team, according to a former campaign aide. Mr. Clovis could not be reached for comment."[28] I think it's reasonable to assume that Clovis knew about this, and unusual and unrealistic to assume otherwise. -- Valjean (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Papadopoulos was nearly exclusively in Europe, the only means of communication back to the States was by email, messaging platform (Facebook, Linkedin, Skype), phone calls, texts, etc., all electronic communications with a record. On April 5, 2018 Papadopoulos speaks with Carter Page via Skype. Carter Page is subject to a FISA warrant from October 22, 2016, and applicable to those whom he communicated with retroactively. Papadopoulos' entire electronic record, including, say for example, his nine (9) web searches (complete with date stamp and misspellings) on 'Putin's niece' are turned over, And he turned over his handwritten journal he kept to the FBI. All his testimony was cross-examined with other witnesses, etc. and were consistent. The findings of the FBI investigation, the House Investigative Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Horowitz Inspector General Report, the Mueller Report all found nothing, no record, electronic, handwritten, or testimonial. He did confess to the FBI that he did tell his fellow Greek, the Greek foreign minister, on May 26, 2016, of Hillary's emails, who in turn told GP "Do not ever repeat that again. That is not something that should ever be mentioned."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 23:20, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Detail, Photo of March 31, 2016 Meeting of Foreign Policy Team, with Papadopolous (forth from right of Candidate Trump) from Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (cropped).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Detail, Photo of March 31, 2016 Meeting of Foreign Policy Team, with Papadopolous (forth from right of Candidate Trump) from Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election (cropped).png|nomination page]]. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Excursion on Greek Defense Minister

A lengthy paragraph was inserted on Papadopoulos and Greek Defense Minister Panos Kammenos as a possible source of Russian electoral interference via Kammenos, but provides no evidence, relying solely on innuendo and insinuation. Deletion advised. Tachypaidia (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)