Talk:2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting

Responses

This section should be expanded to include the responses by the political parties, the parliament, the government and other actors. --Tco03displays (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also if possible, the responses towards the organization that claims to have executed the murder should be included, including the debate in regards to the authenticity of the organization's manifesto. --Tco03displays (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Read the countries (copied from my talk page)--Tco03displays (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you refer it in this page? first... 6 --Katcheic (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Source indicates: Germany, Ukraine, England, Australian Greeks (my bad for removing this part), and very few football teams. It is also a primary source, coming from the Golden Dawn party itself, and should be avoided according to Wikipedia regulations. Do not re-add information that cannot be supported. If you find relevant sources fro elsewhere you are more than welcome to add them. --Tco03displays (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Τhe most reliable source and includes pictures of the places. This source also saws MORE football teams so do not vadnalize the article.

--Katcheic (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have a source, use it, and state what football teams/nationalist groups/countries staged protests, always as stated in the source. I will repeat again though, these are primary sources and should rarely be used. Iam not trying to piss you off or annoy you, but the subject interests me as well, and I will continue to edit it until it reaches a neutral point of view, supported by factual evidence, reducing the primary sources to the minimum, and of course avoiding inappropriate language. You keep adding "etc". Do not add it. It indicates that you don't have a source and that the page is unreliable. You keep adding phrases such as "crowds of people" and "large numbers". If the number of the people cannot be indicated by a source, do not add vague terms in regard to size, this is unreliable, subjective and amateurish. Do not remove my citation needed tags. Those are placed because no source is sited for the statement, so that other editors can see it and add a source. Hope this clears up the misunderstanding. --Tco03displays (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Read the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view pages for further information regarding the proper use of sources in articles. --Tco03displays (talk) 06:12, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Εχposing only the truth I do not see anyone else that have a problem with that but you. I think I start to create this article by myself. So you face nothing else but the truth. --Katcheic (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please try to understand that certain rules have to be followed. What you consider the "truth" and what I consider the "truth" does not matter. Read the links I sent you. Sooner or later I will be back editing the page. --Tco03displays (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you Tco03displays... The party's official website cannot (and shouldn't) be considered as a reliable source... As for the murders, there are plenty of them actually in Greece, with their only difference with this one being that in this case it was largely covered by greek Medias, as its victims were members of a political party which was present in the Greek National Assembly and it just taken place after the murder of rapper and far-left activist Killah P aka Pavlos Fyssas by another member of this party, so many people and greek Medias just seen it as a kind of revenge from other far-left activists... Actually, I think that this case in not so much time will be mostly forgotten as was the fate of a similar case about young French far-left activist Clement Meric, which, when happened, was in the center of interest for some time, but then... it was simply forgotten... Well, from France's larger population.... I think that this case is very similar to that mentioned before, although it was situated in a different country...--Glorious 93 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There have been more significant political murders by terrorist organizations. Look at the case of Pavlos Bakoyannis, a murder which shook Greece at the time and has affected politics heavily in the following years. He is included in Revolutionary Organization 17 November, but no special article is attributed to the event. Why should a murder that has less effects and its victims are not noticeable have its own page? Also, the attack is also mentioned in Golden Dawn (political party).--Tco03displays (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Terrorism in Greece

The following discussion 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.

---

Insufficient coverage and inadequate notability. Dlohcierekim 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Article is individually very well widespread in society needs to be incorporated--Katcheic (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Which society? By what reliable sources? Why are these deaths more significant than previous murders mentioned in Terrorism in Greece, to the point that these murders require their own article? Please elaborate and defend your opinion with evidence.--Tco03displays (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

As I mentionned in another section of this discussion page, I think that this article should be merged, as proposed by Dlohcierekim with article Terrorism in Greece... Seems to me like a "hit of the moment" (even if I'm sure this expression isn't very appropriate for this situation...)... Now it's a talk of the town in Greece, when after 2-3 months it would be mostly forgotten (except from the corncerned political party itself...)...--Glorious 93 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And the families and friends of the victims. But I agree with you; the article should be merged. --Tco03displays (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone that remember someone guy named Fyssas as an evidence of death? Come on... We will see after 1 month if it still in our minds but Kapelonis and Foudoulis are still and will be... --Entrancepi (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Entrancepi, are you implying that this page should be kept because there is a page for Fyssa's death? This is not a forum to add political memorials and disagreements. I was suspect for these articles popping up because I did work on Fyssas' page; and random IPs popped up in the talk page complaining about the article and its reliability calling Pavlos Fyssas names. I was worried that articles trying to counter attack Fyssas' article with Golden Dawn murdered members might pop up, turning Wikipedia in some political boxing arena, and the more new editors pop up talking in the attitude you and the original editor talk, and seeing the unreliability and subjective nature of the page (the term Worldwide reactions, which overemphasizes the reactions, and which I edited, but was edited back for example); the more I become convinced that this is indeed the case. Lastly, The Fyssas article has enough material that needs to be added. Such as the reactions internationally, the reactions locally, the arrest and crackdown on Golden Dawn, the reaction of the Greek hip hop scene and the further investigations and future conclusions of Golden Dawn's trials. It therefore has notability, and could be changed to another name in the future, such as Arrests/Trials of Golden Dawn members (an example is the case of the murder of Alexis Grigoropoulos, which turned into a quite decent article about the 2008 Greek riots); so the material should still be maintained. The references are also from secondary sources. For the record, you have just given another reason for deletion Wikipedia:Too soon--Tco03displays (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Silly me, I've completely forgotten to add it... -- Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! ^talk 02:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Fyssas article does;t mentioned about it;s less reactions internationally,(the international reactions about Foyntoylis/Kapelonis were much more), but about the reactions in his cycle, concerning about it;s judicial investigations etc. --Katcheic (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

User Entrancepi r,emoved the template ar 17:37, 3 December 2013‎ , summarising "This article not necessarily has to do with terrorism". --C messier (talk) 10:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In favor: :This is a terrorist attack. The content of the article should be moved to Terrorism in Greece. For the record, another member was injured but did not die, and another managed to escape. The attack was blind; targeting whoever was there at the moment. Based on the proclamation it was a counter attack towards Golden Dawn for Fyssas' murder and other murders and violent attacks attributed to the party, and was not targeted to specific individuals within the party. There have been more significant political murders by terrorist organizations. Look at the case of Pavlos Bakoyannis, a murder which shook Greece at the time and has affected politics heavily in the following years. He is included in Revolutionary Organization 17 November, but no special article is attributed to the event. Why should a murder that has less effects and its victims are not noticeable have its own page? Also, the attack is also mentioned in Golden Dawn (political party).--Tco03displays (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Suspecting Political and Propaganda Implications: Please read my response to Entrancepi above. There is evidence that this is an article created with propaganda motives and political implications in response to the article Murder of Pavlos Fyssas. User:Katcheic the original creator of this article, literally copied and pasted the tags of this article for reliability and subjectivity on the Fyssas article with no justification, and removed referenced information in relation to the public responses of the murder, which were translated from the Greek Wikipedia article as asked by the appropriate tag. I had made the translation and this is becoming unacceptable and a clear sign of vandalism and intended misinformation. The user has also exaggerated the international and local responses towards the murders of the Golden Dawn members, even though I edited the section repeatedly with explanations as to why, and repeatably explained that primary sources should not be used and that information that is added to the article is not supported by the sources. Vague terms indicating subjective and unverified claims on the extend of the response are also used, when again I explained several times why they should be avoided. The user reverts my edits again and again. Removing referenced content from the Fyssas article in relation to anti-Golden Dawn demonstrations while intentionally exaggerating the pro-Golden Dawn reactions after the murder of the 2 Golden Dawn members indicates that the user is intentionally trying to affect and distort the reader's view in relation to the international and local public support for Golden Dawn. --Tco03displays (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Good evening. I think the article in the murder emphasizes a not singularly-fact. It is not even a simply of terrorism. This is also unsupported yet. Not documented at all as a fully "terrorist attack". The fact is notified mostly around the world is the death of @these two people@ became a burst wave of a pan-European and worldwide existing. Sο how can we talk about this merge? --Katcheic (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Katcheic you have provided absolutely NO secondary sources about your "burst wave of a pan-European and worldwide existing". What you have provided are primary sources, from a source I do not consider the least trustworthy. You provide a primary source from Golden Dawn's page, when Golden Dawn has entrenched interest in presenting to the public that it is widely supported internationally, and based on these unreliable, controversial and extremist primary sources you continue to insist that the article has notability. You know this is not the case. I explained this to you again and again. --Tco03displays (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Most editors here have raised a positive opinion in regards to the merge. Have we reached consensus or are more people interested in further discussing this issue? --Tco03displays (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Since nobody is not sure about this murder how are we going to characterize it as a terrorist attack? So we can not merge it at this. anywhere - not many users agreed --Katcheic (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For once I agree with you. I think we've expanded the article quite a lot and the murderers and their motives are still unclear and controversial. I've changed my mind, I think the article should be maintained.--Tco03displays (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2013 (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.

Title

The article was moved to the title "Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office" and the justification was "that's NOT ths point of this article. Dont you ever change it". I disagree. The fact/point are the shootings. Whoever went there didn't target specifically Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis but everyone there (outside the office), just happened to be there (and Alexandros Gerontas, who was severly woonded). --C messier (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

PS. According to the proclamation of the terrorists the target was Golden Down. --C messier (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You are perfectly right. And the act is a terrorist attack. The content of the article should be moved to Terrorism in Greece. For the record, another member was injured but did not die, and another managed to escape. The attack was blind; targeting whoever was there at the moment. Based on the proclamation it was a counter attack towards Golden Dawn for Fyssas' murder and other murders and violent attacks attributed to the party, and was not targeted to specific individuals within the party. --Tco03displays (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the article in the murder emphasizes a not singularly-fact. It is not even a simply of terrorism. This is also unsupported yet. Not documented at all as a fully "terrorist attack". --Katcheic (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The name Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Golden Down office is wrong. Something in the grammar doesn't make sense. --Tco03displays (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Title has been changed. --Tco03displays (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What are we going to do with the constant change of the page name? I thought that "1st of November Golden Dawn Office Attack" would suffice for a clear identification of the article. But the original editor keeps changing it, currently as "Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office". Really? Murder attack sniffs of some kind of syntax error, its either Murders of.. or Murderous Attack (which sounds pretty bad for a title). And the bit about "on members of the Golden Dawn Office" is badly chosen too. What Golden Dawn office, first of all, secondly the attack was blind and the members of that office were not target per se, but any members that could had been around. The whole title does not sound very good. --Tco03displays (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Article contains Information Not Included in Sources, and also contains Primary Sources

The whole section of the "Background of the victims" with the exception of the last sentence is not verified by the sources added. There isno information concerning the background of the victims in this source. The section on "Worldwide reactions" is based on primary sources (Golden Dawn's website) for the reactions in other countries and by football clubs. The sources are not to be used based on Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources.--Tco03displays (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Content that was not supported by the reference has been removed and editor warned. --Tco03displays (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Article has been cleaned from unreliable primary sources, original research and information that does not correspond to the sources. The tone of the article has been changed to become more academic and encyclopedic, vague words such as "etc" and "large crowds" have been removed.--Tco03displays (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Constant Edit Wars: Please Discuss the Content of the Page to reach Consensus

User:Katcheic please read. The content is full of original research, primary sources that are unreliable and information that is not included in the sources cited. This content should not be included in Wikipedia and must be removed. Please discuss defend them here, in order to avoid an edit war. --Tco03displays (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The pictures are the proof no-matter by the page provides them, but if you 're interested for constribute why do not put some secondary sources by yourself here some... 1, 2, paneuropian solidarity e.t.c. p.s. Was it a criminal offensee? --Katcheic (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly: I had searched for secondary sources and failed to find them; that is the reason why I have not replaced your primary sources with secondary ones. Secondly, your case is not acceptable based on Wikipedia policies. Pictures are primary sources (making 1 of the sources you've just given a primary source as well), and the Golden Dawn party cannot be trusted either it falls under extremist views as well as being a primary source: Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources. You also clearly break the rules over the presentation of information found in primary sources:

Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

— Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Your use of words and phrases such as "Many people", "worldwide", " paneuropian solidarity" " many supporters of many Football teams worldwide" indicate clear interpretation of primary sources. In addition, I do not see any large crowds either. Just a handful of people in minor protests. Which indicates misrepresentation of the source. Further on, there was clearly no "wordwide" reactions. Occupy Movement emerging from Occupy Wall Street was a world wide reaction. Well documented as well. On a final note one of the sources you've given me is a secondary source, indicating that a handful of Latsio's fans are connected to the far-right, to fascism and to nazism. Since you found the source, why don't you add it?--Tco03displays (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Moved from user's Tco03displays talkpage:

Ο yes, really? You can get them (even here-by wiki) and sea how much far-right they are if you want. Personally, thank God they are not unillegal "terroristic-tromocracy" / far-left teams --Katcheic (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You just gave me a secondary source indicating their connections to the far right, nazism and fascism in the talkpage!!!Source--Tco03displays (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

We do not anyone hate generally teams like teams belong to "right". Not nasism. it's very different! p.s. Is "thessTody site" (or the other) Nazistic sites? God bless us. --Katcheic (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Υπενθυμίζεται ότι ένα μέρος των φιλάθλων της Λάτσιο πρόσκειται στο χώρο της Δεξιάς, ενώ οι οργανωμένοι οπαδοί του συλλόγου έχουν γνωστούς δεσμούς με την Άκρα Δεξιά και τα φασιστικά και ναζιστικά σύμβολα κάνουν συχνά την εμφάνισή τους στο Βόρειο Πέταλο του Ολίμπικο." Translation: It is reminded that a part of the fans of Latsio belong to the political right, while the organized fans have known connections to the far right and that fascist and nazi symbols often make their appearance in Olympico. Seems quite clear. The article goes on to state that the local Jewish community make declarations against the fans supporting Golden Dawn. --Tco03displays (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ένα μέρος των φιλάθλων της Λάτσιο πρόσκειται στο χώρο της Δεξιάς. transl: A part of funs originates from the site of the "right". Where is the bad-thing? ...the rest are rumors. --Katcheic (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of the God of Wikipedia, stop cherry picking. You give me a source. The source indicates that the organized fans are connected to the far right, nazism and fascism. When this is made clear to you, you question only a section of the source? Based on what? For the record here are some sources on it.Mail Online Lazio charged with racist fan behaviornewfreepressslate. Continuing to misuse sources and make unjustifiable claims will not help. --Tco03displays (talk) 23:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Being a big football fan myself, I have to say also that the original author of this article is hidding the truth... Actually when he mentions the "many supporters of many Football teams worldwide", it's completely false as the examples he's giving (Hellas Verona F.C., Lazio and Atlético Madrid) are well-known teams for being linked with far-right movements, not to say Neonazis, especially in the cases of Lazio an d Hellas Verona... For Atletico I'm not as sure as for the two mentionned before teams... So, it's pretty clear that these three teams cannot represent "many Football teams worldwide"...-- Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! ^talk 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

And now as for the sources...

Atletico Madrid: "...Atletico Madrid are no angels neither. A net behind one of the goals stops El Frente from throwing objects on to the field. Racist chanting is common, so too are disgusting chants about Antonio Puerta and Real Sociedad fan Aitor Zabaleta. In 1998 he was stabbed by an Atletico fan and El Frente take pride in it and can often be heard singing chants calling for the freedom of the person arrested for the crime. But Atleti do nothing about them."

SS Lazio:

• Yahoo Answers

• "...But when it comes to racism, Lazio’s ‘Ultras’, as they are known, are in a league of their own. The extreme-right fanatics, known for their passion, are also among the most feared of the Italian supporters. Neo-Nazi banners are regularly paraded in the Curva Nord, the Ultras’ section of their home stadium, and scuffles with opposing supporters and the police are commonplace."

• Lazio-Fans feiern Klose mit Nazi-Symbolen

• January 29 – Mussolini's Fave Team | On This Football Day

Hellas Verona:

• A simple look on these fans pictures is more than sufficient to prove what I've mentionned before

Because you type Hellas Verona Nazi, but if you normally type Hellas Verona, yoy take this, so simply --Katcheic (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

After the Far East Movement, now the... Far Right Movement... -- Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! ^talk 00:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Some clearly right, some other rumors e.t.c. plus we are not living in Korea, unless we do. what ... if someone believes in an ...ideology? we can not judge it! --Katcheic (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You fail to understand the implications of what we are discussing. Firstly, you have been posting wrong information, based on unsuitable sources. Secondly, you continue to deliberately cherry pick sources. And finally, all this information indicates that only a small fraction of the international football fans reacted to the murders, which goes again against your claims about "many teams" and "wordwide" reactions. This is not North Korea. This is Wikipedia. You either do not understand this, or don't want to understand. You are loosing credibility with almost every comment you make, you are still wasting our time and you are the one who seem to have an ideological interest in you edits and claims. Now you are implying that we are somehow leftist totalitarians or something. Ideology and subjective opinion does not matter when making edits and contributing to Wikipedia. You know this. I've made it clear repeatedlythe last few days and provided sources concerning the rules and policies of Wikipedia. You have also received warnings, even a temporary ban. I will edit away the material that is unjustifiable because you fail to engage in a discussion, and you fail to explain why they have to be maintained. Do not edit it back without reliable sources. In the case that you do, I report you. I hate to do so, but I find no other ways of communicating with you. You are the only editor on this page that acts in this way. You have been warned. --Tco03displays (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war, again

I've fully protected the article for three days due to the continuing edit warring. For any edits to be made to the article there will need to be a discussion on this talk page, if you believe that a consensus has been achieved for a particular change you should use {{tl|editprotected}] to request that an administrator make the change according to that consensus. If after the protection expires any editor continues the edit war they will be blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Pretty clear. --Tco03displays (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Due to the fact that I fail to reach a consensus only with a single editor over the issues in this article, can you please help me out by explaining to me or giving me a link to Wikipedia's policies on what happens when a consensus fails to be reached? I don't want to be pessimistic or enter into another edit war, but I do not think we'll be reaching a consensus with said editor in the near future. I have tried repeatedly the last few days though. --Tco03displays (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest that, in a new section, you outline each of the changes you want to make, and allow for other editors to comment. But it does depend on what the change is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Would that include new information I would like to add?--Tco03displays (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Katcheic has just added a propaganda photoshoped image from Golden Dawn with the word "Immortals" underneath to the page without prior discussion over it. Should I remove it or will you please attend to it? --Tco03displays (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not a propaganda, it;s an illustrated poster. Should we have just characterize it? --Katcheic (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The image tries to arouse specific emotions to the viewer, by 1)using the background in a way that connects the individuals in it with specific ideas and values, in this case, ethnicity and the nation, and 2)by using the text "Immortals" to ascribe honor to the victims. The source is also from the party itself, we've been through this over and over again, and I'm not going to repeat myself. I'm not stating that it is propaganda in the sense that it promotes faslseness, but it is in the sense that it promotes rhetoric and tries to bring out emotion to the viewer. It should be removed. The administrator also stated that no content should be added without prior discussion. There are other images of the two victims, original and unedited photographs that surfaced after the murders. Those pictures, in my opinion, would suit an encyclopedic article pretty well. I believe that you have access to such pictures, prior sources that you added contained them (if I am not mistaken). I'll try to see if I can find them as well.--Tco03displays (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Here, the first picture in this article is very well suited for the Wikipedia entry.Link--Tco03displays (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I posted as a poster, Ι don;t think that the posters are against the policies of the page, but making assumptions I can not go on at the negotiations (as you said in your opinion)...--Katcheic (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Mr/Miss. You have not tried to get into serious discussion from the begging. I made an argument as to why the image you've added should be removed. Then I stated my opinion as to why the other picture is suitable for the article. These are 2 different things. I'll simply wait for the administrator to come, see the arguments and judge accordingly. I have already provided an alternative, uncontroversial picture. --Tco03displays (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

New Section Proposal. Title: Claim of Responsibility by Urban Guerrilla Warfare Group and Reactions

• The text below is information I would like to add. I've backed up the text with secondary sources and tried to keep a neutral point of view, stating which individual expressed what view, while including the official view of the police. I've used 1 primary source, the proclamation itself, to refer to the reasons for the attack the proclamation states. I need help in adding more reactions by the rest of the political parties, I have not been able to find information on that and I believe that it should be included. More non-critical reactions to the proclamation by notable journalists/commentators would also be helpful to balance the section.--Tco03displays (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

On the 16th of November Zougla announced that an unknown person contacted the station informing them the area where an envelope which contained a USB stick was placed; and that the digital proclamation was stored on it. Zougla uploaded the proclamation online, in which a newly found organization, The Fighting People's Revolutionary Powers, claimed the responsibility for the attack. The proclamation stated that the attack was a response to the murder of Pavlos Fyssas; which was seen by the group as the "drop that overflowed the glass". The anti-terrorist branch of the Greek police announced that it considered the digital proclamation as authentic and is investigating the case. Following the proclamation, Golden Dawn stated that "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left".

Other commentators took a skeptical stand towards the proclamation. Journalist Anta Psara questioned the authenticity and ideological honesty of the proclamation by stating that previous far left armed groups sent their proclamations to the least politically biased mass media or to online anti-authoritarian sites, while in this case the proclamation was sent to a site with right-wing sympathies. She further questioned the proclamation by stating that the material included was copied from online sources and past newspapers, and that throughout the declaration the organization fails to provide information on itself or information in relation to the planning of the attack; which would prove its relation to it. Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis made similar observations, commenting that the proclamation is structured very similarly to a journalist article, that ideological analysis is missing, that it is historically rare for an anti-regime organization to treat mildly the political parties of the left; and that the proclamation provides no evidence that its authors were the same people who executed the attack.--Tco03displays (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

References

See WP:TERRORIST, I'm not seeing the word "τρομοκράτης" explicitly used anywhere in reference 5, which you appear to be using to support that claim. Secondly, could you post the article titles in the original Greek when referencing, please? Not needing to reverse your translation would be pretty handy should anyone need to go digging for copies in the internet archive. Dolescum (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I've added the Greek titles to the sources. In regards to the reference, you are right, I've changed the term in the sentence to armed group. I've changed the term in the title from Terrorist Group to Urban Guerrilla Warfare Group to avoid making a value judgment.--Tco03displays (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. So I have to remove some personal opinions of individuals --Katcheic (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

[[1]]---Tco03displays (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

DO NOT Edit again without prior Discussion

It has already been noted above. Do not edit again important aspects of the article without prior discussion. My edit was discussed, and you did not engage in the discussion. You only returned after your ban expired to delete what you did not like and compromise the neutrality of the article again. We both agreed that this is not qualified as a Terrorist attack, that it is disputed. You then moved on to remove any aspect that refers to one side of the dispute and left only Golden Dawn's statement that this was a leftist organization. Then you moved on to add more information under the Other Reactions heading without discussion (I will not remove it, it is finally expressed in an appropriate way). Had you actually cared to discuss, I would had made these clear to you. Stop vandalizing and stop edit warring. I could go on doing this forever, and if you continue you will eventually get banned by an admin. Read the rules, stop trying to bend them to suit your interests, and if you actually care for proper editing, visit pages such as Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Talk:Creation–evolution controversy and Talk:Muhammad to get a clearer idea of how things are handled on Wikipedia. --Tco03displays (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a podium of opinions. You try to exploit the political issue at the same time I handle the issue objectively. You also attacked to me in the main page by saying that I'm clearly interest in promoting the Golden Dawn party. You will be soon reported for this. You can see also the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The proclamation, of Golden Dawn is a legitimate reference that must be referenced, associated with the issue in a first instance as an answer. --Katcheic (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We are taking it to the report page. I have compromised nothing. And for the record, I added the proclamation, remember? --Tco03displays (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

We had to add it because it is a legitimate reference associated with the issue in a first instance!--Katcheic (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Copied from the Report Page

I can no longer deal with this user. For almost 2 weeks he constantly deletes my edits, and reverts my work. He does not engage in discussion. It has been stated by User:Callanecc that all changes in the article must be previously discussed due to edit wars. The user has received handful of warnings and 2 bans so far. After being unbanned he came right back to the page and removed material that stated opinions of known journalists, (well-referenced and used to achieve a NPOV, it had been discussed in the talkpage) and added new material with no discussion. This user ha been warned for weeks, he is the only editor causing trouble in the page, he clearly tries to promote a specific point of view (look at the discussion in the article talkpage as well as the warnings on his talkpage) and has also vandalized the page Murder of Pavlos Fyssas in the past to reduce the information in regards to the anti-Golden Dawn protests that took place after the murder, while he added biased and misrepresenting information based on unreliable sources on the reactions to the murders of the 2 Golden Dawn members; exaggerating the public response. The two events are interlinked in Greek politics. At the moment Golden Dawn is being prosecuted as a criminal organization in Greece, and what the user is doing is to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool to affect the views of non-Greek speaking readers on Golden Dawn. It is also interesting to note that we had agreed that the murders cannot be considered a terrorist attack, that the information on the executioners is disputed and controversial; and thus the article should not be merged with Terrorism in Greece, but the moment I added skeptical statements by known journalists in Greece in regards to the organization that claimed the attack, to balance the scale with the opinions of Golden Dawn (that the murderers were leftists) the user decided that it should be deleted without notice. I've been trying hard to reach a neutral point of view on this article and it is not difficult, if I did not have this editor constantly trying to propagate.

All of the editors and the admins have been very tolerant with this user and tried to find common ground. But there is no ground left. I follow Greek politics closely and I was very suspect of this article popping up because I was afraid pro-Golden Dawn people would pop up to attack Pavlos Fyssas' article, turn Wikipedia onto a political boxing arena and propagate against the Greek left and in favor of the far right. In my opinion there was enough toleration, too much to be honest. Wikipedia has no space for the slightest propaganda and intended misinformation,

Its not up to me to deal with this from now on, but I will suggest an indefinite ban on the user and semi-protection on the article from IPs and very new users. Do as you see fit.--Tco03displays (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Extra note: I follow politics in Greece, and I write and checkout mostly political articles on Cyprus and Greece. This is beyond a simple difference in opinion or perspective of editors (as it happens in Turkish vs. Greece articles like the Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus), but clear motives of propaganda and restriction of information. For example, after I reverted the user's vandalism in murder of Pavlos Fyssas, the user went on to translate content from the Greek article (as asked from the appropriate tag). But he translated ONLY information that indicated that the murder carried no political motives, which reduces Golden Dawn's responsibility and moves the article closer to Golden Dawn's statement that it was a murder based on a disagreement on football. Which is false, based on the evidence and the statement of the murderer and the eye-witnesses. It is a given at the moment that the murderer was a Golden Dawn member, and that he was called to go to the area with the purpose of killing a political opponent. The whole case has been incorporated into the accusation of Golden Dawn for being a criminal organization, and has been added to a long list of accusations on manslaughter, violence, future goals of the overthrow of the democratic constitution, with gigabites of data being included in the court case at the moment. I'm only stating all this to get you further to understand with what we are dealing here and what the user's edits eventually accomplish even if they are not fundamentally out of the rules. There is an agenda here, and a very dangerous one as well. Wikipedia might be an encyclopedia, it is also the world's largest free database. That is why it is useful for propaganda, and control of opinion, in this case, for affecting the views on non-Greek speaking readers, and this is why from the article's creation I still follow it closely and try to eradicate such elements from it. --Tco03displays (talk) 12:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• Please Read: Since it came unfortunetly down to this, refer to User:Tco03displays reported by User:Katcheic (Result: ) underneath.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You keep goning on to attack on me while i'm acting and talk objectively about a simply wiki-policy, your political extreme left propaganda is confirmed --Katcheic (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand the neutral point of view. Thankfully admins understand it. Again, you accuse me of leftist propaganda, when I have provided no propaganda in Wikipedia, I have added only views on a controversy from both points of view on the debate by notable organizations and individuals, backed up by references, written in the appropriate style as explained by the neutrality policy. You went on to remove only statements from the one point of the controversy. Really, you are only exposing yourself every time you comment.--Tco03displays (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You are the only one seems to not understand the wiki-policies, except your propaganda.--Katcheic (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. User:Tco03displays uses the wikipedia as political podium evening to move toward specific political direction Violating the Rules of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. I have already informed the ensuing debate in. --Katcheic (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You have little understanding of the rules of Wikipedia. I have in no way compromised the neutral point of view. The section you copied from refers to the language, statements and expression of the article itself when it does not state the origin of the statements made. The Neutral Point of View policy states clearly that in the situation where a topic is controversial, Wikipedia does not take a stand but reports what has been said on the controversy by various individuals/organizations. I provided to you a link to the policy. Now, we both agreed on the issue of controversy on the proposal with merging the article with Terrorism in Greece. We both agreed that the merge should not happen because the attacker's motives and the attacker's identity is controversial. These are your words. When I added statements (clearly defining the individual/organization who made them) on the controversy, all backed up by reliable references, you came up and removed ONLY what indicated that Golden Dawn's view might be fault.

What I added was discussed on the talkpage but you did not engage in the discussion and as soon as your ban was removed you deleted what disliked you with NO attempt at discussing it in the talkpage. This is called edit warring, the reason you have already received2 temporary bans. You removed the content without allowing anyone time to respond to your comment in the talkpage. You have thus 1) again compromised the neutrality of the article, and 2) promoted Golden Dawn's views by selectively removing only the points of view that contradict their view. For the record I added information from the police, Golden Dawn and 2 notable journalists, one of which has his own Wikipedia entry. I specifically asked in the talkpage for further help in adding MORE viewpoints to further improve neutrality. You have received warnings in the past over your insistence in promoting a particular viewpoint, and compromising the neutrality of the article again and again. I've made clear to you your mistakes again and again, I've provided links to policies, Wikipedia guides and even other talkpages of Wikipedia articles so you can see how we handle things and reach consensus and decisions over controversies. I do not think you've checked them out, if you have, you are ignoring them. It has been made clear from your edits on this article, from your attitude in the talkpages, from your conscious ignoring of warnings and advice from editors and admins; and from your vandalism inmurder of Pavlos Fyssas that you are have as a motive the promotion of a particular point of view and the exclusion of other information that contradicts it.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Ιt is clear that Wikipedia isn't a podium of opinions. That is the base issue which are active. The proclamation, of Golden Dawn is a legitimate reference that must be referenced, associated with the issue in a first instance as an answer. So you 're just invalidity in this point--Katcheic (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your obvious statement on Golden Dawn. I was the one who added Golden Dawn's response. You have again not understood what I said above, and have not responded to the agreement we reached that the topic is controversial. If it is, opinions must bebalanced. All my additions are notable as well. I had found a number of responses from blogs and social media, but of course rejected them on grounds of notability and unreliably of sources. In addition,User:Callanecc clearly stated that changes in the article must be discussed in the talkpage. You did not do that, but continued your edit warring. Even now, you have removed the material again with no discussion and no actual response to my comments in the talkpage.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Υou edit warring I explained you the legality about the wiki policies for the neutral point, what is not understandable? We don't not make political propaganda. Is it what you want, Wikipedia is not a podium of opinions. --Katcheic (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You explained nothing. You posted a part of a policy on the talkpage you seem not to understand, and then you immediately went on to remove content without waiting for a response or allow enough time (a day for example) to pass so other editors can have time to comment. Now that I have responded, you keep on repeating yourself with little indication that you understand what neutrality really means on Wikipedia.

You had added a copyrighted photoshoped poster of Golden Dawn in the article (Link), with the Greek flag in the background connecting the two victims with the "nation" and the word "Heroes" under them promoting a subjective value judgment of them! I wasn't even the one who removed it. Other editors and admins have been notifying you and reverting your problematic edits for weeks. And you have the nerve to accuse me of propaganda for adding statements of 2 notable individuals on a controversial topic while I added statements by 2 institutions on the other side of the debase as well? Only the Gods of Wikipedia know what would had happened if we had left this article to your hands. Not to mention your total misrepresentation of sources ("worldwide reactions"), the fact that you had cited sources to text that did not contain any such information and your selective cherry-picking from sources. When me and other editors clearly explained to you that this kind of information cannot be tolerated, and will be removed because of your inability to cite correctly your statements with reliable references, you accused us of acting as in North Korea and that we are criticizing ideology and not the references as sources in relation to the text you've added. You also clearly expressed anti-leftist sentiment and pro-right wing sentiment, which would not matter at all in Wikipedia, had that not affected your edits and had you not accused me and other editors of being leftist totalitarians for following the Wikipedia policies on referencing. Since you decided to bring this here, this is beyond discussion between you and me dear editor, it is up to the admins which will see all this information and arguments and judge accordingly. --Tco03displays (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that you don't understand the policies, by using the wiki as a podium for leftist (or other) opinions and it's also you that remove content or conflict edits without waiting for a response, allowing enough time. example Let the admins to judge it --Katcheic (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted, dear editor, your own removal of material, and contributed to the talkpage explaining AGAIN to you not to remove information without discussion. For the record, lets go over some rules:

• A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant. - Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Information_suppression
• The text of Wikipedia articles should not assert opinions but should assert facts. When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution. In-text attribution to sources should be used where reliable sources disagree, not where editors disagree. Note that citations are a different matter: adding a footnoted citation to a fact or an opinion is always good practice. The text in the article, however, should mention the source only if the matter being described is an opinion, not a fact -Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balancing_aspects
• The great thing about NPOV is that you aren't claiming anything, except to say, "So-and-so argues that ____________, and therefore, ___________." This can be done with a straight face, with no moral compunctions, because you are attributing the claim to someone else. Even in the most contentious debates, when scholars are trying to prove a point, they include counter-arguments, at the least so that they can explain why the counter-arguments fail. - Wikipedia:ASF#Writing_for_the_opponent
• Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight - Wikipedia:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view
• Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this are opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. -Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion

I've told you before. You do not seem to have any idea what neutrality means on Wikipedia. You haven't bothered trying to learn, because I did provide you with links to the NPOV article. Yes, Wikipedia accepts opinions. It is fundamental in achieving NPOV. I have done nothing wrong, added no propaganda, and have reverted your own vandalism. --Tco03displays (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No response, no argument, and a childish personal attack on my ability to read English with no support of evidence for that? I'm certain you have a good case going on here. --Tco03displays (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Learn the english laguage first. You are exposing. The rules that you copied and set here to me, act against you. To theWP:NP please. Wikipedia is not a pedestal. Wikipedia is not podium speeches , battleground , or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to sections , categories, templates, talk pages , and user pages . Therefore , the content hosted Wikipedia is not: Propaganda , recruitment or defense of any kind , commercial , political , religious or other. Of course, a word can refer to such things objectively , as the attempt is made to describe the subject from a neutral point of view. The entries must be balanced in listings, particularly hot topics in a logical perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view). Wikipidia is not opinion pieces. see also:

WP:Notability-pedium --Katcheic (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Katcheic, Katcheic. I added information on a controversial topic (agreed on the talkpage). On the controversy, I added the Greek Police and the Golden Dawn statement by name on the one side of the argument, and then added two notable journalists on the other side of the argument, again; by name. The name indicates that it is an opinion. Stating opinions is part of Wikipedia (I'm surprised I even have to explain this, it is all over the Encyclopedia). The statements I wrote clearly expressed that it was the opinion of these actors. I posted in on the talkpage, and it was discussed, alterations were made because another editor was kind enough to notice mistakes. Then the information was posted on the page. I openly asked for help in adding further opinions, and in fact, I asked specifically for opinions that belonged to the side of Golden Dawn and the police to be further added by anyone interested (that it was a terrorist organization, in GD's case a leftist one). Read the the above. NPOV indicates: reporting all possible notable opinions on a subject matter, especially if it is controversial. Indicating by name that these are opinions. Trying to weight them accordingly (that is why I asked for further opinions to be included, especially on the side I saw lacking them). This is what means, describing a dispute, but not taking sides. You accuse me of propaganda. Having noted the opinions by name, and including opinions from both points of view, precisely means that I have not tried to propagate, but reach neutrality. Now, removing information from only one point of view, and insisting on it to the extend that you do, even after all this information I have added here, precisely indicates the promotion of one point of view only, and an intended biased article. You could have added more points of view, you however insist on removing existing ones. I simply am waiting for an admin to read all this we have been discussing, I am sure it will be interesting. --Tco03displays(talk) 18:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The answer is about exclusively party's official reaction (Golden Dawn) that involved in this case. We do not set other opinions to formulate a political opinion or a point of view, because wikipedia is not a podium for this. --Katcheic (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

See? You yourself say it. You want to exclude any other opinion but the party's. You then have just stated that you consciously want to restrict, control and remove any other opinion on the matter. From the link you sent me yourself:

• Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. - Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view--Tco03displays (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You sir, are breaking the rules knowingly (it has been indicated above that you've been on the NPOV page), wasting everyone's time and trying to promote only one point of view and censor other views.--Tco03displays (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

• For the sake of the admins/editors viewing this, the following is the text that I had added and that has brought this havoc! The last paragrapgh, indicated by the bold letters starting it, is what Katcheic wants so much to remove:

On the 16th of November Zougla announced that an unknown person contacted the station informing them the area where an envelope which contained a USB stick was placed; and that the digital proclamation was stored on it. Zougla uploaded the proclamation online, in which a newly found organization, The Fighting People's Revolutionary Powers, claimed the responsibility for the attack. The anti-terrorist branch of the Greek police announced that it considered the digital proclamation as authentic and is investigating the case. Following the proclamation, Golden Dawn stated that "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left".

Other commentators took a skeptical stand towards the proclamation. Journalist Anta Psara questioned the authenticity and ideological honesty of the proclamation by stating that previous far left armed groups sent their proclamations to the least politically biased mass media or to online anti-authoritarian sites, while in this case the proclamation was sent to a site with right-wing sympathies. She further questioned the proclamation by stating that the material included was copied from online sources and past newspapers, and that throughout the declaration the organization fails to provide information on itself or information in relation to the planning of the attack; which would prove its relation to it. Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis made similar observations, commenting that the proclamation is structured very similarly to a journalist article, that ideological analysis is missing, that it is historically rare for an anti-regime organization to treat mildly the political parties of the left; and that the proclamation provides no evidence that its authors were the same people who executed the attack.--Tco03displays(talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

References

Be gentle with policy. Wiki as an opinion-podium is irrelevant. WP:Opinion podium --Katcheic (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no point discussing with you anymore. Now I am not to follow the policies because you interpreted a particular point in a way that makes all of Wikipedia's policies on opinion, dispute, NPOV and handling of controversies as irrelevant.--Tco03displays (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

To sum up. The controversy is the following, in Katcheic's words, taken straight out of the talkpage of the article in regards to the murderers: "Since nobody is not sure about this murder how are we going to characterize it as a terrorist attack? So we can not merge it at this. anywhere - not many users agreed --Katcheic (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)". When it came to actually describing this controversy, I added multiple notable opinions by name, which expressed contradictory views, in accordance with NPOV policy. Katcheic stated above that only one opinion is to be allowed on the article, and that is of Golden Dawn - all other opinions contradicting it were removed by Katcheic. Not only this is a violation of NPOV, it is also a clear and conscious attempt to make the article biased and censor views that do not attack the far left. This is Golden Dawn's statement, an opinion: "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left". It is clearly subjective, attacks Greek leftist politics and the International left, but that is ok, it is perfectly fine according to Katcheic, as long as no other views are expressed; which might actually challenge it. All this, on a subject deemed by the very same editor as controversial. The editor has accused other editors as leftists, including me, only because we followed the referencing and the NPOV rules, and has expressed favor of right-wing politics, especially in the talkpage of the article. I am thus more than justified in saying that Katcheic is knowingly trying to compromise the article's neutrality, turning it into a pro-Golden Dawn article by censoring other relevant views, and wants the article to semi-conclude that the murderers were far leftist terrorists, even though he himself acknowledged that this is indeed very controversial. The editor is violating fundamental rules again and again (NPOV), from the begging of the article's creation (as indicated above and in the article's talkpage) to promote a specific point of view, wasting everyone's time in the process, compromising Wikipedia's reliably, and thus knowingly affecting the reader's access to information outside of his own preferred point of view. I indicate this clearly: I could care less of Katcheic's political views. If he had added material on the page according to rules (something that took us a long time to convince him to do so, including warinings, removal of material and bans), we could have had some aspects of the article's subject added, while we filled in the rest. But Katcheic removes, censors and has now reported users who do not add material that fit his point of view. I rest my case. This is the only editor that holds the article back and acts against the rules. Please, someone sort this mess out. --Tco03displays (talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Journalism. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news about current issues. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia has many encyclopedic entries on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated recently with accurate information. Although current issues and politics can root about passions and entice people to support passionately visual angle, Wikipedia is not a means to it. The entries must be balanced in listings, particularly hot topics in a logical perspective, and represent a neutral point of view.

Αs we know some opinions of what you set, are from far leftists or caracterized by politically propaganda and could be used for recruitment or defense of any kind, commercial, political, religious or other. Although details about the personal lives and thoughts can occasionally provide important or relevant to the topic, most often the authors include it as shocking or amusing sentences, or why personally find the most interesting gossip from the real object of the article. We will not break the rules. --Katcheic (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Αs we know some opinions are far right or characterized by politically propaganda blablabla..." When are we removing the Golden Dawn quote? See, your logic is that simplistic and subjective. You decided that the far right is more reliable than the far left (and for the record you have still to prove that these individuals belong to the "far left", not that it even matters on Wikipedia anyway), you decided that Golden Dawn's insults to the left are more reliable than observations and comments of notable journalists, to the point that the whole neutrality of the subject you stated to be controversial, has to be compromised. And you call me the one who breaks rules. You think the question of the existence or not of a new organization in urban guerrilla terrorism in Greece is actually gossip? The statements I added were clear opinions to a controversial topic, not used as sources for stating facts in an article. You still fail to understand the basics. You think your opinion on the far-left matters? Do we have to go over this again? Your subjective opinion does not matter. Get over it. I'll leave you with a quote in relation to Wikipedia editing, from someone who I doubt you know of: "The real struggle is not between the right and the left but between the party of the thoughtful and the party of the jerks". - Jimmy Wales--Tco03displays (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Watch out your speak behavior. To create overly abundant links and references to entries journalists is unacceptable. The entries must be balanced in listings, particularly strong topics in a logical perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. More over, the authors of Wikipedia should try to write entries that will not fall quickly into disuse. Wikipedia is not a podium speeches, battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising of journalism/jornalists. It applys to sections, talk pages, templates and user pages. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Read also carefully WI:NO --Katcheic (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"To create overly abundant links and references" - where are the abundant references? I fail to see them. I have only used 2 and I have used no links. The WI:NO clearly states in the first paragraph that "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article". This, my dear editor, refers to the decision of creating or maintaining an article, and by no means excludes notable journalists' opinions, or the far left, or any other notable source of opinion for that matter; from being included in a controversial and disputed topic. Further on, "represent a neutral point of view" means precisely all the jargon of information I've been posting here. No matter how much you copy-paste from other Wikipedia policy pages, you won't be able to undermine the NPOV policy, nor your statement that your intentions are to censor information. That's because you are simply wrong on this; and what you are doing right now is trying to twist Wikipedia policies to support your claims. It won't work. It can't. The people viewing this play the Wikipedia rules in their hands. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"Watch out your speak behavior." - Don't misunderstand, I tried to make clear to you through Jimmy Wales's quote the insignificance of political ideology in the logic of Wikipedia. The intention was not to insult you, had I wanted to I would had done so, and it would had gotten us nowhere. --Tco03displays (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has clear rules whatever across the spectrum and on this issue you're wrong. Υοu are not refuted any argument that I set you but you continue to see the case/article from the perspective of journalists and this is a mistake. Onother one I remind you thatWikipedia should not offer first-hand news about current issues and everyone know this. --Katcheic (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not. You took your information from "What Wikipedia is not". You again neglected the paragraph which sets out the context of the rule, and it is this "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." The whole argument relates to the creation and maintenance of the article itself and not for what is allowed to be included in a controversial/disputed topic under NPOV. I do not see the article in "view of journalists" - or maybe all the information I have added and you decided to keep is the "view of journalists" too? You clearly lack any understanding in the distinction between primary source and opinion piece, especially in the context we are discussing. --Tco03displays(talk) 22:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Look, we've been going on for hours, I'm out for now. Post your reply if you want to, add your arguments and information, and let us let it be until the admins come and sort out the dispute. I think there's more than enough discussion above for them to reach a conclusion and decide. You and I can decide nothing and let's be honest, we are not reaching a consensus and we keep repeating ourselves. Adios for now; Katcheic.--Tco03displays (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Jornalism/Jornalists incorporate-encloses in defending or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious or other advertising beyond the objectivity of the article, through the pedestal of the wikipedia. So the common conclusion is that it is arbitrary the reference on their ideas and beliefs. --Katcheic (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The Dispute Concerning Points of View

Hey Katcheic. We got both rejected on the report page. I copied the whole discussion here for reference. Please answer some questions clearly so we can get to the bottom of this and sort out what we disagree with. Do you agree with me that the executioners' motives and identity are disputed (that's what you agreed with me on the merge discussion)? If yes, do you agree with me that many points of view should be offered to reach NPOV? If yes, is the problem the specific 2 journalists (not the points themselves, or the individuals, or a political orientation) as references because you strongly disagree with adding journalists' views in the page? For the record, adding different views does not make any of them true or false, this is precisely the point. We may have to file a dispute for other editors/admins to help us sort it, but we should not report each other again, because that procedure is the wrong way to deal with a dispute and will only get us rejected again and get the admins irritated at us. --Tco03displays (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just realized that you also removed the statement which stated the motives' stated in the organization's declaration. This is an essential element for the article. Again, because it states that the motive was the murder of Pavlos Fyssas; this does not make the statement that Golden Dawn organized the murder true. If your problem is that I used a primary source (under specific conditions primary sources can be used on Wikipedia, assuming that no interpretation is made of them), I can find another source for it. But it must be included. It is essential for the article's subject. We can incorporate some sources from the Fyssas article so as to clearly state that Golden Dawn had been accused of being connected, but the trial is still waiting and the investigations still going on; clearly stating that no definite legal proof exists as of now that there is actually a connection, to balance the scales and not give validity to the organization's proclamation while explaining the events within the context they happened. --Tco03displays (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office → 2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting – not married to title, but going for more wikilike and less sensationalist. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support: The current name is not fit for an article entry. The proper title should indicate the time, place, and the incident, in this place, the shooting. The title shouldn't have words that indicate results, or actions in the article's subject etc, that is the point of having an article itself.--Tco03displays (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support: As per Tco03displays. I'd also add that the phrase 'Murder attack' is dreadful english. Dolescum (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support: I was just about to propose this myself - indeed I did change it once without informing people here(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LordFixit#Warning, see 18 December https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_attack_on_members_of_the_Golden_Dawn_Office&action=history) but the change was reverted. The title is obviously not suitable. According to WP:NC a title should meet the following standards: Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency. It meets none of those. LordFixit (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problem sentence in lead

I do not read Greek, so the three refs to the following lede-placed (lead?) sentence do me no good:

In December 2014, the murderers of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis, along with three other terrorists, were outlawed for 1 million euros from the government of Greece.

• "In December 2014, the murderers...". I think that is meant to be 2013.
• "...were outlawed for 1 million euros...". The way it reads, someone paid 1 million euros to have the murderers declared outlaws. I do not think that is what is meant.
• "...from the government of Greece." This would mean the murderers cannot hold office in the government. It would make more sense if they were outlawed in Greece (the country) by the Ministerial Council (if that is what actually declared them outlaws).

There is no explanatory text in the body of the article, making the entire sentence misplaced in the lede (the lede is for summarizing the body). If the outlawing cannot be fleshed out (who did it, to whom was it done, when was it done, and why) under the "Political reactions" sub-section, then the whole sentence in the lede should be deleted. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Basically this is what the source states. The government of Greece has outlawed specific known and unknown individuals that are wanted for terrorism. The government is willing to give 1 million euros for anyone who provides useful information that would lead to the capture of the people wanted. The government will give 1 million for each case - and the murderers of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis would count as 1 case. I originally moved this part of the lead section to the political reactions section, and tried to re-word it, but my changes were reverted by Katcheic. --Tco03displays (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to match article title decided by #Requested move above. DrKiernan (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

---

2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office terrorist attack → Talk:2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting – This talkpage should be moved to the articles name. So it is not linked to a redirect...(t) Josve05a (c) 09:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) (t) Josve05a (c) 09:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Problem sentence in lede, part 2

The following lede-placed sentence has no body text to support it, and makes no sense itself, as explained above. Please remove it.

In December 2014, the murderers of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis, along with three other terrorists, were outlawed for 1 million euros from the government of Greece.

71.234.215.133 (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've mentioned what is included in the sources in Problem sentence in lead. It is not in the policy of Wikipedia to remove information based on reliable sources. Would you argue for a rephrase of the statement and its placement under Political Reactions, where I personally believe it belongs? --Tco03displays (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not read Greek, so cannot verify what the resources say; thus, I can only propose deletion of what borders on gibberish. If you do not want the sentence deleted, please use the {{edit protected}} template and ask for both a new section/paragraph somewhere in the body, and a lede replacement sentence summarizing that section. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't care less of that sentence. I consider it rather uneeded. I simply commented in order to help out in regards to the problems you mentioned, since you can't read Greek, and nor can most editors on Wikipedia.--Tco03displays (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You do not care if it stays, but you say it must stay because it is based on reliable sources, even though it does not summarize anything from the body of the article and is senseless in and of itself. You will not offer your own section/edit, essentially leaving it to me to take your word for what those "reliable sources" are actually saying. No. It is up to you to ask for the "rephrase of the statement and its placement under Political Reactions" as it will be your edit. I cannot read Greek and can only ask for deletion of a nonsensical English sentence that fails to summarize any part of the body. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that I've been at an edit war with Katcheic for quite a long time over this article, and even such little information change is meant to restart it. If you are supporting the deletion of the information, I might as well add that I support this view as well, for different reasons. I think this not the sort o information you need in an article like this.--Tco03displays (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

So, what is exactly the disagreement?--Katcheic (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

71.234.215.133 states the the specific sentence doesn't make sense, and doesn't belong in the lead section. I would agree, it belongs in the political reactions section because it came after the incident, and it doesn't sound too good in English the way it is phrased. However I do not know how else to phrase it - they are outlawed, that is, they have a price on their heads. These are too wild west terms and don't belong in a Wikipedia article, so I have no alternative to the current phrasing.--Tco03displays (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no exactly phrase in english --Katcheic (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That's what I suspect too, I've been looking it up. --Tco03displays (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this the same as the FBI offering rewards for their ten most wanted criminals? Dolescum (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes! That's exactly the phrasing we needed. Thank you. I've made the appropriate corrections and moved the sentence under political reactions. --Tco03displays (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I've changed the protection to move-protection rather than full protection, so you should all be able to edit it now. Please try and avoid edit warring, or I may reinstate the full protection. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Improvements

Hi, I think I have improved this article a little. I will continue to work on it and currently would like to bump it up from Start-Class to C-Class. Is there any objections or things that glare out from the page currently? Regards. SP00KYtalk 23:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)