Jump to content

Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Request for help from a neutral, Greek-speaking editor

The sources for this article need to be checked by a Greek speaker - we need someone who doesn't self-identify as a party supporter and a "white nationalist" to confirm that the sources are not being misrepresented. --SandyDancer 01:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you please specify for which sources you need confirmation? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much all of those in Greek! --SandyDancer 14:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are 54 refs and very few of them are not in Greek, so, what you're asking is a bit much ;) Anyhow, to cut down on the number of disputed sources, it was me that added most of them, excluding the ones from the ENF and H.A. websites. I did try quite hard to keep to reputable sources and as you may find out from a bit of googling, they are reputable: they are mainly from the newspapers Eleftherotypia, Ta Nea and Kathimerini and also from in.gr. The papers are widely circulated, mainstream news outlets, and in.gr is also a mainstream news portal owned by the same company that owns Ta Nea.
Apart from these (imho uncontroversial) sources we have two more classes of Greek language sources: one is the Ios articles and another the H.A. articles. Of course Ios is (imho again) far far far more credible that H.A. It must be noted that Ios has a clear leftist alignment, and that that is quite well known in Greece. However, (imho again) this leftist alignment only affects comments and language that Ios uses, not content. And the sources from Ios have been used to document content, not judgment, because Ios (being left wing) has studied extensively the Greek neo-nazi "scene". Also, note that Ios publish their articles on (as I said earlier, mainstream) Eleftherotypia, not some obscure partisan brochure. In a sense, Ios itself is mainstream.
Oh, by the I was informed by Mitsos that you have been quarelling as to weather there should be reference to Ios' political alignment. If you want my opinion, It should be noted once: the first time Ios is mentioned. And that only for the shake of clarity. Ios' political alignment in no way diminishes the truth of what they report.
Moving on. I think that leaves us only with those sources that come from Hrisi Avgi. In particular I would expect reference #38 to raise suspicion, as it is a HA reference that is said to contain a whole article by a mainstream newspaper (Vradini). I can confirm that the HA piece does contain the said article. It is at the bottom and it is used by HA to make a point. In fact, HA criticizes Vradini for not agreeing with their story.
If there is anything else I could help out with, please ask me. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no trust in this world... Mitsos 09:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

lol Baristarim 10:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"Ios is (imho again) far far far more credible that H.A" False. Also, a source from To Vima is widely used, this is also a mainstream newspaper. Mitsos 11:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Dimitris Kousouris

Please merge any relevant content from Dimitris Kousouris per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitris Kousouris. Or, a new article on the incident involving him should be created. Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-29 06:24Z

What is grammatically correct?

"Article (by, from, in) X newspaper"? Please tell me so a I can fix that in "footnotes" section. Mitsos 09:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. If an article appears in a newspaper you should say "article in The Times", not "article by The Times". This is because the article is not written by the newspaper itself, rather it is written by a journalist and then published by the newspaper. --SandyDancer 13:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know who exactly wrote these articles, but I know that Ios is a team of 5-6 (I think) journalists of Eleftherotypia, known for being left-wing. Mitsos 13:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really relevant. --SandyDancer 13:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Newspaper alignments

For one thing, Eleftherotypia is not leftist, Rizospastis is. And for another, the political orientation of the reporting paper is completely irrelevant. It would be relevant if we were discussing what comment Eleftherotypia published about HA, not what "E" published as a reportage about something that happened. I'm putting this here instead of reverting as this article has seen a lot of edit warring recently. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you - but as you, say - lots of edit warring. I was willing to see Eleftherotypia described as "left-leaning" in the end because Spylab presented that as a compromise, and also because the WP article on the newspaper describes it as such. But as you say, we don't describe the political orientation of newspapers elsewhere so why should we here? Seems to me the insistence of doing so by Mitsos is an attempt to imply the matters of fact they were reporting were somehow untrue due to biased reporting - so in other words, as I originally said, the "left-leaning" bit is a POV qualifier from Mitsos. I have removed it. --SandyDancer 00:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Look E is not an internationaly known newspaper and the reader must know that it is left-leaning. It's a compromise and it was introduced by spylab. Mitsos 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What is there to have a compromise about? Eleftherotypia is the biggest Greek newspaper and is as left-leaning as The Guardian or Liberation. Why is it necessary to include its political orientation? Is that orientation in any way getting in the way of the facts the paper reports? Also, check the comments by me and Sandy above. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Eleftherotypia is not only Leftist but exceptionally so. One would have to be quite far to the Left in order to characterize it as simply "Left-leaning". Eleftherotypia's ideological biases are quite explicit, as is the newspaper's hostility to ideologies outside of the Left. This explains Leftist extremists' preference for Eleftherotypia when they commit a terrorist act and want to get good publicity for their group to the Greek public. They don't have to worry about Eleftherotypia condemning their actions. As far as I know, the Guardian does not have a policy of refusing to denounce Leftist terrorist acts. The fact that Eleftherotypia is mainstream (i.e. widely circulated and read) is irrelevant in regards to how serious or credible the newspaper itself is. The Village Voice, for instance, characterized Eleftherotypia as a "left-wing tabloid".[1] Also, the fact that Eleftherotypia refuses to debate ideological adversaries by refusing to publish their letters (or excluding the parts of substance of their letters in the rare instances when they are published) seems to indicate that political orientation does indeed get in the way the facts are presented by this newspaper. Critias 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Copying and translating from mine and Mitsos talk pages

I'd to remind you, Michalis, that it was you that proposed to have in the article the political orientation of Ios, in a discussion we had. I see you forget easily. Mitsos 10:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The political oreintation of Ios, yes. But you are labelling the whole newspaper! --Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Not me. It was Spylab and SandyDancer that did not want there to be a reference to "Iospess journalist team". You can put it back if you like, however "left-leaning" has to stay. Mitsos 10:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
And anyway, Eleftherotypia is left-wing. Mitsos 10:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You still have not answered why you insist that it "has to stay" and you have not answered any of the previous comments. And no, Eleftherotypia is not left-wing as a whole, in the same way that pasok is not left-wing. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's the biggest Greek newspaper, and it cannot be compared to The Guardian. I think we must state that it is left-leaning, because this isn't known to the public (opposite to the Guardian). In my opinion, Eleftherotypia's Ios, is the Greek Searchlight not the Greek Guardian. And when you are refering to Searchlight you must state that it is left-wing. "Left-leaning" is a compromise. Mitsos 10:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Eleytherotypia is not exactly PASOK. However, the sources come from Ios and Ios is left-wing. I 've answered above about the rest. "Left-leaning" must stay because it is information that the reader must know. It is simple. Mitsos 11:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Nikolaos Michaloliakos - Merge Proposal

I'm proposing the article on Nikolaos Michaloliakos, former leader of Hrisi Avgi, be merged into this one. Three principal (and interlinked) reasons, in descending order of importance (as I see it):

  1. Duplication - most of what is said in the article about the man is already in the article about the party - and correctly so.
  2. Verifiability - a lack of third party, reliable sources which meet Wikipedia's standards. Next to nothing in English. See Google search here - as you will see, excluding Wikipedia itself, most of what you get are blogs and self-published websites. There doesn't seem to be anything much we can verify which can be included in a biography. This makes the argument on duplication more compelling - because this article isn't therefore going to grow (he is a figure of the past, so new sources are unlikely to emerge), the situation on that front will not improve.
  3. Notability - query whether this person is notable enough by himself to justify an article - refer again to Google search here. Do we really think an article would be necessary, even if we did have more to say about him which we could verify (which we don't and won't)?

On the basis of the above, the merger would be extremely easy and neat - we'd need perhaps a small section on Michaloliakos, and the photograph of him could be ported over - but that would be it. Much of the content is already in this article. --SandyDancer 00:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not the right place to discuss this, but he is not notable at all as a writer. And as far as Patriotic Alliance is concerned, when talking about such small, fringe parties, even the leader having an article on his own is much. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I know he is not notable as a writer, but he is notable for being the leader of HA. The sources are fine (none is in english but the sources are neutral, except from the HA ones), and there is diferent information about him on his own artice. I totaly oppose. Mitsos 10:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Mitsos, you haven't really addressed my points. Adn the argument of "X has an article, so why shouldn't Y?" never, ever, ever works on Wikipedia - and rightly so. In all honesty I didn't expect any other response from you other than to oppose this proposal - you have said your piece, as you are entitled to do. Now please let others comment. --SandyDancer 12:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

About Ios claims

Ios is not a serious source. For example, Ios claims that HA has links to the Greek Police. There is evidence for the opposite, such as the arrest of 48 members of HA. I have seen also other evidence, and you must see them too [2]. I 'm not going to add this to the artice, but I want you to know the truth. Mitsos 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And, to be honest, I have heard the argument of Ios that members of HA are throwing stones to the participants of march for the anniversary of the Athens Polytechnic uprising, and in Villa Amalias (anarchist occupied building in Athens), by other people too. First of all, if this really happened, we don't know if these were really members of HA. I have heard (by an anarchist) the argument that they were shouting "Aima Timi Hrisi Avgi" (Blood and Honour Golden Dawn, a slogan used by HA members). I don't think this is true. I mean, why would they have done something like that, exposing that they were members of HA? Anyway, only anarchists claim that, and the articles of Ios various newspapers are based on anarchist and anti-fascist claims. The article by Ta Nea claiming that Periandros had links to the police, was proven wrong because he finaly surrendered. A neutral observer must not believe the anti-fascist claims or HA's claims. Because, in case you don't know, HA claims that the anarchists and anti-fascists have links to the police [3]. Mitsos 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

As time goes on, you seem to get more, not less, unreasonable. Mitsos - saying that mainstream media can't be used to reference statements of fact, but that a neo-nazi party's website is OK, is a total non-starter. --SandyDancer 12:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't said that. Except if by "mainstream media" you mean Ios. Mitsos 12:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ios isn't the source. The newspaper is. The newspaper is mainstream. --SandyDancer 16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Evangelos Mallios

We seem to have yet another dispute here - is it fair to describe this person as a "torturer". I have added a source from the Greek Embassy in LA which describes him as "cashiered police officer and junta-era torturer Evangelos Mallios". I hope that settles the matter. Just because he wasn't tried and convicted, doesn't mean it isn't accepeted fact that he was a torturer. --SandyDancer 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Look sandy, personaly I 'm totaly convinced that he was a torturer. My problem is that "torturer" is not encyclopedic. An encyclopedia must be, above all, neutral and formal. That means that when we say that somebody commited a crime (such as torturing prisoners), we must base it on a conviction. If someone is not convicted, that means he is innocent. It is generally considered that Mallios did tortured prisoners, but he was never convicted or even put on trial. As a an encyclopedia, we must state that he was accused of torturing prisoners, but not take this as a fact. I hope that helped to solve the dispute. Btw, the source doesn not come from the embassy. It comes from "Athens News Agency", and it's used by the embassy. Mitsos 22:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be accepted fact - even by official sources (US state department, Greek government). The fact he wasn't tried - and therefore wasn't convicted - is immaterial. You are being unreasoable again, edit-warring for the sake of it. I am changing this back. Be warned that if you revert again, you will be in breach of WP:3RR. --SandyDancer 22:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Athens News Agency is not an official source. Mitsos 22:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The Athens News Agency is state run. See here. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You've chosen to breach WP:3RR - in a most uncivil manner too ("if you don't understand, that's your problem"). You simply aren't being reasonable here. You have no right to enforce your opinions in this way, in breach of guidelines. There may be a debate to be had but you can't just ignore WP:3RR.
And for the record, Athens News Agency may not be an offical source - but the fact is, the information is on the Greek Embassy website. It has been reproduced there by an official organ of the Greek state - the fact Athens News Agency is cited as a source is neither here nor there. (the Athens News Agency is official, per Michalis Famelis) The same appellation ("torturer") has also been applied to Mallios by the BBC along with other reputable sources. You made your agenda clear with this edit - see diff - you wanted to whitewash the whole matter - on that basis, I question your good faith here, I'm afraid. --SandyDancer 22:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos, you are speaking unfounded legalese here, trying to pull out a sophistry. It reminds me of arguments raised by some Turkish wikipedians on the Pontic Genocide talk that since the Turkey has not been convicted for genocide, the word genocide is not applicable. Someone who tortures people is a torturer. Mallios tortured people, ergo Mallios was a torturer. The BBC calls him that, the ANA calls him that and the Greek state endorses the ANA report by putting it on an official diplomatic web page. You have been shown neutral and authoritative sources that describe him as such and yet you insist. Calm down a bit dude... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

To both of you: the fact that the false statements that existed in the article (that the assaults occured during his trial and that he was later convicted) were added by Michalis Famelis and ignored by SandyDancer who only got involved when I tried to correct that, makes me question your good faith. Mitsos 11:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd and it derails the conversation. I did add that part, along with the rest of the history section that simply was not there before I came in in this article. The amount of errors is bound to be proportional to the size of a contribution. And the wiki way means that those errors will be eventually fixed. If you see any kind of hidden agenda behind my coming in and bringing the article from a being a little more than a stub to roughly the size it is now, well that's a problem you should tend to, mate. I have not engaged in disrupting editing, I have not edit warred, I have always taken things to the talk page, I have always tried to cooperate and discuss things. I think that proves my good faith. Now, check if you've done any of the above, or if you've done the exact opposite. And try to figure out if your behavior has amounted to good faith editing, or not. Happy new year, και καλά μυαλά... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, OK, fair enough. I will ony say that it wasn't just who expanded the article, you didn't made all the 111 edits that are described in the difference you linked to. I think you have made huge contributions to the article, but that has nothing to do with Mallios. I accept that you made that by mistake and the discussion ends here. I 'm not exactly known for my good behaviour, but you must believe that all I want is to improve the artice. Καλη Χρονια Mitsos 14:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge per afd

Please merge the following per an AfD discussion. Cbrown1023 17:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Antoniοs Androutsopoulos, known among the members of Hrisi Avgi as Periandros, (born c. 1966) is a former leading member of the Greek neo-Nazi organization Hrisi Avgi (Golden Dawn). He also the writer of a book called The secret of the conch.[4]

On 25 September 2006 he was found guilty and sentenced by an Athens court to 21 years in prison for attempted murder after violently attacking three student unionists (including Dimitris Kousouris) in June 1998 in front of an Athens courthouse.

Androutsopoulos, who escaped after the attack, surrendered himself to police in 2005. His long period on the run was facilitated by delays in the investigation against him, which at the time fueled suspicions of police complicity.

This article seems to be free publicity for the party

I find it odd that this article about a fringe neo-Nazi party that got 0.07% of the votes cast in the 1996 Greek election (and which supposedly broke up in 2005) has an article that is a lot longer than the articles for the mainstream parties that sit in the current Greek parliament. See List of political parties in Greece. Much of this article was written and edited by an admitted staunch supporter of the party (who has been banned from Wikipedia several times, including for his actions related to this article). An overwhelming number of the references are from the party itself or close allies (or in Greek language and filtered by the above-mentioned supporter of the party). A lot of the article seems to be free advertising for the party, such as the huge Ideology section, which merely copies and pastes the party's views word-for-word. I haven't seen a similar section in Wikipedia articles about other, much more important, political parties.Spylab 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, I also think that articles about mainstream political parties must be expanded, and that HA is of minor importance. Anyway, about this article, it was mostly Michalis Famelis who expanded it, and since I saw that it was already long I offered to expand it because I know much about that party (not because I wanted to advertise it). This Wikipedia article is certainly not "good" publicity for HA, because it reports many attacks against immigrants commited by its members (supposedly). About the sources, their neutrality has been confirmed by Michalis Famelis above. HA sources are used only in sentences that begin with "HA claimed that...". About HA's notability: Altough it is of minor electoral importance (the highest percent was 0.75), it is the only neo-nazi organisation in Greece, and in a way it is identified with the Greek neo-nazi movement. In Greece, when someone refers to neo-nazis he would rarely use the word neo-nazi. He would use the word "Hrisavgitis" which means "HA member" in Greek, even if the neo-nazis he refers are not members of HA! PS: HA seems to be re-starting it activities now, see above section. Mitsos 19:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to include vast tracts of propaganda in the article. The article should tell the reader about the party, but does not need to help promote its ideologies. Look at the articles for other political parties - from around the world - they don't include sections like this. Wikipedia is not a place to get free publicity for your views, regardless of what those views are. --SandyDancer 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some compromise for this. I hope you will appreciate that. Mitsos 21:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I have not made changes to the "compromise" on the ideology section suggested by Mitsos. I have made other changes and identified them in detail in edit summaries. In particular I think the claim made by the party leader about it "entering the political mainstream" needed to be taken out. I don't see what purpose it serves other than to make the suggestion that somehow this is true, particularly due to its placement in the article. --SandyDancer 00:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I re-added some important information that was deleted from intro. Michaloliakos is said to be the one who founded HA, but we must also say in intro that he remained the leader since then. The sources I deleted and SandyDancer re-added, are about Evangelos Mallios (nothing to do with HA) and since he is not mentioned in the article anymore, the sources must not remain. I re-added the statement of Zaphiropoulos (who is not the "leader of HA" as Sandy - who propably doesn't read the article and is just reverting my edits out of spite - says) because it is used to make a point (that HA was strengthened in 1991-1992). I placed the images in their former positions, because the article looks better that way (the 20006 HA magazine cover doesn't need to be in the part that is about 2006, it's just a typical HA magazine cover). Also Spylab, one of the captions you supposedly "fixed", was edited incorrectly (the image was the cover of the HA newspaper, while the caption said it was the cover of HA magazine). I re-added a part of the ideology section, because it is not propaganda taken from the website, it is about the ideological nature of the party, and half of the sources in the part of the section I added come from Ios. Mitsos 18:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mitsos' response to my edits (accusing me of "spite") is a breach of WP:AGF, and in any case he doesn't even address my fully explained edit. I am removing the claim about the party being in the political mainstream because, although a quote, is in fact an attempt at editorialising by the back door. I am also going to change "devotees" back to "supporters" as it's simply a more appropriate word. --SandyDancer 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your second edit. About the quote, I don't think it is editorialising. As I said, it is used to make a point and, in fact, it wasn't added by me. Mitsos 14:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed the words 'left-leaning'

In the context used, they were pretty much the definition of weasel words, the sentence refers later to 'left-wing students'; the attempted link is obvious. Plus, the newspaper is referred at least four more times in this article without this words. Why here then? If anyone seriously disputes the factual accuracy of the newspaper's report, then do it in a proper manner. If you plan to revert the edit, please explain first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Treiskaitetarto (talk • contribs) 05:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Hrisi Avgi is re-startirting its activities

In the last weeks of January, many changes occured in the Greek nationalist movement. It seems that Patriotic Alliance was disbanded, after Hrisi Avgi broke away from it. In the 2007 march for the anniversary of Imia, Hrisi Avgi was said to be the organiser of the march, and no mention was made to Patriotic Alliance. The same happened in a recent march in Ioannina. This article must be edited. Hrisi Avgi sources: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Indymedia source: [10] Mitsos 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Up until now you - and the sources you've quoted - have said that Hrisi Avgi has been disbanded? --SandyDancer 02:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but let me explain more about that. HA never actually used the word "disbandment", it announced that it "stopped its political activities". Since then it has claimed in its website (which continues to be updated) and its newspaper (which continues to be published, along with the magazine) that it "continues its ideological struggle", whatever that means. But in announcements above, it's making cleat that it will continue its activities. I will translate two titles of the announcements in the links above to make you understand: "Hrisi Avgi is not a ghost! It has leadership, tradition and fighters" and "Once more they are "disbanding" Hrisi Avgi". Also the newspaper will be now published every 15 days, instead of a month. Mitsos 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC) IT IS NOW OFFICIAL, H.A. IS RE-STARTING ITS ACTIVITIES. Here is the official announcement: [11] and also an older one: [12] Mitsos 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC) The title of the announcement is: Our movement exists, remains faithfull to its cause, and it is going forward. Draw your own conclusion. Mitsos 12:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, I 'm not here because I support any party. All I 'm saying is that the article must be edited. Mitsos 10:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Anyone who looks at your editing history can see that you are an enthusiastic supporter of the views of this party, and that you want this article to be a soapbox for those views. Spylab 13:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What Mitsos says is true. I changed the article and added a reference of the 6th convention Hrisi Avgi had in March 2007.Alex Gerakis 3:15 13th of June

The number in 1994 election?

It says: "Hrisi Avgi ran in the 1994 European Parliament election, gaining 7.264 votes nationwide, 0.11% of the votes cast." what those 7.264 means, I belive it is "7 264" and not (oviesely) "7 point 264". Correct? Growner 06:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that we have a US vs. EU misunderstanding here. "One Thousand Three Hundred Five and 3/4" to the US is: 1,305.75 to the EU it's: 1.305,75  :) -Kimontalk 12:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Condemnation of the 48 HA members

There is no part in your references (all in greek language), about the condemnation of the arrested nationalists in Thessaloniki. In newspaper Thessaly says only that this happened and there was nothing about condemnation. On the other hand in in.gr news and HA press release says clearly that the arrested ones were found guilty of carrying flags which the court considered arms. So i made an addition: According to a Hrisi Avgi press release, those members were carrying greek national flags which in court were considered to be "arms" and so they were found guilty of carrying them. They were condemned up to six and seven months imprisonment with suspension and were also fined €500. Alex Gerakis 3:09 13 June 2007.

Ideology section

Here users are encouraged to say their opinion about the section that describes the party's ideology, and keeps geting removed by Spylab. Mitsos 12:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Wikipedia is not supposed to provide a soap box for specific groups or individuals. Having a huge section of long propaganda quotes directly copy and pasted from a group's website and publications is the exact definition of a soap box. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX for Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter. Some of that information could be summarized and merged into another section, but the huge unfiltered propaganda section should not be re-added. Spylab 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As I already said, the section simply describes their ideology by using their own words. It is not a soapbox. You can modify the section if you want, but you have no right to remove it. Mitsos 15:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As I explained, that is the very definition of a soap box. I'm curious about what you imagine a soap box is, if that isn't it.Spylab 17:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think both of you are right. This article has its own "soapbox", named "Allegations of connections to the Greek Police" which is black propaganda and has been denied by serious greek authorities (minister), and it is written, but it still continues to be in the text...

Also, if any party has not the right of self-determination, then why it should be given to newspapers which show their bitterness? In my opinion, this article has clues that could characterise it all-soapbox, starting by the refference chaos and resulting in "ideology" section deletion. It is not the first article for political parties i contributed, although it is the first that roumors and fake or disputed evidence are considered to be objective, far more than the "fundamental" (sorry about the word abuse) sources. Alex Gerakis 21:53 6 July 2007(UTC)

  • I agree. If the ideology section must be removed, then so does the "Allegations of Connections to the Greek Police" section. In fact I would like to see both sections stay, but... Mitsos 12:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't atleast the image on the ideology section be kept?? Mitsos 14:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Taking a look at the articles referenced from the Template:White supremist organizations, one can see that only 3 out of approximately 40 articles include an "Ideology" (or something similar) section: Libertarian National Socialist Green Party, Northern Alliance (Canada), Russian National Unity, and on all three the section is 1-2 paragraphs long -nothing like the huge thing we have here. Also, all three do not use direct quotes in the extent they are used here (which could also raise concerns of Copyright violation). I think that this makes an important precedent in respect to this kind of articles. And according to this precedent I think that we should either drop the Ideology section alltogether (like the 37 out of 40 other similar articles), or drastically limit it to 1 or 2 paragraphs, without excessive direct quoting. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fake Details

As i read the "Violence by and against Hrisi Avgi" section, i saw this: "In June 2006, three members of Hrisi Avgi were attacked and severely injured by anarchists in Galatsi, Athens.[39][40] One of the Hrisi Avgi members ended up in a coma for three weeks, and according to police, a month earlier he had injured a police officer, and was a suspect in several attacks against immigrants and anarchists in the area.[40]" This fact is true but the only reference, that stands is Hrisi Avgi's press release. And there its is said that the person who was the victim of this attack was considered a suspect for injuring a police officer. There is nowhere a reference or anything to stand for "and according to police and was a suspect in several attacks against immigrants and anarchists in the area." Nothing at all. So i reshaped it: "In June 2006, three members of Hrisi Avgi were attacked and severely injured by anarchists in Galatsi, Athens.[39][40] One of the Hrisi Avgi members ended up in a coma for three weeks, and was a suspect for injuring a police officer a month earlier.[40]" Alex Gerakis 15:30, 14 of July I erased all slanderous characterisms refering to Michaloliakos and the Greek Intelligence Organization (EYP). The link that proves these connections comes straight from the Athens IndyMedia Center, a clearly non-objective source. Although this foto comes from an IMC, [daily Greek newspaper, Eleytherotypia and Ios (Virus) journalist team's article (http://www.iospress.gr/mikro2000/mikro20000415.htm) has some published facts about it], these claims started first by a far-right personality and Chrusi Avgi's political rival, Sotiris Sofianopoulos who had this document (a payslip) at his possession. He claimed that several persons of the far-right political scene (Micaloliakos, Michalopoulos, Plevris, Dakoglou) where in fact Intelligence Organizations’ operatives statement that led him to the courts repeatedly. Eleutherotypia's article informs that Sofianopoulos' main motive was clearly to offend his rivals' electoral percentages. As far as the Michaloliakos versus Sofianopoulos affair, the court proved that the document in question is absolutely fake. Even the army officer called brigadier general (named Aerakis) who was claimed to be their superior officer, was found never to be enlisted in the Greek army. the article was as it follows: In December 1980, Nikolaos Michaloliakos, who was in the pay of the Greek Intelligence Organization (EYP)[1] and a group of his supporters launched Chrysi Avyi magazine. Michaloliakos (a mathematician, former commando and possibly EYP operative) had been active in far right politics for many years, and he had been arrested several times for politically-motivated offences.[2][3] Alex Gerakis 09:19, 9 of May (UTC)

  1. ^ Payslipf of Michaloliakos by EYP
  2. ^ 11/9/2005 article published in To Vima.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Michaloliakos was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Also I found more unproved statements which I removed, regarding sexual determinations of uncertain individuals which they are presented as far-right personalities. Beyond their sexist character it is obvious that the he who added this comments, manufactures and does not present published news according this organisation using a doubtful "discussion" in a forum of an IMC. Similarly and the relative reference had to be deleted. Alex Gerakis 03:16, 14 of May (UTC)

Allegations of connections to the greek police section

In this edit, the section was removed. I disagree with the removal as I believe that the section is (was) factually accurate (it reported actual allegations -allegations mind you) and is very well sourced. Alex Gerakis stated above that a serious source, a minister, has denied all that. That is true and that is mentioned in the section, with the appropriate citation. But a previous minister (an equally serious source) has claimed otherwise and his claims are also included in the section with appropriate citations. Such allegations have also been made by members of parliament and this is again properly cited and attributed. I really do not see the point were the section starts qualifying as "black propaganda" as Alex Gerakis put it. Under the above rationale, I will reinstate the section. On a sidenote, I think I have noticed that there has been a kind of "trade": removal of the Ideology section (perceived as H.A. soapbox) and also removal of the Allegations section (perceived as a "black"(!) soapbox). I do not wish to take part in the debate about the Ideology section (although I'd be in favor of having a small section to describe H.A.'s neo-Nazi orientation, though not necessarily with direct quotes from H.A.'s pamphlets) but despite that, I tottally disagree with "trading" one section for another. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But I 'm going to reinstate the ideology section, because there must be a section that will describe the party's ideology. I encourage you to edit it or you can add info about the party's ideology from other sources. In any case do not remove it again. Mitsos 10:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It was not I that removed it at any time. However, I again need to stress out that there cannot be a this-for-that section "trade". --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not so difficult to understand. There is not any "trade" as i see the sections. It's also stupid to work again and again on a so certain subject in wikipedia (and this goes to me too) but, wikipedia, MUST be an encyclopedia -NOT a political (sometimes self-)disagreements room-, and i think that we forget it. Anyway Michalis Famelis, i shall wait you, to erase the frases (if it is possible) that obviously turn this section (Allegations) to soap box, giving false details such as the minister's denial... My opinion is that trying to "purify" this section is not going to work! There is no real undeniable evidence to stand for it, and this is more than a serious fact. Also as all can see, there are serius facts (such as fotos taken from antifasist sources) that could prove the oposite. If somebody wants to "play" with this, must be objective, more than the title's words, and much more than the press' evidence that are not able to cover the whole theme, this way. --Alex Gerakis —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Could you please point out to the phrases you think make the section a soapbox? Also, could you be more specific as to what you think is false about minister Chrysochoidis denying the allegations?
Apart from the above, I believe that the section as it stands makes clear that there exist no undeniable facts to support a connection. However, as you can see from the sources provided, the allegations do exist and notable Greek publications such as Eleftherotypia and To Vima have tackled the issue. And that is what I believe the section is all about: the allegations referenced to by (at least) two notable and rather respected newspapers, reporting on ministers and members of the parliament who make or deny them.
Anyway, if you believe that you can improve the section with more photos, evidence etc, please do so, only bear WP:NOR in mind. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I managed to find the whole scene that the photo published in this section describes. It also comes from Athens Indymedia, as it was the last one. This is the link: http://athens.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/metafiles/080210_dsc02317.jpg It’s partly ambiguous with the idea of posting it as a part of those allegations. As i see it, the original publishers cut photo in half, to show what they wanted to. So, in favour of objectivity, i removed the photo and the comments under it. If this photo has to be present here, then it has to be all, not a part of it. Here are the deleted comments: Chrysi Avyi members rioting in Athens on February 2008. Riot police can be seen at the background, not interfering. A TV footage broadcasted by ANT1 channel showed Chrysi Avyi members passing through the riot policemen's lines. Alex Gerakis 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Page name

Maybe Chrysy Avyi is the correct name in greeklish, however I wonder if the page could be moved to GOLDEN DAWN, which makes more sense to than both greeklish names. Any opinions? Mitsos 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's commonly known in English by that translation. The transliterated Greek form is fine (although, following our usual ELOT norms, I'd preferred "Chrysi Avgi"). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

News

The organised march of HA for the Imia anniversary this year was marked with violence. There were references in all Greek media. Sources can be found easily. Someone should add this to the article. Mitsos (talk) 19:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the particular event should remain in the Allegations of connections to the Greek Police, since it was another proof of cooperation between the police and the members of Chrysi Avyi. That was the reason I put it in that section, in the first place. Ct1976 da (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The information provided about the event in this article does not explicitly demonstrate that was cooperation, just that party members and the police both used violence against the protesters. Spylab (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please consider the photographic evidence provided. Also, the Eleftherotypia source that was provided states:

[...] η αστυνομική κουλτούρα, ιδιαίτερα των δυνάμεων κρούσης, παραμένει συγγενική με τα ακροδεξιά στοιχεία. Το αποδεικνύουν κάθε φορά όσα διαμείβονται στις ταραχές μεταξύ αστυνομικών και ακροδεξιών ταραχοποιών και δείχνουν ότι οι δύο πλευρές λειτουργούν περίπου ως τακτικός σχηματισμός. Οι εικόνες που μεταδόθηκαν από τα τηλεοπτικά δίκτυα με ομάδες κρούσης ακροδεξιών να κάνουν ανενόχλητες διελεύσεις μέσα από αστυνομικές δυνάμεις για να επιτεθούν στους ιδεολογικούς αντιπάλους, είναι χαρακτηριστικές.

Translated by myself, it goes something like this:

[...] the mindset of the police, particarly of the riot police units, remains a close relative of far rightist elements. It is proven every time at riots by the things that take place between policemen and far right rioters, that prove that the two sides act more or less as one tactical formation. The images broadcasted by TV networks with far rightist gangs passing unhindered through the police to attack their ideological enemies are characteristic [of this].

I think this is enough to source the allegation that the police and the neonazis cooperated. I do not have time to elaborately use the material to expand the "Allegations" section, but I think it is more than enough to support Ct1976 da's edits. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The allegations of some media should not be taken for granted. There is the point that actually HA members broke through police lines and attacked. I will edit some indformation soon. And I won't use indymedia as a source like ct1976, that's for sure. Mitsos (talk) 20:19, 4

Also, I think the page should be moved to Golden Dawn. We 've had enough of these greeklish. Mitsos (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I 've edited the article, and I think it is written in a NPOV way. If you disagree, please let me know. Mitsos (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I really do not have the time to properly edit the article, but I find your edits highly controversial. You removed this photo obviously showing a policeman casually talking with a neonazi rioter, claiming that "you don't see anything"(!) (well, look closer, it's in the foreground...). Also you changed the caption in the second image to distort it. The ANT1 footage does not "claim" that they passed through, it shows it... At the start of the charge footage (at 00:21) the neonazi rioters are behind the police, and when the police stop (00:54) the rioters are ahead of them. Also, having a 3 line piece about C.A.'s reaction to the event when the whole section takes up only 7 lines on the whole cannot possibly be considered NPOV. I wish I had more time to edit the article, but I really don't. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I corrected some things you mention. About the image, the HA member is looking behind and not at the policeman, so there is no way you can prove they are talking. Also I think that HA POV is useful as a response to the accusations against it. Mitsos (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Added a picture of Michaloliakos, with the explanation that he considers himself to be a White person and also added links to the EYP payslip and the aledged outing of several GA members as closeted homosexuals.Xenovatis (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't conform to your very pro-nazi POV it doesn't make it propaganda. Now discuss your objections and cite any reasons and rationale you may haveXenovatis (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, in your "source" we see a "top secret" ineligence document on an anarchist website (!!!!!!!!), which says that Michaloliakos is an EYP agent. Below there are various accusations against him (gay, half-Turk) all in highly offensive language. I do not consider this a source. Here H.A. claims that a trial took place and the jury decided that the document is fake. About the picture, Michaloliakos is white, despite what you or any anarchist say. Mitsos (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well if the nazis claim it is fake that should be included as well not the source removed. I never commented on him being white or homosexual or otherwise. I merely posted a picture and added the explanation that he considers himself white all of which is factually correct and per WP requirements. I also didn't claim that all golden dawn nazis are homosexuals but again added a link to statements claiming that they are, which is again according to WP rules. Also you will not revert the lead again untill you have some sources backing your claim that GA approached 1%.Xenovatis (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the term "allegations" be removed from the main article paragraph title in view of recent video and audio recordings proving without the shadow of a doubt that the forces of political repression in Greece tolerate if not openly endorse joint action with HA members during repression action targeted mainly against the Greek Left. I further suggest visitors are directed to the relevant YouTube links of said videos and the title be re-written to that aim, perhaps by changing it to proof of clientelist policies and links with the Greek police State. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.83.30.208 (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Epaminondas Korkoneas

What about the allegations that he was/is a member? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

connection chrysi avgi with laos

the source that you have that "prooves" that chrysi avgi has connections with the political party laos is totaly subjective . the source is from a Fyromian ( which fights everything that is in support of greece-because of the name dispute) site that does not refer any proof and just refer their opinion about chrysi avyi. furthermore the article has missunderstanding results because it points in the beginning that xrysi avyi has connections with laos and at the end of the article points that chrisi avyi is against laos and other right political parties. chrisi avyi many times has accused laos and it never support it, thus it has no relation and it is not connected with it, as many times mihaliolakos( the president of chrysi avyi) has claim.here is an article ( in greek ) that accuse laos and their president giorgos karantzaferies for helping the gypsies in greece.

http://xryshaygh.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/%CF%84%CE%BF-%CE%BB%CE%B1-%CE%BF-%CF%83-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF-%CF%80%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%85%CF%81%CE%BF-%CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD-%CE%B1%CE%B8%CE%B9%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%B1%CE%BD%CF%89%CE%BD-%CE%B5%CF%83%CE%B5/

for the above reasons i think that the opinion in the article that these two political parties are in connection with should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.141.31 (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Degree of electoral success

The article says "Chrysi Avyi has only reached as high as 0.5% of the vote in a national election," but at [13] Nikos Raptis says that they "have managed to enter in the Greek parliament as an acceptable political party with a percentage of 3 to 4 % of the votes in the parliamentary elections." Is he wrong? - Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

IndyMedia as a source?

I noticed IndyMedia sites being cited as sources in this article. I was rather under the impression that IndyMedia was not considered a reliable source. Does anyone know if I might be mistaken about that, or what? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Not considered a reliable source by whom, and why!? Any source is unreliable to some extent, especially so when dealing with political issues, but I don't think any source can be dismissed as unreliable a priori! 82.119.193.179 (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Romanization

I think both "Chrysi Avyi" and "Khrysē Aygē" are totally non-standard romanizations. The "correct" Modern Greek romanization according to the ISO 843 international standard is "Chrysī Augī". The customary informal romanization used in Greece would be "Hrysi Avgi", and the customary Classical Greek romanization would be "Chrysē Augē". 82.119.193.179 (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Dawn_(Greece)/Archive_3&oldid=1136770190"