User talk:A.Cython

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 2 sections are present.

Yugoslav corn scandal

Hi there. Thanks for sharing you are not a native English speaker. Throughout the article, there are instances of sentence structure and wording choices that lead to lack of clarity. It still has NPOV issues. Questions to answer/issues to address include:

Who received the subsidies?
What lead to suspicion that the corn was not Greek?
The article only mentions the one shipment, but seems there were two.

The New York Times article you referenced, had some interesting details, including specifics on the subsidies

Simons, Marlise (19 November 1989). "Case of seagoing corruption embarrasses Greece". New York Times.

— ERcheck (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ERcheck Many thanks for the feedback. I will try to answer the questions based on the sources I have read, all of which provide partial information.

The benefit of the scheme, as I understand, was twofold. First, the state company would avoid import fees since it was labeled a Greek product (from Kavala) instead of a foreign and non-EEC country. Moreover, there were EU funds/subsidies to incentivize Greek exports. The more exports the Greek government could report then more EEC funds would be available; Greece had significant productivity issues from the 1970s oil crises and its entrance into the competitive EEC market, and these funds were meant to smooth the transition. All sources are clear that the Greek government benefited from the scheme at the expense of the EEC.
The sources are unclear on how Brussels and the European Commission learned about the shipments. The New York Times article says they got "a tip." A Greek source states: "Το νέο μαθεύτηκε γρήγορα στις Βρυξέλλες, προφανώς ύστερα από καταγγελία..." [translation: "The news was quickly learned in Brussels, apparently after a complaint..."]. I mean, how hard would it be? Hiding a ship carrying 9000 tons of corn coming from a country allied with the Warsaw Pact was a little tricky while the Cold War was still on. One source speculates that someone did not get a cut and complained, but that's speculation.
The investigation started with one shipment. Only afterward, when the European investigation committee arrived in Greece and began to dig around, did they find in the records a second shipment (a bit later on, as I understand). All other sources mention the first one, but I think it is because it was the first that made a splash on the news. I presume the second was only mentioned during the trial. A.Cython (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2025 (UTC) To clarify, the Greek sources focus only on the first one. A.Cython (talk) 06:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the body of the article does not claim any direct involvement by Papandreou in the scandal, to maintain NPOV (pointing fingers), leave out mention of his name in the introduction and the body of the article. It may still be appropriate in the final section on the aftermath. In addition, unless the political party was directly involved, mention of the party affiliation is not NPOV.

There are still clarity issues in the article.

Here is an example for the introductory paragraph:

The Yugoslav corn scandal (Greek: σκάνδαλο του γιουγκοσλαβικού καλαμποκιού) was a political corruption scandal in Greece between 1986 and 1990. A total of 20,000 tons of corn was imported from Yugoslavia in 1986 and falsely labeled as Greek through forged documents. The corn was then exported to other European Economic Community (EEC) countries, allowing the fraudulent claim of $1.5 million in EEC subsidies intended for domestic Greek corn. The state-owned company International Commerce (ITCO), a government-controlled entity responsible for managing agricultural trade, played a key role in facilitating the fraudulent shipments. After the EEC initiated an investigation, Greek government officials were involved in efforts to cover up the scheme. In 1989, Greece was fined over $3.8 million by the European Court of Justice. Investigations by the Greek Parliament followed, leading to a trial in Greece in 1990, where 6 individuals were convicted for their involvement.

Note that you should double check the example to be sure that it is factual and that it conveys the information appropriately; for example, do we know if the corn was exported to one or more countries? Do we know if Greece paid the fine?

The DYKs, as stated, have some inaccuracies. Here are a few examples that could work:

DYK...that the Yugoslav corn scandal was the first case where a member government (Greece) defrauded the European Economic Community, leading to a trial in which Greece refused to participate?
DYK....that the Greek government defended the Yugoslav corn fraud as being in the "national interest" even though it involved forged documents and gaining $1.5 million in illegal subsidies?
DYK... that the Greek government tried to cover up the Yugoslav corn fraud by forging documents and delaying investigations, only to later defend the scheme as being in the "national interest"?

— ERcheck (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you work on the article. Sorry for asking about the tips twice. Only trying to help with the article. I also don't mean to imply the article must reach GA status. — ERcheck (talk)

@ERcheck Do not get me wrong. I greatly appreciate the feedback and help. I do not mind being told I am wrong so long it is explained to me. Otherwise, it gets frustrating. Once I know why, I can avoid making the same mistake and have guidance on how to fix things in the future. For example, it did not cross my mind that having the name Premier in the lead would trigger issues. Now I know. A.Cython (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article has a good chance of passing DYK with revisions, and, also, being improved with some additional edits. Would you be open to continuing to work together on some of these refinements?

To keep things streamlined, we could move detailed discussion to user talk page for this purpose: A.Cynthon/Corn scandal discussion. Let me know if you’d prefer another approach.— ERcheck (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any help is welcomed and happy to share credit. A.Cython (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We can conntinue the discussion here on how to improve the article. Though at the end we can move it at the article's talk page since it would be the most natural place for keeping a record. A.Cython (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm only interested in helping fellow editors and in adding to the knowledge base in Wikipedia. I'm also enjoying learning something new. — ERcheck (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the DYK submission template, and made a request for sources to be added to the new ALTs. They can be added in the space after "Source" at the corresponding <small> Source: </small>. In the updated intro to the article, please add citations for each fact. (see WP:DYKHFC). — ERcheck (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made changes to the article's {{sfn}} entries as the fields are interpreting places where you have a "Month YYYY", as a new author, thus rendering it with an & . In most places, I made it just the year, but if same first field, but different mon year, I put the month in the first field, such as with the NYT, I made it {{sfn|Simons, New York Times|1989}}. Using the author's surname, as is traditional. If the same first field was used and there were multiple dates, I moved the month into the first field. — ERcheck (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I just made some tiny fixes and added the sources to the new DYK. I think you used the "sfn" format better, which means I have to go to other pages to fix this issue. More edits to do. A.Cython (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@A.Cython - After you add citations to the first paragraph of the article, I can check of the citations in the DYK. Then some changes to reach NPOV, then a final DYK review. :-) — ERcheck (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I learned something from your use of {{sfn}}. I have typically used <ref name= > for references, and {{efn-ua}} for end notes, — ERcheck (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crime & cover-up section

This section lists two benefits. However, SanSimera.gr (https://www.sansimera.gr/articles/809) says:

Those involved in the transaction, by this action, by baptizing the corn Greek, would avoid paying the compensatory levy, amounting to 182 million drachmas and would additionally benefit from the high sale price and the payment of community subsidies.

Three things are listed: (1) the import levy, (2) the higher sales price, and (3) subsidy payments.

I think making a updates on these facts would improve the article. — ERcheck (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Updated + added a source that provides a little better explanation on how Greece would gain the extra EU subsidies.A.Cython (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

European & Greek trial sections

The beginning of the Greek trial section starts with the 1989 election, which reads out of place at first: {{quote|In the June 1989 elections, PASOK lost the elections primarily due to Koskotas scandal implicating PASOK members, with over 200 scandals reported over the PASOK administrations from 1981 to 1989.[9] The conservatives and communists, despite being on ideological opposite sides and having fought against each other in the Greek civil war, formed a government to cleanse the state ("Catharsis") from PASOK's corruption.

I suggest moving that part to the end of the European section, with a slight change in wording (indicated in italics):

On the heels of the Court of Justice decision', PASOK lost in the June 1989 elections, due in part to the Koskotas scandal which implicated PASOK members, and the over 200 scandals reported over the course of PASOK administrations from 1981 to 1989.[9] The conservatives and communists, despite being on ideological opposite sides and having fought against each other in the Greek civil war, formed a government committed to cleanse the state ("Catharsis") from PASOK's corruption.

The Greek trial section would then begin with:

Only days after the formation of the collaborative government, the Hellenic Parliament commenced procedures to lift the parliamentary immunity of Athanasopoulos.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV edits

Addressing the following should take care of the NPOV issues.

Papandreou: In the article, before the Aftermath section, mention of Papandreou is not NPOV, as the scandal documentation does not provide evidence of is involvement.
PASOK: Take care that wording does not imply that PASOK as a whole is corrupt / were involved directly in the fraudulent actions.

— ERcheck (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I made the changes that should cover both issues that you raised. Let me know if I missed something or any additional changes are required. A.Cython (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of PASOK, in reference to ITCO, without a clear between the party and the scandal involving ITCO, shows bias. While it may seem logical to think that there is an underlying connection between the deputy finance minister, having been a member of Hellenic Parliament with the PASOK is a tie, but not an inference that is NPOV. Unless you can find an unbiased source to make that connection, PASOK should be deleted. — ERcheck (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With changes that have been made in the article to have an NPOV, the description of the reactions on party lines, and political consequences, the current mentions of PASOK pass muster. Thanks for all your hard work! — ERcheck (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITCO

@A.Cython: In the article, you have ITCO as International Company International Commerce. However, in Greek Wikipedia, references to the corn scandal call it International Trading Company. See Greek Wikipedia - Γιώργος Λούβαρης (George Louvaris). — ERcheck (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ERcheckIn Greek sources (see "San Simera"), the name of the company is: Η «Διεθνής Εταιρεία Διεθνούς Εμπορίου ITCO A.E». A google translate would give "International Trade Company." However, you can see the company name has four words, not three. I used a word-for-word translation to keep the number of words consistent. I did so because I could not find a source that provided the company's name in English. Regarding the Greek wiki, I do not know where they got it, the reference at the end of the sentence names the company as ITCO. In the corresponding page for Athanasopoulos page, the company is named just ITCO [1]. If you think "International Trade Company" or some other version is better then let me know to make the appropriate change. A.Cython (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with International Trade Company. (International Trade Company). The "CO" = Co of company. It is not uncommon for U.S. companies to use "CO" at the end of their initials to abbreviate Company; for example, oil company ARCO was originally named Atlantic Richfield Company, DBA (doing business as) ARCO. — ERcheck (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done.A.Cython (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

@A.Cython: Nice work on the article.Y See Template:Did you know nominations/Yugoslav corn scandal. — ERcheck (talk) 06:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. A.Cython (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Clarification needed"

In the European trial section, first paragraph, there is a "clarification needed tag". Question, which deputy prime minister. I looked at the reference, and in Google books, I could not see the previous page which likely named the PM. Would you please clarify? Thanks

In 1988, the Deputy Prime Minister,[clarification needed] explained in response to the rising frustration of the Greek public: "Though we may have cheated, we did so for your benefit".[7]

— ERcheck (talk)

I know; I saw the clarification yesterday. The particular reference did not provide the name of the Deputy Prime Minister. In 1988, there were two possible candidates Menios Koutsogiorgas or Ioannis Charalambopoulos, according to Deputy Prime Minister of Greece list. Menios seems a more likely candidate since he was known to state provocative statements, but he got this position in November 1988. However, I am not going to guess without an actual source. I will have to keep digging. A.Cython (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Papandreou had a very fluid government structure, and it was not unusual for fast rotation between the ministries and his loyal friends to have several ministries simultaneously.A.Cython (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without a specific person for that quote, consider replacing it with the quote from UPI 1989 -Athanassopoulos' words: He said he was not involved in the selling of the corn, but he and other 'responsible ministers had decided to cover up the scandal in the country's interests.' "

Same idea - for the benefit of Greece. Quote from a high official, and specifically Anthanassopoulos.

— ERcheck (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer might be in the following source: Koutsoukis, K. S. (1989) Patterns of Corruption and Political Change in Modern Greece, Corruption and Reform, 4: 1-13. A.Cython (talk)

I do not think I will figure out the person who said the quote any time soon. I commented it out for now.A.Cython (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Getting GA ready

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

Cython, you have made massive contributions to the Greek history on Wikipedia and are clearly an experienced editor with a lot to offer. I thank you for your contributions to the community and hope to see more in the future. In particular you have made some justifiably lengthy articles that I hope will inform many readers. As a symbol of the high quality work you have put into these articles I hope to see many of them get to the GA level. As you take these articles to GAN you are likely to encounter editors such as myself who primarily work on GAN. Personally, I think the GA "brand" is important to making Wikipedia a trustworthy outlet for information. As such I take a critical eye to all articles at GAN to ensure that the GA "brand" is upheld. I invite you to come with an open mind to inspect the work I have done on my GA articles like Fukushima nuclear accident. I hope you will see that I too have something valuable to offer the community. In our recent conversations I have been disturbed by how quickly you accuse me of vandalism. I have included this template because although I like to WP:AAGF when an editor repeatedly threatens to take being WP:DR against me I no longer feel like they believe I am operating in good faith. I understand that you have dealt with vandals in the past and that is frustrating. I encourage you to take a bit longer to acuse someone of vandalism and take some time to understand who they are as an editor. If the supposed vandals are people regularly contribute at GAN and have multiple GA then I encourage you to step away and re-approach the matter with several editors as there is probably some consensus that can be built. My final request is that you refrain from ever threatening editors with WP:DR again. Instead, just decide if you want to being the process or not. I recognize you may want to respond. Of course feel free to do so. You may notice that I intentionally left content dispute out of this post as I am specifically using this venue to discuss your conduct.Czarking0 (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding I will consider you a vandal; this is not an accusation or threat saying something is not an accusation does not change whether it is or is not an accusation. Czarking0 (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure you are aware of WP:3RR I believe I have not violated this. The following edits concern me

I'll help by taking a break from this article

I suggest that you familiarize yourself during the break with the rules of WP and with the topic since it is rather controversial among Greeks, as your cavalier changes were not particularly helpful. I have to spend another two hours carefully reviewing your changes.

We do *not* use the first names of political figures. I said it on the talk page, I said this while changing it. We just do not. This is the second time saying this: Show me a single FA article of a prime minister or president that does that.
We are not paraphrasing quotes by introducing subtle WP:POV.
You insert unwarranted tags. You have not provided proper justification despite the size of both the lead and the overall article being well within consensus, yet you insist, which I find problematic. A.Cython (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Yugoslav corn scandal

On 5 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yugoslav corn scandal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Greek government officials tried to cover up the Yugoslav corn scandal by forging documents and delaying investigations, only to later defend the scheme as being in the "national interest"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yugoslav corn scandal. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yugoslav corn scandal), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]