Jump to content

Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Vradini citation

Mitsos, it is not a product of my imagination. From Hrisi Avgi's site (near the bottom where the whole Vradini article is included):

Σύμφωνα με αξιωματικούς της Ασφάλειας Αττικής, ο 21χρονος σοβαρά τραυματίας είχε εμπλακεί σε παρόμοια συμπλοκή στις 21 Μαΐου, τραυματίζοντας μάλιστα έναν αστυνομικό που είχε επέμβει με συναδέλφους του για την αποτροπή του επεισοδίου, ενώ φέρεται ύποπτος για τους τραυματισμούς αλλοδαπών και ατόμων του αντεξουσιαστικού χώρου στην ίδια περιοχή

This is an actual citation from the Vradini article. Translated into english, it is what I added and you reverted. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I live in galatsi, and I haven't heard anything about a "παρόμοια συμπλοκή στις 21 Μαΐου" or attacks against anarchists. Anyway, what you say about the vradini citation seems to be true. Mitsos 07:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, our personal experiences are irrelevant here. I could also share my own experience of Hrisi Avgi bigotry but that would be pointless. WP:NOR is an official policy of Wikipedia. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy if you shared your experiance with me. Mitsos 14:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be irrelevant to the discussion. After all WP is not a blog... In any case, being physically threatened by a band of stocky neo-nazis just because of a hairstyle is not the fairest of experiences. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me share my experiances with you. When I was at school, an Albanian threatened to send me to the hospital (KAT). I think I 've said something about nortern epirus. Mitsos 17:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

That was pretty immature of him. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess. Btw, what's wrong with your hairstyle? You don't seem like a punk to me. Mitsos 18:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with my hairstyle. In my humble opinion, there is nothing wrong even with punk hairstyles (which I didn't have, I just had long hair and a goatee). Those guys thought otherwise though, but fortunately I got away with just a scare. And at any rate my hairstyle is none of their business whatsoever. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

PUNKS NOT RED Mitsos 07:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do we stand?

How can we rate the article? Mitsos 07:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I've posted requests for comment at Wikipedia talk:Greek Wikipedians' notice board and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fascism, but apart from a few copyedits and a few additions (such as Galazia Stratia) I haven't seen much feedback. Apart from that, I think it needs a bit of copyediting, grammar and syntax checking and style fixes, and maybe some parts need more attention (for example, I think the Ideology section needs some work). Also, I think the lead section needs more work as per WP:SUMMARY.
When we get over these, I've been planning to get this article peer reviewed. But I would hesitate to go through that right now, as I don't have much time, due to exams. In general before we ask for a peer review we must be ready to respond to the reviewers proposals. They're not going to be editing, they will be commenting, and we will be the ones fixing stuff. And that takes time I don't quite have right now. In a month or so I'll be much more free (you're also a student you understand what I'm talking about).
Anyway, what I'm saying is that before we go on to have the article externally (ie from wikipedians other than ourselves) reviewed, we have to make sure that we fix anything we can find (from grammar, to prose and npov). When we do that, we can go get peer reviewed, and if that goes well we go for WP:GAC and then if that goes well even for WP:FAC. But for now, these: WP:IA, WP:TPA, WP:WIAFA, are more important priorities.
However, on a more informal basis, we could ask some of our wikifriends (such as the people at Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Greece) to share their opinions on the article. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This article is nowhere close to being neutral or up to Wikipedia standards in terms of verifiable sources. A non-biased academic peer review group would rip this article to pieces.Spylab 21:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Periandros conviction

I think we shall add hrisi avgi's views on the matter [1] Mitsos 12:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at that: [2]. That's really threatening! Mitsos 13:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideology

I think this hrisi avgi's press release is very important to define the ideological nature of the organization. [3] Mitsos 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It is of course vital that we add this information (could you do it?). But we must also take into account that most (if not all) mainstream press refer to Hrisi Avgi as a neo-nazi party, not as a nationalist one. My opinion is that we should also refer to it as such, as it is the most widespread term used to describe it. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Your english is better so you can do it if you want (I think it's vital too). Yes, you are right, the media refer to hrisi avgi as neo-nazi, and therefore we must do the same. Mitsos 13:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Kala re paidia, ti sxesh exei h X.A. me tous grizous lykous? 8a mas trelanoune!? Mitsos 13:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice artile

I just wanted to say that this is one of the best articles having to do with modern Greek politics that I've read. Of course, there are some problems with the prose, but, in general, this is a very good article! Μπράβο!--Yannismarou 20:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you decide to go for GAC and you wish a more detailed review just let me know.--Yannismarou 20:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Yianni! As you probably have read in the section above, I plan to get it peer reviewed/GACed after my exams end (circa October 20). Whenever you have time and you feel like it, any comments and reviews are more than welcome! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Kaname kali douleia ontws. Mpravo se olous!! Mitsos 11:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Informal review

Ok! I'm done with some other boring things I had to do for my job and I decided I have time to give this article a detailed review. These are my remarks:

  • "in greeklish as Xrisi Aygi". Mmmmmm... I'm not sure this greeklish detail is necessary. I regard it as redundant.
  • "The party's symbol was a red flag bearing a black meander pattern ("Greek key") with white trim. An image on its website features a burning cross. Other symbols adopted by Hrisi Avgi members were the national emblem of Greece, the labrys and the celtic cross." I think this paragraph is redundant in the lead. Since you say that it has "openly espoused Nazi-like symbols", then there is no reason to go into further detail in the lead. Discuss this things in another section in the main prose.
  • "Nikolaos Michaloliakos with a group of devotees, started publishing the Hrisi Avgi magazine." Who is he? Inform the ignorant reader immediately when you refer his name. For instance (I don't really know his profession!), "Nikolaos Michaloliakos, a Greek lawyer and far-right politician .... ". Have always in mind that, when you write an article, you are always addressing to ignorants and that you have to explain almost everything! Blue or red links are never enough!
  • In citations you refer all the time the "Iospress journalist team". So you have to explain what is that. Again the ignorant readers ...
  • "He was known for assaulting journalists covering the 1976 trial of Mallios, a police officer who was later convicted for torturing prisoners during the Regime of the Colonels." Citation needed, unless it is the same with the one at the end of the paragraph.
  • We do not "quote", but we just "quote". Italics not recommended. I fixed some of these quotes.
  • "The characteristics of the magazine and the party were clearly National Socialist." I would like another citation here further to Ios. Ios is fine, but it has a specific ideological orientation. Thus I think this argumentation should be backed with at least one more citation from another source.
  • Before "Gaining momentum: 1991-1992" you have four or five parphs without a title. I think this could be a the first subsection of "History" section under the title "Establishment of the party" or something like that. In these sub-section you can put the details with the symbols, which are now in the lead.
  • In line citations go straight after the punctuation and without a gap between the punctuation and the citation. You are not consistent. And sometimes you forget the punctuation, especially after the quotes, or you repeat it before and after the quotes. I did some corrections.
  • I think the paragrpaph in "Gaining momentum: 1991-1992" about the first assaults of Hrysi Avgi needs more details and further sources and documentation. It is delicate issue and more well-grounded analysis is needed, in order to avoid accusations of POV against Hrysi Avgi.
  • "a year later, under another prominent party member, Antonis Androutsopoulos, known as Periandros, would assault the student Dimitris Kousouris." Citation needed.
  • "A few members of Hrisi Avgi took part in the Bosnian War in 1995 as members of the Greek Volunteer Guard (abbrev. GVG, Greek: "Ελληνική Εθελοντική Φρουρά" , ΕΕΦ), part of the "Drina Corps" of the Army of Republika Srpska." Citation needed in order to establish the relation between Hrysi Avgi and the Greek Volunteer Guard.
  • At the end of "From 1992 onwards" you have two one-sentence paragraph. This is not recommended. Merge or expand. I think the paragraph about the "staunchly homophobic stance" of Hrisi Avgi could be expanded with more details. Elaborate a bit on this issue with more sources if necessary.
  • I'm a bit concerned about the sources (I think it is already clear!). They are mostly Greek sources from Greek online sources (Eleftherotypia most of the times). Well Greek sources are Ok, but more sources written in English would be recommended. If a non-Greek evaluates the article for GAC or FAC and sees mostly in Greek written sources he can't read, he will have doubts about the verifiability of these sources. So I think you should search more English-written sources.
  • I had a proble to link to the articles of Kathimerini you citate. Something is probably going on with the URL. By the way, when you citate an inline source, try to include all the necessary information (author if there is one, title if there is one and date it was retrieved).
  • Section "Ideology" has serious problems. In articles trying to get GA or FA long and numerous quotes are not recommended. They interrupt the prose. Get read of these long quotes and turn them into prose, utilizing their content. It would also be nice (but not absolutely necessary) to find more sources about Hrysi Avgi's ideology apart form Michaloliakos' interview.
  • "Galazia Stratia" and "Eurofest 2005" are stubby. Expand or merge.
  • The whole section "Illegal activities" need some copy-editing and a slight rewriting because of the many one-sentence paragraphs.
  • In this section again try to documentate your assessments and arguments, because these are serious accusations against Hrysi Avgi and, if they are not well-grounded, they could be judged as POV. Also try always to mention what the altera pars ("Hrysi Avgi") says for these accusations and how it defends itself. Try to be as objective as possible. A nice way to do that is to imagine that you are in the middle of a confrontation, you are completely ignorant of both sides' arguments and you are just trying to unriddle the puzzle keeping a distance.
  • Alphabetize categories at the end of the article.
  • I think "See also" section is redundant. One link is already linked within the main prose and the two others could be also easily linked somewhere in the main prose.
  • The caption of the Party's logo could be more informative. What does this logo symbolizes?

These are my remarks for now. When you go for a peer-review, I may come up with more ideas.--Yannismarou 14:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, Yanni, real good review! There is much in what you mention I wouldn't see. (One of these is the "''quote''" thing I devised myself, but if you think it's crippled you know better -you've made some FAs in your time) I really don't have time to adress the issues now; in fact I should be studying pulse-width modulation and buck converters now instead of replying here :( When I get the time I'll try my best. In the meanwhile, Mitsos could you take a look and see if you can fix anything?
A note here: I won't go into detail but most of the things you requested citations for are sourced at inlines a little further down.
There is one thing that bugs me a lot: the references issue. I don't quite know where to go apart from Eleftherotypia and the greek press in general. If anyone could suggest any good (english) sources we'd be extremely grateful... Anyhow, some (really) intense googling will have to happen sooner or later. Again, thanks Yannis!! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't thik this: The party's symbol was a red flag bearing a black meander pattern ("Greek key") with white trim. An image on its website features a burning cross. Other symbols adopted by Hrisi Avgi members were the national emblem of Greece, the labrys and the celtic cross." I think this paragraph is redundant in the lead. Since you say that it has "openly espoused Nazi-like symbols", then there is no reason to go into further detail in the lead. Discuss this things in another section in the main prose. is a problem. Also I don't agree with the quote thing. It's alright with everything else. Mitsos 14:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The quote thing is not my opinion. It does not matter if I or you agree or disagree. It is a rule of Wikipedia. Just check WP:MoS#Quotations. So, if you want this article to go for GAC or FAC, you have to do it this way! You have no choice. No GA or FA "quotes"; they all just "quote"! I insist on that, because I made the same mistake, when I start rewriting Pericles. And during the first peer-review I was recommended not to do that.
  • I respect your opinion about the lead and you may be right. I just say that the lead is a summary of the whole article. So, you should ask yourself: Are these details necessary in the lead or should I just transfer them in another section within the article? I don't say I'm definitely right! But just think about it. And about the way the lead works and what it should include, check WP:LEAD.--Yannismarou 14:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And I think creating an article about michaloliakos woul be a good idea. I 'll try and get you some sources so that some of you can write an article about him. Mitsos

  • Many of the problems that are listed in the above review were still there before my recent edits, and some of the problems still exist. And some of the problems that I fixed have been reverted a few times to the substandard version without any justifiable explanation. I will keep my eye on this article so these problems don't keep being introduced into the article.Spylab 21:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone of you

ever decides to visit Poros, you will have no problem with accomondation:[4] Mitsos 12:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hrisi Avgi's response

One of the article's references is an article by eleutherotypia, called "Μουντο-Ρατσισμος". It will be interesting to see Hrisi Avgi's response to this article. [5] Mitsos 19:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

KLIK article

I think it should be removed from the external links. It is a blatant propaganda site, anonymous, without an author attribution, nothing. It says that the members of hrisi avgi are "barbarians" and is full of POV. In fact, it's not accurate at all. For example, it says that Dimitrios Zaphiropoulos (the leader of Patriotic Alliance) is wanted by the police!!! It says the same about Kousoumvris, who has now left hrisi avgi. Mitsos 12:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)



About that Palestinian thing...

I have the sentence that says Kalafolias was attacked because he was wearing the Palestinian thing around his neck. This sounds redicoulus to me. I 've seen members of H.A. wearing it, and making grafitees saying "Long Live Hezbollah and Hamas". Mitsos 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Disbanded

The party is apparently disbanded. It says so in the article and that is backed up by sources. Why does Mitsos keep making edits indicating it has not been? How can they still publish if they are disbanded? --SandyDancer 10:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Read the disbandment section below. Sandy, stop reverting me. I know much more than you about that party. Mitsos 11:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like to get technical but it is you who are reverting me - do it once more and you will be in breach of WP:3RR. --SandyDancer 11:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me be more clear: Oficially, Hrisi Avgi is disbanded. But, in fact, it just chanded its name to Patriotic Alliance. While Patriotic Alliance continues the political activity of H.A., Hrisi Avgi still exists, not as an organisation, but as a newspaper and a magazine. The website of H.A., which continues to be updated, says: "HRISI AVGI, newspaper". Mitsos 11:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well thank you for clearing that up. I believe you. Why do you keep using your edits in connection with this to revert my other edits though? --SandyDancer 11:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos: Breach of WP:3RR

I warned Mitsos here on Talk:Hrisi Avgi not to violate the Wikipedia rule on 3RR. Nevertheless he went ahead and did it - these are the offending edits:

  1. First reversion
  2. Second reversion
  3. Third reversion
  4. Fourth reversion

Of course I accept changes made on the basis of facts (such as his reversions of my edits about the party magazine), but he has four times reinserted the op-ed piece to the intro without discussion and without making reference to it in his edit summaries. --SandyDancer 11:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, I 'm reverting you because you keep adding false statements in the article, which is considered vandalism. I provide edit summaries, you don't. Mitsos 11:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who looks a the history of the page will see that is untrue. I am not introducing false statements into the article - I am trying to delete unsourced expressions of POV from the introduction. Do you honestly believe that someone is going to believe you and not bother looking at the page history which disproves what you are saying? --SandyDancer 11:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Instead of doing that, let's disscuss about your edits that I reverted. About the paragraph that you are refering to as "op-ed piece" it's very, very important in order to define the ideology of the organisation, and show that it's different from the ideology of the Popular Orthodox Rally and other parties. Mitsos 12:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The section is question is completely unsourced and appears to simply be OR. Perhaps if it could be sourced it could appear under an appropriate sub heading somewhere in the article. Not in the intro though. --SandyDancer 14:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You have continued to revert good faith edits without discussion. Perhaps you should back off and stop editing this article for a while. Read WP:OWN. Read WP:NPOV. --SandyDancer 15:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I see that the article has been tagged with the POV tag. It is appropriate that the POV issues be raised here on the talk page, so Spylab, would you please write here what you believe is POV about the article?

It is understandable that one is suspicious of references from the group itself, but I believe those have only been used when the group's opinion or the group's version of specific events has been quoted, as their view is IMHO of encyclopedic value. As far as the greek language sources are concerned, they come mostly from mainstream media (newspapers and in.gr, a mainstream news portal) as well as from an admittedly partisan (leftist) journalistic team (namely Ios), that publish at one of the mainstream newspapers (Eleftherotypia). The latter has been cited quite extensively as Ios has been one of the very few media streams that have studied exhaustingly the greek far right.

Also, at an edit summary you wrote that the whole article has been written so as to paint the group in a better light. As I have greatly contributed to this article, and as I would hardly consider myself a Hrisi Avgi sympathizer, I hope that you point out those parts that do so. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Many of the sources backing up claims in this article are from Hrisi Avgi itself. They are not considered a neutral source, and until those sources are replaced by neutral sources, the neutrality" tag must stay. Also, I did not write that "the whole article has been written so as to paint the group in a better light".Spylab 17:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrisi Avgi's sources are used only to say that "Hrisi Avgi says that..." or "Hrisi Avgi claims that...", so I can't see where you find a problem. Mitsos 17:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos is right: H.A. quotes are always used in context. I believe that it is within the limits of wikipedia citing policy. Of course it would make sense to cross-reference it with something else, however I think this is the case for most instances. Oh, btw, you are right about the "better light" thing, I got confused by this edit by SandyDancer. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually the HA references are not always used in context, and they do not always begin with "H.A says...". Some of the references are used to support claims about specific events, which really should be verified by outside media sources.Spylab 18:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Say exactly which claims are supported by Hrisi Avgi's sources. Mitsos 18:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't have time to go through ever single one, but here is an example of what I'm talking about. There are several sentences with details about violent incidents which are stated as fact, although the references are either from the HA or the European National Front. I'm guessing you would not accept this kind of thing if the ones being referenced were anarchist or communist groups. When it comes to recording incidents such as those, each side will give a biased account of the event. I will be reverting the Neutrality tag for this reason.Spylab 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • One more thing: do not remove the neutrality tag. It says that the neutrality of the article is in dispute. I dispute the neutrality of many of the sources, so that means that the neutrality is, in fact disputed.Spylab 21:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Again: Hrisi Avgi's sources are used only to say that "Hrisi Avgi says that..." or "Hrisi Avgi claims that..." If you think that's not true, add to statements cited by H.A sources that "According to Hrisi Avgi..." As Michalis said this is within Wikipedia's policy. Mitsos 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Again, your statement Hrisi Avgi's sources are used only to say that "Hrisi Avgi says that..." is is blatantly not true. The evidence is right there in the article for anyone to see.Spylab 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Just show me one statement cited by HA that does not says "Hrisi Avgi says that...".Mitsos 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I found only one statement (about eurofest 2005) but you can't tag the whole article just because of one paragraph. Mitsos 22:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Many of the statements about violent acts are stated as fact, but are references by HA or European National Front. There are several, and they are plain to see. Here is one example:

In June 2006, three young members of Hrisi Avgi were attacked and severely injured by anarchists in Galatsi, Athens.[26] [27]

Both of the references in that sentence are from non-neutral sources. There are others. I say I dispute the neutrality, so yes I can tag the whole article, and nobody should remove that tag until the neutrality is not disputed any more.Spylab 22:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is correct that until nobody (of those wikipedians interested of course) disputes the content, the tag has to stay. If Spylab raises some objections then there exists a dispute and there has to be a tag until those objections have been adressed.
Now, for the gist of it, when things calm down again and the article is unlocked, Spylab, are you OK if we go ahead and attribute everything that references H.A. or ENF to HA and/or the ENF? Would that fix the POV issue? Is there anything else? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

Contrary to an accusation in an edit note, I have not deleted any "important" content. I have only deleted uncited opinion, repetitive sentences, unnecessary and redundant wordiness, grammar mistakes, as well as unncessary Greek langage translations that clutter up the page. Remember, this article is for English readers, and should only include documented facts that are backed up by reliable sources.Spylab 17:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You have deleted sentences in intro and the "Violence against Hrisi Avgi" section that were sourced. You merged "Illegal Activities" with "Violence against Hrisi Avgi". That's wrong. It's two different sections talking about completely different things. We don't need the word "official" in "Activities" and "Ideology" sections. Some things you consider "unnecesary" are not in fact. Your other edits (such as wording improvements) are OK. Mitsos 17:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Greek langage translations are important because Hrisi Avgi is often translited "Chryssi Augi" and Patriotic Alliance "Patriotiki Symmachia". Mitsos 17:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Spylab, I believe that you have done this article a great favor, working on it with an outsider's viewpoint, which is very valuable. Your edits have greatly improved the article and have revealed its weaknesses. In short: Kudos! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You have defenetely improved the article, I just don't agree with your very recent edits as I explained above. Mitsos 17:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You have reverted many legitimate corrections to grammar, linking, formatting, accuracy of heading titles, and the organizing of similar topics together. You have also re-added uncited opinion based on personal bias. If you have legitimate, productive edits to contribute just make those specific edits. Do not make widescale reverts that destroy productive and necessary copy editing corrections.Spylab 18:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Spylab, since we write that "According to Hrisi Avgi..." or "Hrisi Avgi claims...", we don't need disclaimers saying there are no reliable sources. Let the reader deside if Hrisi Avgi is reliable as a source. Mitsos 20:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think it's not true add "According to Hrisi Avgi..." and not "There are no reliable sources..." You have filled the article with these short sentences. They just clutter up the page. Mitsos 21:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"your second statement contradicts Wikipedia policy." Which Wikipedia policy?? Mitsos 21:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


The page has been fully protected until both of you guys can settle your differences and agree on how the page should be written. Nishkid64 02:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a matter of "settling differences." User: Mitsos has repetitively reverted this article to a substandard version, which has mistakes in grammar, syntax, formatting, and the organization of topics into appropriate sections. He has also repetitively removed the "Neutrality disputed" tag without just cause. That user has made it very clear in this article, in other articles, and in his profile that he has a blatant political agenda that he is promoting on Wikipedia — namely Greek neo-Nazism. This article is especially important for him, because it is about an group he ideologically supports. The current protected version of the article does not meet Wikipedia standards, and the notion that this article would be nominated for Great Article status or that it is good enough to be peer reviewed (as discussed higher up on this page) is absoloutely rediculous. Any serious academic review would confirm what I have been saying. Spylab 01:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Spylab, hold your horses a bit. It was my idea to get this article to peer review, not Mitsos'. And as far as I can grasp WP policy any article can and should eventually get to GA status. However do note that asking for a peer review of an article does not mean that it will get a good one. It only means that the editors working on it think that it has reached a point of being good enough to ask other wikipedians how the article can be bettered. And through this process the article becomes even better and can possibly achieve GA status or more. Your edits and cleanup have greatly contributed to that direction, fixing shortcomings and underlying the article's weaknesses which (at least) I will try to mend.
Now, I don't know (and frankly don't care) why Mitsos wants to work on the article. But as long as he can contribute to it constructively I welcome his contributions. I agree that his recent edit warring with you was inappropriate and he should pause for a minute and think of it again and even apologize.
Anyway, I find it disturbing to have the article locked as I cannot go ahead and try to fix the points you raised. And any issues you and Mitsos have you should try to sort them out here so that we can achieve unprotection and carry on with writing the article. For the record do note that I believe that you are right and that Mitsos should not have reverted you. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Spylab, my version has no mistakes in grammar, syntax or formatting. You argue that this article is not neutral but this is not true. If you could read Greek, you would have seen that in Hrisi Avgi's site (which is used as a source for the Galatsi attack) there are some discussions copied from Indymedia Athens (!) with anarchists reporting that "three fascists were beaten in Galatsi". If you think this is made up by HA, there are more evidence. There is an article quoted from Vradini, a Greek mainstream newspaper. All the information in this page regarding the Galatsi attack, (including the fact that the victim became comatose for three weeks and that he had injured a policeman a month earlier) come from that article. You didn't know that and you edited nonsense such as "According to Hrisi Avgi, the same person has been reported by the police as a suspect in several cases of attacks against immigrants and anarchists in the area". Does that makes sense to you??? Hrisi Avgi accusing it's own member for attacking immigrants???? This is just an example and it's not the only case that you edited nonsense. Mitsos 13:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Another difference which proves that your vesion is biased:

In my version, there is sentence which states: "Hrisi Avgi's offices have been attacked several times, by anarchists and anti-fascists." This sentence is sourced, not only by by HA, but also by in.gr, which is a very reliable source. In your version this sentence is gone. Again, this is just another example. Mitsos 13:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"This article is especially important for him, because it is about an group he ideologically supports." It's not a group, it's a movement. The most reliable Greek Nationalist movement in the last 20 years. Mitsos 13:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't class a "movement" which had to fold under pressure last year as "reliable". In fact I'd say it was quite the opposite. --SandyDancer 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The movement was under pressure from the government, the police, anarchists, antifascist organisations and the entire political establishment for the last 10 years (since it begun its first succeslfull activities). Mitsos 12:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection and POV issues

Wow, full protection?? Isn't it a bit rush? I mean if Spylab and Mitsos were blocked, wouldn't semi-protection suffice? Anyway, Nishkid64 probably did what he believed was right. However, seeing that Spylab did have a point (some of the H.A. and ENF quotes were indeed out of context) I request unprotection (or semi-protection) so as to go on and try to fix those. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest you ask on WP:RFPP. Thanks Martinp23 23:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. However it seems there is still some tension around, so I'm going to wait until things calm down again. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Spylab stopped discussing on the talkpage, maybe it's time to unprotect the article. Mitsos 13:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I stopped talking here because you have demonstrated many times that there is no point in engaging in good-faith discussion with you. You seem to be blinded by your political bias, and you have been dishonest about the extent and nature of the edits you have made (even though anyone can see for themselves by checking the history). The main reason that the page was protected was your unjustified, unproductive and politically biased edits. Spylab 13:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Spylab. Much as I'd like to adhere to the view that everyone should be capable of contributing regardless of personal viewpoints, Mitsos is a neo-nazi who won't leave his sick perverted beliefs at the door. He makes personal attacks on those who disagree with him, and he is fundamentally dishonest. --SandyDancer 14:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are very democratic and open-minded! You think that because I 'm a "neo-nazi", I cannot edit Wikipedia!!!!!! If you don't want to discuss with me that's your problem. You said I have been dishonest about the extent and nature of the edits I have made. Can you please say particularly for which of my edits I had been dishonest about????? Btw, you say I make personal attacks, but you just made one on me. Mitsos 15:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Read what I said. I said I like to adhere to the view that everyone should be capable of contributing regardless of personal viewpoints - but in your case I think you are incapable of behaving in a civil manner, you are dishonest and you are only here for the purpose of attention seeking and POV-pushing. Unfortunately your two goals conflict - you have the attention you were seeking, but all it serves to do is make sure others can stop your pursuit of a crazy, racist agenda. --SandyDancer 12:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, it's your beliefs that are sick. You said that the ones who attacked HA offices did well, right? And those who attacked the 3 kids in Galatsi did also well???? Do you know that one of them had heavy injuries in the head??? Do you know that he was in comma for 3 weeks????? Mitsos 15:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What continues to astonish me about you, Mitsos, is that way that you lie and misrepresent what you and others say and do in such an obviously transparent way. Do you honestly think anyone is going to believe a confused non-white "white nationalist". --SandyDancer 12:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Greeks are White. Study some anthropology. If Greeks are not White, why does an entire White Nationalist movement exists in Greece? I have come to the conclusion that you will never understand because you don't want to understand. We have told you that even Hitler admired Greeks but you still don't want to understand. Have you got a source for your claim that Greeks are not White??? Mitsos 15:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, do I have a "source"? I don't need a source, I have not placed such a claim in the article and wouldn't seek to do so. Anyway, the rest of us aren't obsessed with bogus racist theories - so lets end this pointless discussion now. I don't want any distractions from monitoring your partisan editing of this or other articles. I see you have resumed this since the protection was lifted - you've clearly been poised on starting blocks. --SandyDancer 16:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I am very surprised that the article was unprotected without any discussion on this page, and without any investigation by the editor who unprotected it. I have put a two "disputed" tags on this article because the references and factual claims in this article very questionable, and should not be taken as absolute facts. Spylab 16:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Say exactly what you dispute. All the sources (except from HA's sources) come from Greek mainstream newspapers. About HA's sources I have explained in the above section. Regarding the attacks against HA's offices, the claim that anarhists did it is supported by in.gr, a very reliable source. Mitsos 18:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Galazia Stratia is a legal organisation. Why is it on "Violence" section? Mitsos 18:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The legality of the group has nothing to do with it. I put it in the "Violence" section because all of the content in the Galazia Stratia section is about violence. Spylab 18:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have moved GS to Violence section. The main reason, however are the disputed tags that you added without explanation. Mitsos 19:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos

Wouldn't it be easier simply to ban him from editing this article? And Spylab (and indeed myself) could voluntarily step back, to let other editors become involved in improving the article. Mitsos has shown his bad faith and determination to pursue partisan editing since earlier today when the article became unprotected. One of the most annoying things about him is that he even reverts edits which aim to improve the very poor standard of English that appears throughout the article. --SandyDancer 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • An administrator blocked User: Mitsos' account from editing for 31 hours. Mitsos appealed that temporary ban and his request was denied. He then came back to this article and made a series of edits using an anonymous IP. I am willing to back off from this article for awhile as a good faith measure, but not to to the extent of allowing the user in question to continue his counterproductive edits to this article.Spylab 13:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Spylab, these edits were completely legitimate and you had no right to revert them at all. In your version the article contradicts itself. In "History" section it says that HA accepted christianity, while the "Ideology" section says it empbraced neopagan beliefs. Mitsos 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction or not, it is now fixed. On a side notice, please stop edit warring... Mitsos, when you are blocked you are blocked. You are not allowed to even make the most legitimate edits. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Mitsos is only interested in edit warring. I have been adding in relatively innocuous qualifier statements along the lines of "the party claims", or "it was reported", so that we don't present things that aren't verified as objective fact. Mitsos reverts these edits along with every other improvement I try and make to the article. I will not revert him again but hope he is blocked for violation of 3RR, incivility and edit warring. --SandyDancer 13:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made some of the same edits again, explaining each properly in the edit summary. If Mitsos reverts again, I will immediately contact an admin. --SandyDancer 13:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Disbandment

This article has a major flaw we need to deal with, but can't because Mitsos insists on blanket reverting any attempts to improve it.

The article states Hrisi Avgi was disbanded in 2005. Looking at the sources, this appears to be true. However, throughout the article in various places the party is referred to in the present tense, rather than the past tense. There is a reference to a march, supposedly organised by Hrisi Avgi in 2006, the year after its disbandment.

I understand that there is still a periodical published by neo-nazis in Greece with the party's name, but that is not the same thing as the party. --SandyDancer 13:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

For Christs sake, it's not a "similar" march, it's the same march but this time it is organised by Patriotic Alliance. Patriotic Alliance is not a different organisation, it's the new name of Hrisi Avgi. The same thing happened in Belgium. When Vlaams Block was declared illegal, the party changed its name to Vlaams Belang, althought officially it's different organisation. Also, the article says Patriotic Alliance plans to organise a "similar" (I have already explained, it's the same march) in 2007. This is blatantly not true, since the 2006 march was organised by Patriotic Alliance. Mitsos 15:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok now, this is vandalism. An entire paragraph with crucial information is deleted, and it is replaced by a paragraph which is repeated again. Mitsos 15:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your claims about Patriotic Alliance and Hrisi Avgi being the same organisation run contrary to the article on Patriotic Alliance and much of the content of this article.
Mischaracterising good faith edits as vandalism is a breach of wikipedia etiquette - stop doing it. --SandyDancer 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. For example, the leader of PS Dimitrios Zaphiropoulos, is mentioned in the article as "prominent member of Hrisi Avgi"! Mitsos 17:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Read the article. Read the sources. It is clear they are different organisations. --SandyDancer 17:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I 'm talking because I have personal experience. I know many HA members and I had participated in the Imia march. It's the same march, not a similar one. And because that may sound like OR, I have a source. The march is organised by the Epitropi Ethnikis Mnimis, Commitee of National Memory, which was created by HA. The posters for the 2006 march (organised by PS) said in the bottom: "Commitee of National Memory". You can see the poster in the link used as a source for the sentence about the march. Mitsos 18:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Request For Comment page about Mitsos

If you have not done so already, please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mitsos and sign it if you agree with the assessment. And Mitsos, please do not vandalize that page again by deleting other people's signatures or by deleting examples of your innapropriate behaviour. Spylab 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Request

When SandyDancer made this edit, he just wanted to change ENF to European Natonal Front, but he made a mistake. He accidentaly deleted a sourced paragraph and replaced it with the next paragraph, which now appears twice in the article. I ask the editors of this page to fix that problem, re-add the deleted paragraph and delete repetition. Mitsos 11:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Done – Gurch 14:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

POV editing again

After making some constructive edits for a while, Mitsos' continual editing to this article has once again turned to the same kind of POV pushing - in some instances, exactly the same edits which caused edit warring last time. I am going to roll some of this back.

Mitsos, the article is a fairly good one but if you keep trying to push things too far, you will ruin it. --SandyDancer 13:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think is POV? We mention the Iospress journalist team, and the people must know that it is a left-wing group. About the paragraph I deleted, find a source before puting it again. PS: Your version contains a lot of typos. Mitsos 15:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I made this article a fairly good one (well not just me), and that's because I know much more about Greek politics than you. Mitsos 15:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mischaracterising this edit by me as vandalism which you did here and blatantly lying here (saying that "sourced information" was removed, when none was)is an example of your bad faith, POV-pushing editing of this article. Please stop. We do not care if you think particular mainstream newspapers are "left-wing". We do not care if you think a particular group is "terrorist". This is not sourced information. It is your point of view.
There is a genuine issue to be discussed here about this edit I made, which restored a sentence you deleted because the source link has gone dead. Fact is, you only removed this after the link went dead, and now want to pretend this article - which was published and is cited - never happened simply because it isn't flattering to the subject. Sources on Wikipedia do not need to be on the internet. It appears this article no longer is - that doesn't mean you can pretend it never happened - it

did and you didn't complain about it until it ceased to be hosted on the web. --SandyDancer 20:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I 'm going to tell you in the most polite way I can. I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF YOU TRUST ME ABOUT WHAT THE SOURCES SAY OR NOT. Yes, Ios is left-wing, yes the Revolutionary Organization 17 November is terrorist group according to Greek justice, and its members are now in prison (see article). Yes, the students attacked by HA are left-wing, according to the sources. All these are sourced, you believe it or not. It's not my POV, and most of the content you are removing was added by Michalis Famelis. Mitsos 08:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Corying from WP article: November 17 (also known as 17N or N17) has been described as a Marxist Greek terrorist group (Greek: Επαναστατική Οργάνωση 17 Νοέμβρη, Epanastatiki Organosi dekaefta Noemvri); it is listed on the U.S. State Department list of designated foreign terrorist organizations, the list of EU designated terrorist organisations, and the UK Home Office list of terrorist groups. Mitsos 08:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrespective of what those sources say, see this page on Wikipedia.
The sum of your latest raft of edits (why do you make so many?) has been to restore your POV to the article and to doctor the sourced statements I introduced last night. Don't act surprised when I revert you changes. --SandyDancer 13:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. I expanded the information you added and provided more sources. I also added sourced content that you removed. Mitsos 13:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have kept edits to a minimum, in the face of your latest onslaught of partisan edits. It simply isn't tolerable for you to pepper the article with assertions that this and that group or newspaper is "left-wing" or "terrorist" - it is editorialising. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --SandyDancer 13:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
What information did you restore that I deleted? Please point to it. I was not aware I had removed anything, other than your POV qualifiers (i.e. left-wing, terrorist). I suspect you are deliberately misrepresenting what I am doing so that anyone who doesn't study the diffs will think I am edit warring with you. Mitsos - I am not edit warring with you. You know what you are doing is wrong. --SandyDancer 13:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You immediately blanket reverted me. Mitsos - my edits are simply to maintain Wikipedia's standards. Can't you see that? You aren't allowed to skew articles by inserting statements of your own opinion about other groups and journalists throughout. Stop doing it. I am personally tired of dealing with you - you revert any edits you don't make on sight, and this is taking up too much of my time. I am going to ask third parties to get involved so I can take a break from dealing with you. --SandyDancer 13:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The word "left wing" is information. The reader must know that eleftherotypia's Iospress is left-wing. I 've placed a fact and I 'm soon going to finda source. About the students who were attacked, there are already sources stating they are left-wing. Mitsos 13:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos - what is this all about diff? What was I lying about? I simply reverted back to Spylab's edit - your "journalist team of" formation makes no sense. By the way, you are definitely in contravention of WP:3RR now. Cool down and step away. There is no point in you doing this. --SandyDancer 13:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What doesn't it make sense? Of course it does. Mitsos 13:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What did I lie about? Or was that just a random personal attack? Show me somewhere else where such a bizarre form of words is used ("the journalist team of X newspaper"). You wouldn't be able to. It makes no difference anyway, it is just better English - Wikipedia has standards you choose to ignore because you seem to be obsessed with getting "your way", even on non-controversial points. --SandyDancer 13:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You lied because the ("the journalist team of X newspaper"). makes sense. My English is not the best, but this seens right to me. Mitsos 13:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So I didn't actually lie at all, did I? I expressed an opinion I have now explained, and you have admitted your English is not the best. Care to apologise? --SandyDancer 14:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I 'm sorry, but you were wrong. My English is not the best, but that doesn't mean that "the journalist team of X newspaper" doesn't makes sense. Anyway, I 'm sorry. Mitsos 14:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's already in the article (and it wasn't added by me). It is mentioned all the time in the "footnotes" section. Mitsos 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and we are seeking to improve the article. So it gets changed and there is no need for you to re-add it. Mitsos, to avoid arguments and further bans, when you want to make changes to the article please consider:
  1. Discussing any changes here first, particularly if they relate to anything controversial.
  2. When you make edits, edit the latest version and do not make your edits into "your" last version, as you seem inclined to do. You are perfectly entitled to disagree with others work. But by blanket reverting each time, you hinder non-controversial improvements to the article.
For example, if another user adds a statement you believe is untrue - and at the same time makes various tidy-up edits to English language etc - and you want to amend the disputed statement, amend that statement. Do not, however, revert to the last version you edited, thereby meaning they have no option but to either revert you straight back, or go through the process of laboriously adding in the minor changes again, knowing full well you'll probably undo it anyway. I have lost count of the times you have done this to me. I find it immensely frustrating, not to mention time consuming. --SandyDancer 18:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes master. However, if you do the same, I will too! :) Mitsos 21:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, I have had to go back into the article and restore good-faith, non-controversial edits, because you reverted back to a previous version. Please edit the latest version of the article unless you disgaree with all or substantially all of the edits made in previous / intermediate revisions. If you do not do this, I will do the same when you edit - I have not done so this time to show good faith, but next time you waste my time by blanket reverting minor edits to style and English language I have been trying to make for weeks, I will simply revert all of your intermediate revisions rather than waste my time laboriously going through the article fixing things up again.
You will see I have restored the heading of the section on football hooliganism to "Football Hooliganism" as opposed to "Galazia Statia" because the section deals with football hooliganism in connection with HA generally. If you follow one of the links used as an (English language) source, the article doesn't even mention Galazia Stratia. In fact, we have no English language source even mentioning Galazia Stratia... but then that applies to most of the article. --SandyDancer 00:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Dawn_(Greece)/Archive_2&oldid=1136770182"