Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

2004 hooliganism

The riot involved clashes with anarchist and communist demonstrators at an anti-racism demonstration organized by an Albanian immigrant group.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. After the Albania vs. Greece football game (Albania won by 2-1), Hrisi Avgi attacked Albanian immigrants who were out celebrating. There was one anti-racist demonstation, organized by the Forum of Albanian Immigrants and the Antiracist Initiative of Thessaloniki, but I don't remember anything bad happening there. Etz Haim 02:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I misunderstood something I read on this anarchist website: http://www.ainfos.ca/04/sep/ainfos00177.html

There was a demonstration by an Albanian group that included anarchists that marched from Omonia to Exarkhaias where it got messy and was dispersed by police, but Hrisi Avgi had nothing to do with it. http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=263972

Neo-Nazism

Do the group aknowledge and admit being neo-nazi, or is this speculation?

Those individuals who make such allegations are guilty of speculation at best and calumny at worst. From its inception all the way down to its recent pause in politics, Golden Dawn has never accepted such a label in either speech or in print. It's true that they were (and still are) often denounced as "Nazis" or "Neo-Nazis" (which, by the way, is quite ridiculous when one takes into consideration that the term "Nazi" is a contraction for a German word that was ultimately derived from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialist German Workers' Party) by the media and other hostile groups. However, their publications would often respond to, and denounce, such remarks as abusive and libelous attempts to discredit and malign the movement. The following excerpts give an elementary, but somewhat insightful, overview of Golden Dawn's ideology as characterized by the group itself (instead of by other) and, more relevant to the subject at hand, should definitively address the issue of "Neo-Nazism" by putting some things into perspective:

In response to a newspaper which characterized Golden Dawn's newspaper as "Neo-Nazi" and their group as "murderous Nazis", Nikolaos G. Mihaloliakos (the leader of the party) wrote a letter to the newspaper in question which read: "For your information and for the restitution of the truth, we inform you that Golden Dawn is a Greek and Nationalist Movement. We challenge anyone to find even a single phrase in our newspaper in which we formally adopt or accept the characterization 'Neo-Nazi'".[1]

In an interview with a nationalist newspaper, Mihaloliakos -- commenting on the one-sidedness of the Greek media, how mainstream television stations and newspapers write whatever they want about the party, and how they thoroughly exclude them from discussions instead of allowing official representatives of Golden Dawn an opportunity to respond to their allegations against them -- states that the members of Golden Dawn are "uncompromising Nationalists", thereby making it clear what his party's political orientation is.[2] However, in that same interview, he clarifies the ideology behind Golden Dawn even more when asked by the interviewer what their ideology really is about: "The Ideology of our Movement as is characteristically cited in our charter is Popular Nationalism. We believe in the Nation -- the notion of the Nation first of all as a biological reality within the course of History -- we believe in the grandeur and the superiority of Hellenic Civilization. We want a just society that will be governed by the Worthy and we are anti-marxists as much as we are anti-capitalists".[3] Finally, the interviewer asks about the ideological influences of Golden Dawn and receives the following answer: "Of course it is not possible to chronicle the roots of our ideology in an answer of 100 or 200 words. I simply state aphoristically that they are lost in the chronology of Hellenic History. The Homeric prototype of the hero, the Socialistic Patriotic State of Sparta, the law of Lycurgus, the 'Republic' by Plato, the Akrites of the Hellenic empire, the Revolution of 1821, the period of '12-'13, the Great Idea, but also individual intellectuals of the last century such as Ion Dragoumis, Periklis Giannopoulos, Kostis Palamas, Sikoutris and Vezanis form the firm ideological rundown of our Movement. A Movement that is firmly counter to the spirit of the French Revolution, the so-called 'enlightenment', and those who generally created the industrial revolution. It is a 'revolt against the modern world', a revolution against all of the unfortunate things the industrial revolution created, which didn't have the intention of the people's welfare but rather profit".[4]

In addition, Golden Dawn has always described itself as a "Popular Nationalist Movement". Their website demonstrates both its nationalist and populist character. The "Who We Are" section of it reads: "Golden Dawn, the Popular Nationalist Movement, is a legal political echelon. The ideological and political character of our movement is without dispute Nationalism, but simultaneously Social as well. [...] Our members are chiefly young people, labourers, students, academics, farmers, artists, white-collar workers, and even the unemployed. People who campaign with conviction and a spirit of sacrifice, without any agendas or falseness. [...] We campaign from our offices, but also from the streets, the sidewalks, the schools and the universities for a new Greece, for a greater Greece in a Free Europe. We campaign for the Fatherland and the People without remission and compromises".[5] The "What We Want" section reads: "Golden Dawn has specific political positions for every issue and problem of our People. With only two words we believe in a New Politic, in a Politic truly National, that won't be dependent on big entrepreneurs and managers, who hold in bond the Political Parties of the establishment, that unfortunately direct the fortunes of our Nation. [...] We accuse the parties for the demise of the state and the sell-out of the Fatherland and through their actions the deeper division of our people. [...] Certain foreigners take the bread from Greek workers with wage-earning hunger, but this doesn't affect any of those who pose as the leaders of our people. [...] We believe in a Foreign Policy independent and proud, a Politic where Greece won't be a subordinate of America or any other foreigner. We campaign for the people, for social justice, for the cessation of Greeks being an article of manipulation of the profiteers and the extortionate party state".[6] The "What We Believe" section reads: "Our prevalent Idea and Belief is Nation-Race. Above everything for us is Greek Blood and the National Legacy. Still yet we believe in a just State in which everyone will be equal next to the law and where the law will be held reverent by all. We campaign for the abolition of parliamentary immunity and for the prevalence of a just state and social peace in our Fatherland. We believe in a Polity where its rulers won't be composed of the clever who hold billions, who profligate at elections, but the genuinely Worthy and Accomplished. We believe in a new Hellenic Civilization rooted in the great and everlasting Legacy of our Race. We believe in a Hellenic Way of Life as opposed to the sordid and vulgar foreign-imported mores".[7]

In the final assessment I think it is fairly evident that Golden Dawn is not a "Nazi" or "Neo-Nazi" organization despite what many have branded the group. Nor can one indiscriminately label Golden Dawn as some Greek knock off of National Socialism either. The totality of Golden Dawn's ideology, inspirations, philosophical influences, socio-economic beliefs, evolution as a political movement, and other factors make it quite distinct from the common stereotypes (or realities) associated with what is generally considered a "Nazi"/"Neo-Nazi" movement. What can be said with certainty of Golden Dawn, and would be the most accurate portrayal of the group, is that it is a Greek nationalist movement. Critias 03:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Nazism

It is a political party which has taken part in some elections. It claims to be Nationalist and not Neo-nazi, but caries some Nazi like symbols on open demonstrations and its ideology is close to National Socialism.

I already went into a lengthy discourse concerning its ideology so I won't reiterate any of that. However, if by "Nazi-like symbols" you are alluding to the meander then I must object to that. Although there have been comparisons between the meander and the swastika in news articles concerning Golden Dawn in order to link the movement to "Neo-Nazism", the meander is a purely Hellenic symbol dating back to ancient times. It was used as an ornamental pattern in art and architecture. It is commonly used by Greek nationalists, especially those belonging to Golden Dawn or those who adhere to an authoritarian political theory, because it represents a link to an ancient past. But it is hardly "echoic of Nazi swastika banners" to quote from the current article on Golden Dawn (which is awash in errors and assumptions). The meander isn't the only ancient Greek symbol to have been revived by Greek nationalists, either. The pelekys -- or double-headed axe -- was another ancient symbol revived by Greek nationalism and used throughout the quasi-Fascist 4th of August regime. One could argue that the pelekys resembled the fasces that was used as a symbol in Fascist Italy in the same way that one could argue that the meander resembles the swastika but the pelekys wasn't chosen in order to imitate the symbol of Italian Fascism just as the meander wasn't chosen in order to imitate the symbol of German National Socialism. Critias 06:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous "edits" to this article

This article has suffered some anonymous "editing" which removed some parts of it containing important information. These happen to be the parts about the group's member Periandros, the attacks to the Monastirioton synagogue, and the violence against emigrants. Who would want to hide this information and for what reason? P.S. "Hrisi Avgi", at least today, is a political group and not a party. Its members however have taken part in the "Patriotic Alliance" and the "Popular Orthodox Rally", which are both parties. Etz Haim 22:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Since "Periandros" had an official status in Golden Dawn I suppose detailing his story is somewhat relevant (but only marginally as the article is supposed to be about Golden Dawn rather than individuals of the group). However, I am in favor of the deletion for the alleged attacks on a synagogue and foreigners.

The reason I support the deletion concerning the vandalization of the synagogue is because it is unlikely any Golden Dawn members were behind it in the first place. This is what one Jewish watchdog organization had to say about the incident: "[...] on the night of 20 April (the date of Hitler’s birthday, the 1967 colonels’ military coup^[8] and the visit of many Israeli supporters of the Maccabi Tel Aviv basketball team), swastikas and antisemitic slogans were painted on the site of the Holocaust memorial and on the Monastirioton synagogue in Thessaloniki. The graffiti was signed by Chrissi Avgi".[9] Another Jewish monitor writes: "On 21 April^[10], abusive slogans were drawn on the memorial to the Jews of Salonika in the city's synagogue and on a number of Jewish-owned shops. The slogans included 'Juden Raus', 'We Are Coming' and swastikas, signed by a Neo-Nazi organization called 'Harisi Ivgi' (Golden Dawn)".[11]

Now, the fact that "Golden Dawn" was spraypainted along with the other vandalizations would seem to decisively establish the guilt of Golden Dawn but there's one major problem: such a self-incriminating action goes completely contrary to established criminal behavior. To vandalize a synogogue and then decide to spraypaint the name of the organization responsible would be as logical and likely to happen as someone committing murder and then deciding to leave his business card on the body of the victim for the police to find. What I'm getting at is that it is more reasonable to believe that a group opposed to Golden Dawn was responsible for the vandalization in order to falsely incriminate them with extremely overt, made up evidence (i.e. the spraypainted signature). I mean why would Golden Dawn, a movement trying to legitimize itself in a hostile media environment, ever do such a thing? So that it would be further ostracized? So that its members could be arrested and the organization forced to pay huge fines? It doesn't make any sense for Golden Dawn to have vandalized the synagogue and then incriminated themselves.

Such underhanded methods of maligning Golden Dawn are not uncommon actually. For example, on 13 September 2005 the Greek Helsinki Monitor released a press release which blamed Golden Dawn for a number of a number of "Neo-Nazi"-themed vandalisms in Argostoli (the capital of the island of Cefalonia): the vandalization of the memorial of an Israeli warship, the spraypainting of various slogans against foreigners throughout the center of the city (including at the post office), the vandalization of a municipal sign board, and the vandalization of the residence of the Metropolitan.[12] Their "evidence" for these accusations was based on the fact that, spraypainted on the wall of the Metropolitan's residence, was written "Golden Down Now". There are already major inconsistancies in this story. Such as:

1. Why would Golden Dawn spraypaint the house of an Orthodox Christian bishop to advertise the party in a way that would turn the Church against them?
2. Why would Golden Dawn vandalize a post office and a municipal sign board when they are a legal political entity?
3. Why would they spraypaint swastikas (even on non-Jewish property like the municipal sign board) when they've made it clear they are not "Neo-Nazis"?

All of these points raise suspicion. But nothing raises more suspicion than the actual images of the vandalisms. Every single swastika depicted in the Greek Helsinki Monitor's press release is misshapen and extremely reminiscent of the swastikas that Anarchists spraypaint in anti-Nazi graffiti in cities all over Greece. And, to top it all off, the letter sigma in "Golden Dawn" is written normally instead of in the unique, stylized font that Golden Dawn uses in every one of their banners. Add to the fact that there is not a single office or a campaign cell in the entire island of Cefalonia and it's pretty obvious this was the work of detractors. And the truth is that Anarchists would be more than happy to deface property belonging to religious figures (e.g. the Metropolitan) and public property belonging to the state (e.g. the post office and the municipal sign board) and blame it on their archenemies. So you can appreciate why I seriously challenge the allegation that Golden Dawn had anything at all to do with the vandalization of the synagogue.

As for the alleged attacks on Albanian immigrants by members of Golden Dawn, there is no evidence anywhere in the current article to substantiate that. In fact, the only "evidence" of that is from a badly-written Anarchist article which is linked on this very Talk (discussion) page. The violence following the September 2004 football match can easily be attributed to the hooliganism that is so prevalent and characteristic of that sport. Perhaps some of the hooligans were members of Golden Dawn, but can you seriously characterize all of the hooligans as members? And, even if it was proven that a few Golden Dawn members took part in any violent behavior, how can you differentiate their actions as manifestations of ethnic hate from hooliganism? And since, I am sure, you would agree that no executive command was given by the leaders of Golden Dawn to incite violence against Albanians, then what relevance does this incident have to do with an article about Golden Dawn? Yes, if Golden Dawn had ordered an attack on them I could see its relevance but that wasn't the case. Listing what some individual Golden Dawn members may (or may not) have done at a football match is like listing that a member of PASOK's youth organization smoked hashish and was arrested for possession in an article about PASOK. In other words, it doesn't belong there because it concerns individuals and not the political party the article is supposed to be about.

By the way, you stated that members of Golden Dawn have taken part in Patriotic Alliance and Popular Orthodox Rally. This is somewhat erroneous. While some supporters or members of Golden Dawn have likely voted or in some other way taken part in Patriotic Alliance, the same cannot be said of Popular Orthodox Rally. Amongst members of Golden Dawn (as well as other nationalists) Karatzaferis is widely viewed as a pseudo-nationalist and con man and subsequently Popular Orthodox Rally is not supported by them. The fact that he suddenly abandoned many of the views he was so popular for, the fact that he has Communist candidates running for him and his voters range from Marxists all the way to far-Rightists, the fact that he has renamed his party from "Popular Orthodox Rally" to "Popular Rally", the fact that instead of using the word "nationalism" he now uses "patriotism", and the fact that he has not only publically admitted to having homosexual members in his party but also supports homosexual causes more than any other party in the Greek political scene has greatly alienated many nationalists. Because of this radical change in ideology many of his traditional members have officially left the party and former supporters have decided to support other political parties. However, even before Karatzaferis altered the nature of his party, he was denounced by nationalist political parties. Even Hellenic Front, which is now merged with Popular Rally, would publically denounce him.

1. ^ The military coup d'etat took place on 21 April 1967 and not on 20 April 1967 as that passage claims.
2. ^ There is a date discrepancy between the two passages, with one claiming that the vandalism took place on 20 April and another on 21 April.

Critias 23:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

About

As far as we know this is a legal political party and not a group. It has taken part in Greek elections of 1994 and Euro elections of 1996 and for the rest of the elections has cooperated with several other parties. Please, before writing about such things, take care about your information, so to be neutral and avoid propaganda traps. Don't refer to sources that are clearly politicaly against it and for that unreliable. Thanks

They also claim to be nationalists, even though their ideology has commons with Nazism. They are anti-Turkish.

There is no doubt that Golden Dawn was a political party. I don't know why some users and anonymous individuals have been editting the article to remove references to its legal status as a political party by making it appear as simply a political organization or movement. (Not to say that it wasn't also a political movement; but it was always a political party as well.) After all, it was registered as a political party in 1993. Golden Dawn also took part in the national elections of 1996[13] (in which it received 4,487 votes or 0.07%) and the Euro-Election of 1994 (if I'm not mistaken). In other years, it usually gave its support to various other nationalist political parties (but later withdrew them after they fell afoul of the party for some reason or other). I believe there were three such political parties though I don't recall in what electoral year (and what type of election) they were supported. In any case, Golden Dawn (both before and after it was dissolved) self-described itself as a "legal political party". For example, this was a term used by its founder and leader Mihaloliakos in his 1 December 2005 announcement dissolving the party and also in an interview of that same month in Eleftheros Kosmos. But this is really a minor point with regards to the more significant fallacies currently present in the article. Critias 16:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Greek-English Transliteration // Greeklish-Grenglish issues

Addressed to Michalis Famelis I'm not claiming to be the authority on this issue myself, but since, as stated by the very same Greeklish link that you were kind enough to provide, there is no standard "Lack of standard // There are many ways to write Greeklish. As there is no commonly accepted method of transcribing Greek characters into Latin ones between the Greek Internet users, everyone uses their own way." Perhaps you should recall the guideline to which your userpage suggests you ascribe. hellenica 20:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I did not intend to be insulting, and I apologize sincerely if you feel I have been. Apart from that, I would like to point out that the naming of greek related articles in english wikipedia is not done the same way as in greeklish. We have Chalkidiki, not "Xalkidiki" and Charilaos Trikoupis, not "Xarilaos Trikoupis", as the former can be pronounced similarly to the greek way while the latter is pronounced in english in a manner that is completely different than what the actual pronounciation is. "Hrysi" is pronounced "χρυση" while "Xrisi" while it looks like "Χρυση" is pronounced "ζρυση" which is quite absurd. If you had renamed the instances of "Hrisi Avgi" to "Chrisi Avgi" I wouldn't have moved a finger; I would have been rather pleased. It is true that there is no standard for greeklish (how could there be) but there exist standards (eg ELOT) for transilterating greek names. But not all transliterations are greeklish while all greeklish are transliterations. In mathematical logic it would be like If it is greeklish it is a transliteration, not If it is greeklish it is a transliteration and vice versa. Have I convinced you at all? -- Michalis Famelis 21:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I similarly did not mean to deface the article deliberately. English is my first language, not Greek, and I depend on my transliteration from my friends and family who speak both fluently (as I do not speak Greek). In my mind I was applying the chi for χρυση from the chi in Χριστος Aνεστη, which (I gather from what you've said) is likely Greeklish as well. In talking online with Greek friends after Easter, Xristos Anesti, is the most common phrase I've seen. I suppose it's an attempt to retain the Greek look while applying some English phonetics. I am by no means a linguist, but to me Hrisi doesnt look right and would sound more like the English "h" (hree-see, I guess?) than the chi, especially since using "Ch" in English makes one (or at least me) think of the "Ch" in Church and Cheese, instead of Christ. I suppose I've just become inclined to view it (chi -> "ch") as a Latinization and that using the Latin X for the Greek chi would somehow retain the Kr instead of the ch. I suppose Chrisi would be better than Hrisi, for the English H doesnt seem to stand well alone and followed with consonants. If that makes any sense at all. [shrug] I do not know what the answer is, but if we're to be writing/transliterating for English consumption, then perhaps the English phonetics is best, i.e. Chrisi (or Xrisi, if English X could ever be seen as something beyond xylophone, xenophobia, and x-ray), as opposed to the unpleasant Hrisi. Of course, getting rid of the Greek altogether might be better (meaning putting it under the primary title of Golden Dawn with redirects for the Greek...all of them even). Redirects may have just been the easiest solution. Actually, to continue in this stream of consciousness nonsense, I think I'd suggest just that: changing all in text references to English (Golden Dawn) with the article title either Golden Dawn as well with all sorts of redirects, or moved to Chrisi with a similar amount of redirects. My apologies for the length of my rambling. =) hellenica 05:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Having the name completeley translated in English is, I think, ugly. I think the best practice is to have a transiletrated version as the article name and used in the article with an explanatory translation of the name in the beginning. Would you agree to have the page moved to "Chrisi Avgi" and to have all the instances of it in the article moved to "Chrisi Avgi", too? -- Michalis Famelis 14:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, having at least somewhat dealt with the "Chrisi/Xrisi/Hrisi" what about the "Aygi/Avgi?" I just skimmed the pertinent article, and found different possibilities. Pronunciationally (?) (as if that were a real word), "Upsilon participated as the second element in falling diphthongs, which have subsequently developed in various ways: for instance after alpha or epsilon it is pronounced f or v." However, I suppose, "transliterally;" "The Roman Emperor Claudius proposed introducing a new letter into the Latin alphabet to approximate the sound of upsilon, but in due course the letter Y was adopted instead. The name of the letter was originally just υ. It changed to "u psilon" (Greek υ ψιλόν, meaning "simple u") to distinguish it from οι, which had come to have the same [y] pronunciation. Four letters of the Latin alphabet arose from it: V and Y and, much later, U and W." Essentially, I suppose it could go either way, "v" for pronunciation, "y" for conversionality (?)...wow, it seems transliteration is a harder task than simple translation. What do you think? hellenica 14:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The most sensible thing to do would be to translate it into English. Considering that there is a strong precedent for non-English language political parties being translated into their English equivalent (and, if applicable, also into their acronymous form), that no adequate transliteration has been found to be acceptable, and that there is no consistent transliteration among Enlish-language publications for the party, it's the only practical solution. Critias 21:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Allegations of connections to the greek police" section

Mitsos, you deleted the whole section even though it was well documented, leaving 3 links from the Hrisi Avgi website on my talk page. In my opinion the section should stay (so I will reinstate it) because:

• It is not thin air: since there has been significant media interest about the issue, it is notable enough to be on this wikipedia article.
• In my opinion it was not written in an NPOV way. I tried to use as much neutral language as possible, and wherever I didn't Porfyrios corrected me. And wherever it did get "edgy" it was not my language but rather the language of notable people (ministers of the government and members of the hellenic parliament).
• It was verifiable: everything in it did not come out of my hat, but from mainstream media outlets and quotes by MP's and Ministers.

On the downside, I did miss a point, the point you tried to make by posting those links on my talk page. I did not go as far as the Hrisi Avgi website to present their views on the issue. You are right on this. But instead of deleting the whole section and going to my talk page (not the article's talk page mind you) to present the other point of view, you should have expanded the section to include their views.

I'm bringing the section back and please expand it (and balance it) with the information that come from the three links you posted on my talk page. I can't see any reason why this scheme of action would be unacceptable.

In short: Don't delete, expand and balance. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Organization, group or party? Some consistency needed.

What are they after all? In the article we mention them as an organization, as a group and as a party. I think we should stick to one of these throughout the article. I lean towards party. Opinions?--Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Organization, group or party?= Movement Mitsos 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok... anything more realistic? :) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think organization, group and party might be reasonably used interchangeably. By definition, a political party is also an "organization", and an organization that contests elections (as ΧΑ has) is a "party". Usage of "movement", on the other hand, poses problems, as in the vernacular the term seems to carry connotations of at least some degree of popularity, far exceeding Hrisavgi-Alliance's current combined electoral appeal of 0,17%.. Porfyrios 09:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Michalis, I've slightly rephrased Chrysochoidis's answer on "allegations of connections to the police", taking your previous objections to mind. Porfyrios 09:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think movement is the best. Mitsos 12:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

History section

I have greatly expanded the article by adding a history section. I understand that many things in there could be considered controversial, as is Hrisi Avgi itself. Anyone, please provide feedback if we are to improve the section and consequently the whole article, but please bear in mind the rules on verifiability and citations. I believe I have used neutral language and presented the story in an NPOV way, but it is only natural if I have written anything the wrong way. I would really appreciate constructive feedback! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Eurofest 2005

I think we must create a sub-category about Eurofest 2005, which was the most notorious out of XA activities. Anyone willing to do it? Mitsos 12:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead! ;-) --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Attacks against H.A.

Mitsos, the three people that were attacked at Galatsi, are they members of H.A. or not? If they are members, the word "alleged" should go. If they are not, the whole story should go, as the section is about attacks against Hrisi Avgi, not attacks against people with the flag on their shirts. Also, is there a source saying that they were attacked because they had the flag on their shirts? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the three young Hellenic students that were attacked[14][15] were simply attacked because they were presumed to be nationalists by their attackers. However, whatever the students' political affiliations (if any), Golden Dawn and Patriotic Alliance were the most vocal groups in Greece in proliferating awareness of the incident and in setting up protest demonstrations against the media's suppression of news regarding the brutal attack[16] as well as vigils for the 19-year old that was in critical condition.[17][18] It's also worth noting that Golden Dawn and Patriotic Alliance's European allies -- which included nationalist groups in Italy, Spain, Romania, and Germany -- protested the attack and the Greek media's blackout in their own countries[19]. Italy is especially worthy of mention since Italian nationalists of Forza Nuova actually took over and occupied the offices of two Greek ferries (those of Minoan Lines and ANEK Lines) by force in protest of the situation[20]. Alessandra Mussolini (of Azione Sociale) brought news of the assault, of the Greek police's inaction, of terrorist assaults on Patriotic Alliance's offices, and the Greek media's suppression of news to the attention of the European Parliament and called for iniatives to be taken in order to end the climate of violence that exists in Greece against nationalists.[21] [22]

Also, since Golden Dawn has been a victim of a great deal of political violence by far-Leftist terrorists, and especially Anarchists, I believe it would be prudent to expand the section regarding attacks against their members, property, and affiliates over the years. Critias 00:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so they weren't members of Hrisi avgi? If so, we should not have their story at the section "Attacks against H.A.". If what is important in this case is the reactions about the attack by H.A. and its affiliates abroad, then it should go to the "activities" section.

By the way, the whole incident seems to be documented by H.A. or Patri.S. sources. Has it not recieved any mainstream media coverage? And if not, is it that important that it should be mentioned in the article? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 05:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if you feel the section is lacking crucial evidence, please go ahead and fix it. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading the given citation for tha Galatsi attack, I removed the "alleged members" phrase. The HA press release calls them "nationalists" with a capital "N" (which to my understanding is the standard way to refer to its members) and does not deny that they are their members. Also I attributed the assumed cause of the attack (the t-shirt) to its proper source, HA. There is still one objection to be considered. It seems that the three were not members of Hrisi Avgi (as it is defunct) but of PATRI.S. Maybe the whole thing should go to the Patriotic Alliance article? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

H.A. and PATRI.S. are the same. I don't think it should moved to Patriotic Alliance. Mitsos 09:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So what, should we merge the two articles? This article talks about Hrisi Avgi, and it does so using past tense as Hrisi Avgi according to Michaloliakos is disbanded. Information about PATRI.S. members should go to the PATRI.S. article. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't merge the two articles. I think this attack should be mentioned both in Patriotic Alliance and Hrisi Avgi. Mitsos 11:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)