Talk:Voice of Reason (political party)

Far right labelling.

There have been multiple repeated attempts to brand Voice of Reason as a "far right" party with few substantial evidence other than some opinion pieces from mostly liberal or socialist oriented Greek newspapers. Please stop trying to project your own opinions into an article that tries to be as factual as possible. The Voice of Reason party manifesto itself is almost entirely a copy of other conservative and right wing populist parties in Europe, so it's unreasonable to label it as anything else. 2A02:214C:8757:AF00:A1AC:8742:4B6B:F858 (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

ccing @Wiiformii - I believe you have been deceived or manipulated here. Could you please revert the edit? The IP address involved has been consistently lying in the edit summaries, pushing a narrative aligned with the party or displaying right-wing views that contradict their supposed stance. They removed five sources supporting the claim that the party is far-right, replacing them with a single source stating it is merely right-wing. The sources they removed are some of the most reputable newspapers in Greece, all of which are conservative. Proto Thema [1] and Kathimerini [2] have he largest circulations, while LIFO and Press Project are both respected media outlets in the country. Same applies for To Vima which backs the claim as well.The most egregious removal is an academic peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Contemporary Central and Eastern Europe. Even the last remaining source they left for the right-wing label clearly states: "Aphrodite Latinopoulou has secured the most votes in her far-right party Voice of Reason." This demonstrates that the anonymous user has been repeatedly lying about the sources and the clearly substantiated discussion. Can you please restore the article to its previous state and ensure that any further discussions and sources are brought to the talk page? This behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. 87.203.204.21 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What is unacceptable is using opinion pieces of non existent journalistic integrity to label an entire political party's position. All of the sources that were mentioned above are not news articles but opinionated pieces from journalists who directly contradict Voice of Logic's own positions. The article was justly locked due to incessant vandalism from anonymous users. 2A02:587:5468:2800:89C9:BE34:1274:4C91 (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You keep spewing lies to support your obvious bias and likely connection to the party. First, you called those articles "liberal websites," which was debunked with sources. Now you're claiming they're opinion pieces, another blatant lie. Care to point out exactly which parts are op-eds and back up your claims?

Michalis1994 (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

One of the sources is a website literally called Liberal.gr I don't think I need to explain further on that. Also I have am neither a supporter of this party nor am I a conservative. It's just very dangerous to label every single political party to the right of center "far right" with little to no reasoning, since the term will inevitably lose its meaning. The article as of right now isn't a friendly or a whitewashing one towards the party's attitudes anyway. It correctly places Voice of Reason to the right of New Democracy and less right wing than parties like Greek Solution or Spartans. I think the bias is on you my friend. 2A02:587:5468:2800:89C9:BE34:1274:4C91 (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You are still lying! None of the sources you removed mentioned liberal.gr. Can you show me exactly where you saw the use of the website liberal.gr with edits/diffs? Since you claim to be unbiased while accusing me of bias, can you show me which sources state that the party is not far-right and is labelled as right-wing? Your version of the article whitewashes the true identity of Voice of Reason because your bias has resulted in personal opinions being used to conceal essential information. The previous version will be restored unless you provide sources to support your extremely dubious claims. Michalis1994 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Lying? This https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25739638.2023.2228066 article with its so called "peer reviewed" legitimacy cites liberal.gr as one of its own sources (not to mention again the opinion pieces) Even when the source is a conservative newspaper, the article being an opinion piece instead of reporting should immediately discard it as a reputable source. But from what I am seeing, the article was for some reason once again reverted, so literally every party to the right of center-center right New Democracy is now identified as far-right, an ideological position which is commonly associated with the actual National Socialist Nazis of Germany in the 30's and Mussolini's fascists. Another victory for the impartiality of Wikipedia I suppose. 2A02:587:5468:2800:89C9:BE34:1274:4C91 (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This is getting utterly embarrassing. You're trying to discredit an academic analysis from a peer-reviewed journal without even bothering to read it. The analysis includes a qualitative examination of around 13 news articles promoting xenophobia, including one from liberal.gr that's part of the empirical data. It's not a citation within the article at all! Your behaviour suggests either deliberate deceit or a serious lack of awareness. As for your arguments, they reek of bias. Mussolini's fascists and the Nazis were integral to authoritarian regimes. Just because you're peddling the notion that Latinopoulou and her party aren't far-right doesn't mean reputable sources will buy it. We rely on evidence here. So, I'll ask once more: do you have any credible sources to back your claim that the party isn't far-right? And one final, exhausting question: are you in any way connected to the party? Michalis1994 (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll do you one better. Give me your arguments as to how the Voice of Reason party is at the same level as other historically "Far-right" parties like ones mentioned in the first paragraph of the related wikipedia article (Fascist/Nazi parties). If you give me an actual way they compare in both policy and political violence (both of which are fundamentals of far right or far left ideology), I will accept the edit and no longer bother editing it. Also you're asking me if I'm affiliated with the party but I just said I am not even a conservative, but you are clearly a very radically progressive left individual, which shows from the way you defend this travesty of a political article. 2A02:587:5468:2800:89C9:BE34:1274:4C91 (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I've finished here - your edits have been reverted by three different users. Continuing to remove sourced content without justification may lead to a ban. Please provide sources or refrain from personal attacks. As for the rest, I recommend consulting credible sources and avoiding baseless assertions.

Michalis1994 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Isnt the page literally under the topic "far right political parties in Greece" Takis S1 (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep... Michalis1994 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

You're delusional, I haven't even been able to edit for a day and you're threatening me with a ban for edits that I can't even do haha. This site has fallen into disrepute I swear. 2A02:587:5468:2800:89C9:BE34:1274:4C91 (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your point of view. And since I will be working on the article in a few days to improve it as it has essentially no content but only defamatory name-calling if you make an account we could work on it together. To give you an idea about my participation, I am currently editing the article of Afroditi Latinopoulou. P.S. I am Greek 😊 D.S. Lioness (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's see how this goes! Michalis1994 (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You are definitely being very neutral with these responses keep it up. 2A02:587:5468:2800:4989:A431:675F:9860 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

All the media website you mentioned usually hold non conservative liberal opinions, especially the ones you labelled "respected". 2A02:85F:F85C:671B:2859:A139:83FA:26B (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed by replacing far right with rightwing to far right 2A02:85F:F85C:671B:2859:A139:83FA:26B (talk) 19:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I fixed it for you again Michalis1994 (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I told you something in your talk page. 2A02:85F:F85C:671B:2859:A139:83FA:26B (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Find sources that back your claims and we can discuss further. Michalis1994 (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for instead of replying, you simply remove my topic (unacceptable)

I would speak greek if i could, but im not sure if i can on english wikipedia

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/right-wing-patriots-for-europe-alliance-emerges-as-3rd-biggest-group-in-european-parliament/3269674

Mentions a european right wing (not far right) alliance, which includes Voice of Reason

https://www.naftemporiki.gr/politics/1683693/afroditi-latinopoyloy-poia-einai-i-proedros-tis-fonis-logikis-poy-mpainei-stin-eyrovoyli-to-viografiko-tis/

It claims that voice of reason is a centre right party, but accept the label "right-wing" (but not far right) (this what its president says) 2A02:85F:F85C:671B:2859:A139:83FA:26B (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Both sources fail to depict the party accurately. The first one discusses the alliance (you can directly edit that page if you wish), while the second one outlines Latinopoulou's self-description. Please reconsider. Michalis1994 (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

The party has the right to choose its position.

So you say we should trust a third party outlet instead of the partie's description?

Also I want you to answer this: Doesn't this labelling makes this party look bad?

Why should we compare a party against illegal immigration with a party that tortured Jews for no reason (I know that you are pro Hamas)? 2A02:85F:F85C:671B:2859:A139:83FA:26B (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't answer now... 2A02:85F:F85C:671B:2859:A139:83FA:26B (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Voice of Logic/Voice of Reason

I noticed that it's more of a direct translation but politico which is a very prestigious site calls it "Voice of Reason" so why is this page called otherwise? Takis S1 (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Voice of Reason is a more direct and accurate translation. 2A02:587:5468:2800:89C9:BE34:1274:4C91 (talk) 11:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Party name

@Takis S1 Hi. I noticed that you changed the name of this page to "Voice of Reason - Afroditi Latinopoulou". However, I think we should use the common name of the party, similar to Tisza Party (TISZA – Respect and Freedom Party), Syriza (Coalition of the Radical Left – Progressive Alliance), Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht (Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance – Reason and Justice). So I suggest changing the name of the page to "Voice of Reason (political party)". The current page title can be left as a redirect (but please change the dash in the title to "–").  PLATEL  (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, i completely agree, I kept the dash only because it was in the previous name Takis S1 (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I came to say broadly the same thing, because to say I was confused when I noticed that there’s an article on a person and then an article on this political party which contains the person’s name is an understatement. From a quick search the party is named with the leader’s name in English sometimes (not sure if this is because there are multiple parties or what) but on their official website it’s clear their leader’s name is to be a subtitle, rather than part of their party name. I’m also not sure we should be using the English translation of the party name - searching for either “voice of reason” or the romanized Greek name doesn’t bring up many English language sources at all about them. However, the romanized name brings up many more sources of other European languages (such as Spanish), and thus in the absence of English language sources to go off of, or a statement from the party as to their official name in English, I’d think we would name it the romanized Greek name. Happy for anyone to prove me wrong on English language sources/an official English name.

If disambiguation is needed, the ideal would be (political party) if it is the only political party of that name, or if there have been multiple parties named that in Greek history that are completely independent of each other, then something like (2000s political party) or similar. Can’t really comment on if other countries with parties of the same English common name exist though, in which case it may be needed to add Greek to the disambiguator. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

To comment on the first part the official name of the party does contain the leader's name it is very common in greece to do this but because it looks weird on a wikipedia page i can agree on that. For the second part, there are a few sources but it lacks english sources for mostly one reason. The party is niche. But still, politico mentioned the party so did other sources.

https://www.politico.eu/article/23-kookiest-meps-european-parliament-election-results-2024/

https://www.tovima.com/tag/voice-of-reason-party/

These sources mention it as voice of reason amd there are few to none that call it otherwise Takis S1 (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Same content in two articles

is it acceptable; is it helpful to Wikipedia's credibility to have the same content in two related articles? Compare Afroditi Latinopoulou#Controversy and Voice of Reason - Afroditi Latinopoulou#Ideology D.S. Lioness (talk) 03:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand the confusion but its important to mention similar information because the reader shouldnr be deprived of information thst matters to the subject he is reading. Takis S1 (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

this edit simply shows sloppiness - they can be worded differently so that one text is not a copy of the other D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm i can agree on that Takis S1 (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

It is not currently copied. Additionally, Takis highlighted the importance of access to information, which I agree with. Unless you have a consensus with verified users, not just IP addresses seemingly affiliated with the party, please do not remove it. Michalis1994 (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why do the party leader's personal controversies take up the majority of an article about her party?

There is a perfectly fine, cohesive and to the point article about Latinopoulou herself that talks extensively about her political and personal controversies. Why are alot of them mentioned in this article as well? It seems out of place and it concerns a specific individual more than this party. I propose we keep Latinopoulou's personal statements before the made the Voice of Reason party on her own article's "controversies" section and keep only her ideological expressions while the leader of this party in this article. For example the fatphobic comments she made predate the Voice of Reason party, and are also completely removed from that party, and hence this article. 2A02:587:546A:B500:D548:55A1:154E:9A4F (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing [3] "not affiliated with the party" / "not a fan of the party" "malicious" Michalis1994 (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You should focus on what the user is saying and not on personal attacks. D.S. Lioness (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright so excluding your comment (an opinion of yours) on the matter of separating the political leader's past from their party and a minute complaint about canvassing, is there a proper argument to be made as to why we should keep Latinopoulou's personal statements that predate the creation of the Voice of Reason party from this article? If not, I will proceed to editing the irrelevant information out of this article, since the article of Latinopoulou herself covers this. (P.S. The name of the leader being on Voice of Reason EU election ballots is not damning evidence that the party and the leader are indistinguishable from one another. The tactic is used to show the leader of the ticket, not to correlate the political positions of said party to one individual's views. That point is hollow.) 2A02:587:546A:B500:686E:E479:5D2E:F58E (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, proceed without consensus and remove content from the party that is literally named after the leader! Michalis1994 (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not without consensus. And I agree on moving forward with the editing - there can't be two articles with essentially the same content. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Extra careful, because you got blocked - who knows what could happen next? Removing cited content is not a great idea, Στρουμπούκη. Michalis1994 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know who Στρουμπούκη is, but it appears that you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet? If you don't strike off the above comment or prove your accusations, I will report you immediately in the noticeboard. Entirely up to you, but you're openly flirting with an indefinite block here as well. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You're obviously trolling. Your account has been blocked completely from Greek Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts, whilst your name is... Dora? Yikes! Michalis1994 (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

The only one who is acting like a troll here is you lad. Both me and @D.S. Lioness agree on the edit. So I say we go ahead with it. It is redundant to have the exact same content in both pages, especially this one. It serves no purpose. I will proceed to make an account sometime soon. I'd please ask you, if you would be so kind, to edit the unnecessary information out of the article when you can. @D.S. Lioness Thanks in advance. 2A02:587:546A:B500:686E:E479:5D2E:F58E (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You cannot justify removing cited content directly linked to the party leader, whose name is part of the party's title. Such an act is considered vandalism. The information will remain unless there is a clear justification. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much !!!. I will remove the tag , as unnecessary D.S. Lioness (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't have consensus. An anonymous user, who has not justified their edits, does not count as consensus. Warning you again, before you once again engage in an edit war. Michalis1994 (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

But he will make an account! D.S. Lioness (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"He"? You know who the anonymous user is? More canvassing then! Michalis1994 (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I finally found the login to my old account and am no longer anonymous. @D.S. Lioness Now that we have 2 *non anonymous* users agreeing on this we have consensus. HighDunker (talk) 08:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

😊 D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Comment: You're quite the comedian. This narrative has been shamelessly paraded on Wikipedia to separate entire parties from their leaders - it applies to some cases, especially when the base of the party is massive. Given that you’re anonymous yet keen on the party, it would be wise to think a bit more critically. Let’s face it, the party revolves entirely around its leader and sticks to a single theme (anti-woke, or “common sense” as she likes to brand it). Her name is LITERALLY in the party's title. Say it with me: Voice of Reason - Afroditi Latinopoulou! How many other candidates or affiliates of the party have you seen or heard on TV? Exactly, it’s just her. She embodies the party’s vague and unsettling ideology, and nothing will change unless you reach a consensus and manage to warp the reality and truth behind this so-called political entity. The whole setup is a masterclass in political smoke and mirrors. The party’s strategy is to present a facade of unity and coherence, while in reality, it’s a one-woman show. Afroditi Latinopoulou is the face, voice, and beating heart of the operation. Without her, the party would likely collapse under the weight of its own contradictions and lack of substance. Consider the messaging: it’s all about pushing back against the “woke” agenda, a term so nebulous it can be twisted to mean almost anything. This allows the party to appeal to a broad base of disaffected individuals without ever having to commit to a concrete policy or stance. It’s political vapourware, designed to attract attention and support without delivering anything of real value. You're welcome. Michalis1994 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"You're quite the comedian" is a personal attack towards me. Were I to use the same language towards you I am certain I would be reprimanded. @Wiiformii Will this user be moderated or not? 2A02:587:546A:B500:686E:E479:5D2E:F58E (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Besides requesting moderators to intervene and repeatedly removing cited content to sanitise the article, do you have any substantive comments on the above? I doubt it. Michalis1994 (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a problem about your contribution

Split from....

I don't think there is sufficient documentation from the sources that the party comes from a split from the Patriotic Force for Change. It seems to me as a personal opinion of the editor. It is in fact a renaming of its first party PATRIDA Aphrodite Latinoopoulou after the "brake" put by the Supreme Court on the descent of her party in the elections of May 21 announced the renomination of the party she had founded ("PATRIDA - Aphrodite Latinoopoulou") to "Voice of Reason". This is the political formation with which she will take part in the 25 June elections. (google translation for non-Greek speakers) D.S. Lioness (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

History of Latinopoulou

After getting consensus for editing a highly contentious part of this article, there have been multiple attempts to inject the article with the content that we agreed has no reason to be here. This is very disruptive. HighDunker (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Where is your consensus? Provide the specific diffs where you, or any other user, reached consensus, as your claim is false. Additionally, explain where the alleged vandalism occurred. Be precise with your language. You are removing fully cited content that you have not been able to dispute, instead of falsely claiming to have achieved consensus. Michalis1994 (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was between me and D.S. Lioness. The only claim we BOTH made was that the article of Afroditi Latinopoulou has content which is covered well enough there and does not fit the article of the Voice of Reason party. There were no further claims, we reached a common agreement. The alleged vandalism is you reediting the previously removed info back in the article. Do not revert it again or it will be considered vandalism. HighDunker (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

D.S. Lioness has been indefinitely banned from contributing to this topic due to bias. Others, including Takis S1 and myself, disagreed with this intention to remove content from this very article. Consequently, no consensus has been reached, and your actions are deliberately misleading. Also, labelling this as 'vandalism' to remove cited content goes against policy - see WP:NPOV. Please refrain from reverting this section and provide sources to support your claims. As things stand, you are the only person arguing against the current structure of the article.

Michalis1994 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When was she banned and by what authority? Also you are twisting the narrative, the only one who needs to refrain from vandalizing the article is you. Consensus was reached, move on. HighDunker (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Check her edit history and the indefinite ban. I am going to ask you again - where was the consensus aciheved and what narrative am I twisting? Michalis1994 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the section header since these edits are edit warring, not vandalism. @HighDunker: it is poor form indeed to attempt to avoid discussion by unilaterally declaring "consensus". Clearly, no such consensus exists. Both of you need to stop edit warring. For path forward, I suggest posting a request for mediation at WP:DRN. VQuakr (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A similar request was posted a few weeks ago by the same group of users who frequently challenge cited content, seemingly due to their party affiliation. The previous mediation involved the party leader. Since they couldn't remove the content, several IP addresses have been vandalising cited material. Recently, HighDunker appeared, insulted me, and accused me of vandalism, inaccurately claimed there is consensus, and started edit warring. If there's anything you can do to assist with this situation, please let me know Michalis1994 (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Michalis1994: that thread is not mediated discussion. This is why I suggest DRN, since discussion focused on content not editors will be mandated there. VQuakr (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If the user wants to dispute the content, they are free to. I will await until tomorrow to revert them and return the article to its previous version. Michalis1994 (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to break WP:3RR to be blocked for edit warring. Not the best idea to mention this 'plan' here. --Onorem (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

he is literally admitting to edit warring and reverting my changes @Onorem. Hello? HighDunker (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And you were edit warring and reverting their changes. Neither of you reverted again after the warning. Please don't ping me. I can't do anything here that you can't. I have the page on my watchlist now, but I do not care even a tiny bit about this topic. I was just trying to stop the ongoing edit war. --Onorem (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@VQuakrI'd like to add that @Michalis1994 insulted me first by calling me a paid propagandist for the party, which is based on nothing. HighDunker (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please use the article talk page to discuss content, not editors. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Understood, I apologize but I felt like I had to give my side of the matter HighDunker (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey HighDunker, this is a clear lie re paid propaganda and must be retracted (unless of course you show the diff). I am ccing Bbb23 as this is a personal attack that in my view appears to be an attempt to get me blocked? Michalis1994 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

according to your own words about me: "You keep spewing lies to support your obvious bias and likely connection to the party." I will not talk about editors on this talk page since its about the article, but the evidence speaks for itself. HighDunker (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Last warning. Strike the words in your comment above where you claim that I called you a paid propagandist for the party IMMEDIATELY. Michalis1994 (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop talking about this subject here, @VQuakr warned us not to HighDunker (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Having taken a few days to think about this, can you justify the removal of the content or at least seek consensus on whether that part should stay in the article? Any thoughts, sport? Michalis1994 (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

the burden of justifying the addition of the same content that exists on the other article falls to you. You did not seek mediation, do not continue the edit war @Bbb23 can you help with this, he is trying to do the same thing again. HighDunker (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Seek consensus. I have asked you to justify the removal, which you did not again. You are engaging in an edit war and you better stop. Michalis1994 (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

You were told by admins to seek mediation *yourself*. You, not me, were told to use the dispute resolution page to talk about adding your disputed content to the article. This attempt to throw the burden to proof to me for something *you* were asked to go through dispute resolution for is tiresome. @Onorem@VQuakr will someone please help out with this case? He is clearly reigniting the edit warring. Thank you. HighDunker (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Consensus needed

Support. I believe the section on Afroditi Latinopoulou should remain in the article despite its repeated deletion. As the party leader, Latinopoulou's name features prominently in the party's logo, and she is the most notable figure associated with the party. Given that the party is leader-centric and heavily focused on culture wars, with Latinopoulou making most of the media appearances, it is essential to include details about her. This addition would enrich the discussion on her approach to identity politics. I welcome any other perspectives on this matter. Michalis1994 (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. There already is a section on Latinopoulou and all of the information concerning the party and her is already in this article. What has been attempted to be included is a multitude of copied and pasted information from the article of Latinopoulou herself that has very little to nothing to do with the party that *this* specific article is all about. This information ranges from personal statements of Latinopoulou (*before* the Voice of Reason party was even conceived), interpersonal feuds, some not even political (like her feud with a Greek celebrity about her weight) and other sidenotes of her life that absolutely do not fit this article, even with the party being based around its leader (for now). Minute details like these degrade the quality of the article and, more importantly, make it harder to read and understand, bloating a section that really should be purely focused on the ideology of a political party and not the history of the leader. If a reader wants to delve deeper in Latinopoulou's character and antics, they really should visit the solid and still improving article Wikepedia has on her specifically, gaffs and all. To conclude, I want to approach Michalis1994 (talk) directly and try to find a common ground with this issue: It is clear you want to shine a light on the "culture war" views of Latinopoulou and for very good reasons, she is controversial to say the least. How about this: I will gladly approve of adding cultural views expressed by Latinopoulou *since the creation of her party* in this article. Anything from Voice of Reason's founding onwards, I am glad to have it included in this article, as long as it adequately represents a political position/view. How does that sound, Michalis? - HighDunker (talk)

Hi, HighDunker - I appreciate the calm tone and middle ground. Let's definitely do that. Shall I draft a working version and take it from there? Michalis1994 (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. HighDunker (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)