Inaccurate description

[lpc]

Hi

 

At category Top: World: Greek: Κοινωνία: Πολιτική: Ιστοσελίδες Πολιτικών

 

there is the following entry: Μπακογιάννη, Ντόρα - Βουλευτής ΠΑΣΟΚ Α' Αθηνών. Βιογραφικό, κοινοβουλετική δραστηριότητα και προτάσεις.

 

It is about a Greek politician, the current Foreign Affairs Minister, you can see the wikipedia entry about Dora Bakoyannis.

 

The problem is that the entry describes her as a member of the "opposition" party and that according to my view is a really nasty trick. Someone wanted to have a laugh and created this so that he could spread it around.

 

The editor might have failed to see the error although she is really very famous in Greece and such a mistake is very strange.

 

I would like to ask someone to change the part that says ΠΑΣΟΚ to ΝΕΑ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ (New Democracy -- mentioned in wikipedia article), that is the correct description or at least contact the appropriate editor.

[brmehlman]

... a really nasty trick. Someone wanted to have a laugh ...

Nasty trick? Or description written before 2004? I rather suspect the latter.

[lpc]

Nasty trick? Or description written before 2004? I rather suspect the latter.

 

That's what I would suspect as well but honestly, when it comes to Greece, this is a person as famous as Hillary Clinton in the US. By 2004 people expected her to become prime minister. Her father was PM with New Democracy (and founding member I suppose?) and her husband was a VERY famous member.

 

I can't believe that anyone could have made such a mistake, even if it was before 1987.

[lpc]

I do accept that it might have been an honest mistake while typing, it makes sense that something like that might have happened.

 

I'm a bit surprised that nobody saw this error and it was never changed all this years.

 

PS I don't mean to "put the blame" on someone, it just seems ... wrong (I do understand that the category doesn't have an editor and obviously some things have been left behind).

[brmehlman]

... might have been an honest mistake while typing ...

If, as I surmised above, the description was written before March 7, 2004, then calling her a member of the opposition party was neither a nasty trick nor an honest mistake but rather an accurate statement at the time it was written.

 

In any case, this conversation is a distraction from the quality control thread so I'm going to split it out to another thread.

[lpc]

If, as I surmised above, the description was written before March 7, 2004, then calling her a member of the opposition party was neither a nasty trick nor an honest mistake but rather an accurate statement at the time it was written.

 

Hi brmehlman

 

Thanks for moving the thread.

 

I have to say that there is no way that this was an accurate statement in 2004 or any other time before that. Ask any Greek person and they can tell you.

 

March 7, 2004 is an interesting date. It coincides with the Greek legislative election, 2004.

[lpc]

Further details...

 

... can be found at the Wikipedia article for Dora Bakoyannis (it says: When her father was elected Prime Minister the following year (2000), Bakoyannis served first as a Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, and then as Culture Minister)

[brmehlman]

Since I don't read Greek, I can only go by your description of the problem:

The problem is that the entry describes her as a member of the "opposition" party

 

March 7, 2004 is an interesting date. It coincides with the Greek legislative election, 2004.

 

Indeed. The very election in which Ms. Bakoyannis's party stopped being the opposition and became the government. Thanks for pointing that out.

[lpc]

Further details...

 

... can be found at the Wikipedia article for Dora Bakoyannis (it says: When her father was elected Prime Minister the following year (2000), Bakoyannis served first as a Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, and then as Culture Minister)

[lpc]

Hi brmehlman

 

I probably didn't make my point clear because I was thinking and expressing myself in a very strict "Greek" way.

 

I was thinking opposition and government in the current situation terms.

 

All I want to make clear is that Dora B. was never a member of ΠΑΣΟΚ (Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK)) as mentioned in dmoz. She was always a member of New Democracy and that is the change that I do propose that should happen.

[brmehlman]

the following year (2000)

On my calendar the year that follows 1989 is 1990, not 2000.

 

But we're narrowing it down. Since New Democracy lost power in 1993 the description must have been written between 1993 and early 2004.

[brmehlman]

Simultaneous posts. Sorry.

 

I agree that her party is in power and that she no longer should be described as a member of the opposition. I further agree that she hasn't changed parties.

 

The listing should be changed. If I could write Greek I'd change it myself. As it is, it will have to wait for an editor who can.

 

Nevertheless I objected strongly, and still do, to the allegation that the wrong description was either malicious or careless. I continue to contend that it was accurate at the time it was written.

 

[added after reading your later post]

If the description does indeed describe her as a socialist then you are correct. But I had no way of knowing that from your earlier posts which only said she was described as a member of the opposition party.,

[lpc]

On my calendar the year that follows 1989 is 1990, not 2000.

 

But we're narrowing it down. Since New Democracy lost power in 1993 the description must have been written between 1993 and early 2004.

 

apologies for the 1990-2000 mistake, you're right of course

 

Let me describe the inaccuracy again. The original entry in dmoz says:

Μπακογιάννη, Ντόρα - Βουλευτής ΠΑΣΟΚ Α' Αθηνών. Βιογραφικό, κοινοβουλετική δραστηριότητα και προτάσεις.

 

The problem is the red, bold word. It is the wrong political party. It is the opposing political party (I believe that this description is more correct).

 

It is like saying that Hillary Clinton is a member of the Republicans and that Margaret Thatcher is the leader of the Labour Party.

 

 

 

I've created too much chaos with this, probably I didn't manage to communicate this effectively from the first moment. Apologies to everyone.

it is just not worth it

[brmehlman]

Yes, I caught that and added it to my post above as you were typing.

 

The further information you provided does make it clear that the description was wrong when it was written.

[lpc]

Yes, I caught that and added it to my post above as you were typing.

 

You're great, just for spending the time and also understanding what I mean.

 

I owe you a pint (or a glass of wine or a latte)