This is an archive of past discussions about Golden Dawn (Greece). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Metaxism should be removed from the infobox. Such a term is not even used in Greece. They have supported Metaxas, as they have done with Papadopoulos, Ioannidis, Dragoumis etc. But claiming "Metaxism" as an ideology of the party is like accusing a Communist of "Kimjongilism" or "Hochiminhism".
Kimjongilism is actually called Juche, I dont know what Hochimihism really is called but it excist, just as Maoism, Stalinism and Leninism. And they are all used about groups of communists. So I dont think you want to use that argument. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
In the Greek language, there is the term "Metaxite" (μεταξικός) to describe something that is of Metaxas, f.e. "Metaxite dictatorship" (μεταξική δικτατορία) but not the term "Metaxism". In fact, that guy never developed any significant ideology to have his name, so I think Metaxism is an inappropriate term.
The political ideology of GD its very controvertial and inexact. I think we should made a complete subsection about the posible ideologies of this party. --Realxsalo (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
There is a wide range of nationalist movements that do not use Nazi symbolism. As long as Golden Dawn uses it, it can fairly be classified as a neo-Nazi group and not a purely nationalist movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.152.43 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Party Logo
Hi everyone, I decided to do some research into Peeperman's claim that the party has changed it's logo. Peeperman is relying on the logo posted on the party's website, in the top right hand corner. Looking things over, their site is plastered with the meander and olive wreath in a variety of attractive colour schemes, including the one Peeperman wishes to remove, posted on an article published in the last 24 hours.
No headlines on their site their logo has changed since 17th June and you would think they'd mention this. The Hellenic Parliment is using a black and gold logo. As per WP:PRIMARY, I suspect the article should probably be using the one they passed to parliament, if there are no better sources willing to be explicit on the matter. Any disagrements, corrections or abuse, anyone? Dolescum (talk) 02:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
What better sources my friend? Is there any better source than the official website?
The logo actually is yellow and silver with the name of the party.[1]--Peeperman (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Greek Ministry of Interior is using the red/black/white logo [2]. I think it is clear that XA is using their logo in lots of different color schemes and without anyone being clear on what the official one is I see no need to change this Teh hackz0r (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Other logo the Interior Ministry, other the Parliament, other the Party. As we greeks say chamos, in English mess and chaos!! :D--Peeperman (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
First, racism its not a political ideology. Maybe it could be white nationalism, but I dont think Golden Dawn are, they has stated that they just oppose to ilegal immigration. The text in the footnotes just accuse golden dawn of racism, and thats debateble.
'lets rid this country of this stench' - was that one of the slogans? Theres been a spike in the number of inner-city assaults on mostly asians - what you write is sophistries imo - are you pov on this yourself or npov. Sayerslle (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Im neutral and I think the article isnt. "Stench" its a vague term, if it was a racial slur, then its racism. The Main Kampf copies, I want to know a source of that claim. And if thats true, maybe its posible that the party maybe has some national soocialist symphaty, but like I said before, racism isnt a political ideology. --Realxsalo (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
can you source 'racism isn't a political ideology' - i did a google search and found plenty of encyclopedias etc saying opposite. Sayerslle (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Well someone added Neo-Nazism as ideology now, which is (obviously) much more accurate than racism. If this stays we can delete racism imo, since it's kind of redundant. As for the Mein Kampf copies: [4][5]Teh hackz0r (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No, GD have denied both clasifications, racism and nazism. White nationalism its the political variation of racism, and GD isnt white nationalist. --Realxsalo (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Have a look at this and then tell me again that XA is not neo-nazi. Also, in case you want to argue that this is a partisan source, most of the stuff presented there is taken directly from the official Golden Dawn magazine Teh hackz0r (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Michaloliakos said in a public interview some years ago that "even a white criminal is a brother to us". That can easily be labeled as white supremacism.
I object to the term "white" here. They are European supremacist, that's for sure. But some immigrants can be white too. Shii(tock)06:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Also "white nationalism" as someone tried to add in the article is not accurate because they don't want to create a "white" nation state like their American counterparts, but a Greece for ethnic Greeks only Teh hackz0r (talk) 23:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well my favourite is Neo-nazism because that's just what they are but I don't object to ethnic nationalism if you find a source for it Teh hackz0r (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Stop adding Racism, we are Nationalist, they call us Racist but it's just natural for them, they can't see the difference due to their cultural Marxist brainwashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.236.199 (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Seriously, stop adding Racism. The academics call anyone racist because in their mind Right-wing Nationalism=Racism. There is no proof we are racist other than what they say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.236.199 (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
As someone who neither voted for GD nor is particularly fond of its policies, I also have to add that saying "racism" is a political ideology is utterly rediculus. Racism is a belief, not an ideology. Ideology is a set of ideas, not a belief about a particular thing (in this case that some races are inferior). I am changing this to Xenophobia, which IS an ideology, because seriously, racism is simply not an ideology. Plain and simple. I understand you feeling strongly about the issue but we can't flaunt around wikipedia with stuff like that when it comes to a major political party.Arathian (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The sources we have here say explicitly racism. If you want to have this changed bring a reliable source and we can discuss this. However I don't see how xenophobia is any more or less a political ideology than racism Teh hackz0r (talk) 14:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
What's the matter with this? The content of that blog post is taken straight from the official XA magazine and gives direct proof that they did indeed use nazi symbolism in the past. Just because it's a blog where this material was published doesn't mean it's unreliable per se. Maybe try to actually look at the source (google translator is your friend here) before you remove it, else I must assume you are trying to suppress valueable information Teh hackz0r (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
"The content of that blog post is taken straight from the official XA magazine": Prove it, or else it is forged. Shii(tock)05:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Then maybe the magazine page featured in the article is forged too. After all it's ripped off some website that doesn't even exist anymore. Ridiculous. Teh hackz0r (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be added in? They have done many things which are pretty uncommon in Greek politics. To name a few, they donated their MP-granted cars to Greek families, opened a store that distributed food, fixed the plumbing system of a village that had some problems, started a blood bank etc. I can source all of that from multiple, credible and mainstream, sources. I am not an experienced writter however. 193.92.248.212 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
If they are aligned with SOCIALISM, totalitarianism and, despite their claims to the contrary, Nazis, they are not right wing. They are FAR LEFT wing.
Far Right would be Libertarianism. The further to the right you are, you favor LESS government strength.
A person who favors government muscle to enforce their conservative views - views which are often associated with right wingers- is no right winger. Same with liberals.
You're mistaken, the Left-Wing of the political spectrum advocates a more egalitarian society while the Right-Wing advocates stronger social hierarchy, at least that's how the dichotomy functions in academic parlance. Anti-statists and authoritarians can be found at either extreme of the left-right spectrum; it's not a measure of support for big government. Uastyrdzhi (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Look, they idealize a form of conservative nationalism, praising Metaxas, who exercised a conservative agenda similar to Francoism. The party can't, in any way, be classified as left-wing nationalism, as it opposes both the Marxist form of national liberation patriotism, and the Strasserism form of radical people's nationalism. As of their economic theory, if they have one, it is not clearly opposed to liberalism or neoliberalism. They use the known "dog whistles" against capitalism, but they have expressed a lot of neo-liberal thoughts, such as an article in their site for the "meta-Soviet economy" and the original posting against the steel workers' strike (which they have now deleted from their site for votes' sake). Left-wing nationaism is Ba'ath, Nasserism, DFLP, Vietcong etc. but not a party that supports the far right junta of Papadopoulos. GD is clearly a far-right nationalist party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.148.248 (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Superfluous Descriptors
There's been some bickering about whether or not some of the ideological descriptors in the infobox are appropriate. For example, whether or not to classify racism as an ideology. These arguments are too focused on semantics; we could feasibly include hundreds of descriptors and adjectives that apply to Golden Dawn and justify their inclusion with sources but it wouldn't improve the article. The problem now is redundancy. I would like to eliminate superfluous terms so we have a more concise description of Golden Dawn's stated and alleged ideology; for example, if someone were to ask you what sort of party Golden Dawn is in a word, you probably wouldn't say "They're a Totalitarian party" or "They're a Racist party" you would probably say something more along the lines of they're a "Neo-Nazi" or "Far-Right" party. Obviously a Neo-Nazi party is one which advocates an ideology which is both racist and totalitarian, so I think some of these terms are unnecessary. Thoughts? Uastyrdzhi (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Golden Dawn is not a neo-nazi party though. They have some elements from that, sure, but fascist is a closer description. If you check the page on metaxism, you will see it is considered part of a group of fascist ideologies. While I do agree that some "ideologies" like (or rather, especially) racism have no place in the infobox, we can't just put random words in there. 65.92.7.99 (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that Neo-Fascist is probably the most accurate descriptor for Golden Dawn. Some of the other editors here insist that Neo-Nazi be included because it is so commonly used to describe the organization, because Golden Dawn has clearly expressed Nazi sympathies, and because they have the sources to justify its inclusion. What I'm trying to do now is to narrow the descriptors to a more concise selection and I'd like to do so by reaching a consensus with the other regular editors. Right now I'd say Totalitarianism, Racism and Anti-Semitism are redundant. I would say Ultranationalism is as well but since some readers may not know what Metaxism is at a glance I think it should stay for the sake of clarification. Personally, I'd like to see the infobox looking something like this:
I've been ruminating on this. I certainly agree that there's redundancy in there, but I oppose removing or altering the Racism label if we're going state what is 'Officially' their ideology. Maybe 'Claimed' would be a better way to express it, especially given the self sourcing of the Metaxism claim. We should probably enlist RJFF's opinion, too, considering he/she may revert any alteration. Finally, how are you supporting their specific labelling as nativists? Dolescum (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and relies solely on reliable (i.e. third-party) sources. We don't describe the party as it presents itself (that's what they can do on their own website). We describe it solely how it is described by observers and analysts outside the party. Therefore we should not differentiate between "official" and "alleged" ideologies. If reliable sources describe the party as having a certain ideology, then in terms of Wikipedia, the party has this ideology. And if the party describes itself as having a certain ideology, but no independent source outside the party confirms this, then in terms of Wikipedia, the party does not have this ideology, it only claims to have it. To make it short: reliable sources (e.g. scholarly studies) from outside the party beat the party's own announcements. --RJFF (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in RJFF. Problem is, there's a disconnect between academic sources regarding the proper characterization of Golden Dawn, this is typical of these sorts of groups. There's even a Cas Mudde article titled "The War of Words: Defining the Extreme Right Party Family" which focuses on the very issue we're dealing with here. I suggested we might divide the sources into official and alleged ideologies to reflect conflicting source material, but the present arrangement with the disputed caption works just as well.
It's typical for studies of the contemporary far-right to differentiate between Neo-Nazism and Neo-Fascism, usually Neo-Nazism is defined as a specific variant of Neo-Fascism. While I haven't found any sources which explicitly state that Golden Dawn is not Neo-Nazi, I have found sources which describe the organization as simply Neo-Fascist and not Neo-Nazi. Vassilis Kapetanyannis' "Neo-Fascism in Modern Greece", just for example, portrays Greece's far-right political culture as being dominated by Italian Neo-Fascist influence, and this being especially pronounced amongst the military and civilian police forces which had strong ties to Italy's far-right during the Cold War. Golden Dawn, with its roots in these Italian influenced circles, appears to be more closely related to Neo-Fascist organizations such as Ordine Nuovo and MSI (which are usually not characterized as Neo-Nazi) than to Neo-Nazism. Just to clarify - this is not original research, I'm simply paraphrasing relevant books and articles I've run across.Uastyrdzhi (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Are there sources alleging Neo-nazism? At present this claim is unsourced and should be removed if not adequately cited. However, if there are sources alleging Neo-fascism, then those should certainly be included, and perhaps it would be best simply to change Neo-nazism to neo-fascism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.70.45 (talk) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The sources were elsewhere in the article, I've reworked their location they're clearer now. Having had a good look on google scholar, I'd definately say there's some sources we could use to support placing neo-fascism in that box, though. Dolescum (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The first link on the "racism" reference, claims that the party is "nationalist-populist". As I search for "nationalist populism" in Wikipedia, I found that most "right-wing populist" parties are classified as nationalist-populist (it says so on the right-wing populism page. So, if at least one reference classifies GD as nationalist-populist, which according to Wikipedia is a classification for right-wing populist parties, I think adding "right-wing populism" as an ideology of the party would be relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.148.248 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe that populism is an important aspect of the party ideology and shouldn`t be dismissed. Their discourse is clearly anti-elitist (against the political elites, the economic elites and the cultural elites) and their recent actions (giving food being the prime example) clearly point out to populism. I understand we need sources for that, but I`m sure I can find good academic sources for that if I search for it. The only question is either you guys agree this is a relevant aspect that should be in the infobox. I think it is. (PS: No need for right-wing next to it as that is already covered elsewhere). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Requesting protection
After 2 vandalism attempts just today (one saying "all nazi scum must be exterminated" somewhere randomly, the other changing the English name of the organization from golden dawn to neo-nazis) I think I can officially and honestly request this article gets protected or at least semi-protected. We are talking about a party that is in the parliament with 7%, latest poll showing 8.5%, we can't let vandals ran amok. Arathian (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes I know that, and it's still not really much at all. Page protection only occurs if vandalism is out of hand, and if the vast majority of IP edits are unproductive. There's vandalism, yes, as much as one could expect given the sort of political party it is. But it isn't to the point that it can't be dealt with by simple reversion. You'll get a better sense for how protections work the longer you stick around here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It was just one act of vandalism, partly corrected by an IP and other part corrected by yourself. No administrator would accept semi-protection. TFD (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Changing the original wording of a quote from a cited source
Hello IP 31.54.86.155 and User:Surlyduff50. Don't you understand that you cannot just alter the original wording of a quote, because you disagree with it? It is a quote - so it has to display the original text word by word. If you just change a word, you falsify the quote. Please stop doing so - your editing has to be considered disruptive. --RJFF (talk) 11:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Not only that, but IP 31.54.86.155 has already exceeded the Three-revert rule. We're talking about a full-on edit war conducted by Golden Dawn supporters, whether they are registered Wikipedians or not. Oh, I would also add those Greek Wikipedians who keep whining about their party being labeled neo-nazi. Expect this to escalate, you haven't seen how determined and obnoxious they are (yet). It'll end up on a scale similar to Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
While I generally agree that this page is swamped by obnoxious pro-XA SPAs, I'm afraid I don't really think the "right-wing extremist" versus "extreme right" is really a reasonable thing to get worked up about. You'll notice that both terms redirect to the same article: Far-right politics. The quote alteration is a no-no, but of all the things I've seen happen here, it ranks pretty low on the "disruptiveness" scale. Nobody has yet shown a source which indicates that the terms are actually appreciably different, some WP:OR Google searches notwithstanding. A horse by any other name is still a horse. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Predicting an escalation of this conflict is not helpful, getting all involved users to reason will be. The IP does not seem to be a supporter of the party as he/she admits the party is extremist and "essentially Nazis". However he/she seems to have the wrong perception that "extremist" might be an unencyclopedic word and should be avoided. Yet, it goes way to far to falsely alter the wording of a cited source, changing "extremist" to "extreme", while the original uses the word "extremist". And of course edit warring is always unacceptable, whether you are right or wrong. All contentious points should be discussed on the talk page - not in edit summaries. --RJFF (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh gods - I just realised this discussion was here. Apologies. :( I understand what you're saying, but my stance is simple: whilst you're right in saying that "extremist" is not necessarily unencyclopedic, I feel the term is unnecessarily 'sensational' when employed here. It's adding fuel to the fire on both 'sides' of the 'argument'. Whether you're a Neo-Nazi, or a passionate liberal, I'd argue you're not getting much from an article that instantly brands an extreme group as "extremists" (I realise how nonsensical that'll probably sound, but hey - just my opinion). It is important to place emphasis on GD's extreme beliefs - of course - and this is done throughout the article. The second paragraph condenses most points raised against GD very well.
As for my disruptive editing, I acknowledge that I'm probably not being particularly helpful with my pedantic, rule-disregarding, reversions, but the way I see it, I'm not 'falsifying' quotes - given that the term "right-wing extremist" was never quoted in the first place. And remember: "right-wing extremist" and "extreme right" essentially point to the same thing - it's just that one term (arguably) brings with it greater emotional connotations than the next. - 31.54.86.155 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.86.155 (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but you are wrong. The source "The transatlantic dimension of right-wing extremism" by Thomas Grumke in Human Rights Review, volume 4, number 4, on pages 56–72 uses the exact term "right-wing extremist". Changing it from "right-wing extremist" to "extreme right", because you think it is more appropriate, while Mr. Grumke deliberately chose "right-wing extremist", is a falsification of the quote. --RJFF (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
User:Moderatelyaverage has added a collection of ten (!) sources to verify the fact that Golden Dawn is a right-wing extremist organization. However, not the quantity of sources is decisive in determining verifiability, but the quality. I think that a selection of three high-quality, reliable, academic sources is more than enough to verify this classification. Adding ten more sources (an ecclectic and indiscriminate collection, including journalistic news sources and unreliable sources like Socialcam) is unnecessary and not improving the article. I request to remove the ten references added by User:Moderatelyaverage behind the words "extreme right" in the first sentence of the article by this edit. --RJFF (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The sources used call GD xenophobic/racist describing their behaviour. It's not claimed it's their ideology. In fact, it cannot be anyone's ideology since racism/discrimination is a pattern of xenophobic behaviours, not a political belief. You can use the sources to add content in the article stating the accusations of their racist behaviour but it definately doesn't fit in the ideology section. In short, these highly reliable sources are misused in my opinion. Does anyone else agree?Alexispao (talk) 16:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The sources I've seen say XA are National Socialist. I propose we put that in the ideology section in place of racism. Dolescum (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
"Ideology" is a broader term than you might think. It's not exclusive to politics. I only said that racism is not a political belief, something in which I think we all agree. It should be removed from the party's infobox. It doesn't have to be replaced with anything. It's already stated in the article that the party reject these labels so it's not fair to depict them as something they claim to despise. Thanks. Alexispao (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
If racism is not a political belief, the actions of the apartheid administrations in south africa look a bit odd, no? Regardless, the sources in the racism article disagree with your position and your argument is akin to claiming it's unfair to call a convicted rapist such, because they preach their innocence to all who would listen. Maybe take a look at WP:PRIMARY again, because as far as I see, that makes it pretty clear that is secondary sources disagree with primary sources, we go with the secondaries. Dolescum (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Dolescum: I understand why it appears obvious that they are Neo-Nazis, yet so far nobody has been able to find source material that actually describes the party's ideology; since Golden Dawn do not consider themselves Neo-Nazis, we must have extraordinary evidence to contradict their claim according to WP:Verifiability. My other concern is that Golden Dawn might actually not conform to academic definitions of Neo-Nazism since the organization itself does not appear to advocate important components of the ideology such as biological racism and racial antisemitism. Uastyrdzhi (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for opening discussion, Uastrydzhi. Until such a document exists ( assuming it comes into existence at any point ), we have numerous reliable sources, both journalistic and academic stating that this is their ideology. We have pictures of their publications sporting swastikas, which has a certain meaning in western society. Their website uses the usual dog whistles about "zionists" and "International Moneylenders". Academics are hardly going to feel a need to repeat extant research. You might be right to refute me, but until we start see academic sources saying otherwise, I'm inclined to take them at their word when they tell me that spade-like object in the corner is actually a spade rather than something else. Dolescum (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I won't remove it from the infobox again, but can we place an italics caption next to Neo-Nazism stating that this is the alleged ideology of the party, at least until more explicit sources can be found to contradict the party's claims? I've seen this done before in other infoboxes, it looks fine and it seems like a fair way to settle the issue once and for all.Uastyrdzhi (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Your suggestion seems reasonable. I'll leave making the edit itself until tomorrow, in an effort to allow any other editors a chance to comment and hopefully avoid yet another edit war. Dolescum (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Wouldn't "Xenophobia" or perhaps "ethnic nationalism" be a more fitting term for their ideology than "racism?" At present, these sources describe the effect of their policies as "racist," i.e. the removal of illegal immigrants and non-greeks from Greece proper, the limitation of public funds and services to Greeks, etc. While some may perceive this to be racist in effect or application, the underlying philosophy behind these actions would seem to be more classically aligned with "xenophobia" or some sort of "Greek-first" or "ethnic nationalism" policy, which does not necessarily imply or confer the status of "racism" as a motivator in and of itself. Indeed, a desire to preserve or protect a "Greek ethnicity" would seem to fall, under varying degrees, more aptly under established political ideologies such as "Reactionism," "Conservatism," or "Nationalism," which all have benefit of not being so expansive and general and loaded as "racism," and which all have distinct and particular political functions and tendencies ascribed to them. I wholly object to "racism" in its present use. -Anonymous 11:11, 2 August 2012
Object all you like, the sources do say racism. Claiming anything else is WP:OR or WP:Synthesis if you don't have any sources of at least equal merit to support your objections. Dolescum (talk) 01:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding that, just because a selected publication declares a group to be racist, does not mean that particular group espouses "racism" as a political ideology, whatever that even means. Golden Dawn may indeed hold racist positions, and it may be perfectly justified in describing them as such, but that does not mean, as Alexispao said, that "racism" is their "systematic body of concepts, especially about human life or culture," as ideology is defined. They themselves espouse Metaxism, which is sufficient in realizing that their overarching ideology is one borne not out of "racism," but of an "authoritarian and nationalist expression of greek renewal," (from [[8]]) which in itself may be perceived as racist, which is, in fact, what your sources are alluding to. It would be perfectly acceptable if, during a listing of political positions and objectives of Chrysi Avgi, these sources are included as references for perceptions of racism. I would advise you to review WP:Synthesis, yourself, and the guidelines for synthesis of source material for advancing positions. Here both sources in question describe the behavior, attitudes, and positions of Chryssi Avgi as "explicitly racist," yet they make no assertions regarding racism as an ideological motivation in and of itself. Until such time as a source is found which purports "racismus gratia racismo," the article would be better served ascribing the actual philosophical and ideological foundations and motivations to the party, rather than misusing second-hand descriptions of their activities. 11:17, 6 August 2012 (GMT+2)
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Read WP:SOURCES. Note:
Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources
So complain about "second-hand descriptions" if you wish, but I doubt it'll get you very far. Maybe take a look at the racism and ideology articles, too? If you have better sources, please present them. Dolescum (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I find this whole line of thought odd, indeed the entire concept of labeling a political party's ideology as racist is odd, and, you'll find, a bit unprecedented. But first, I would like to comment on the WP:Synthesis issue at hand. The sources are being misread and violate the synthesis rules as established. Both sources discuss manifestations of racist behaviors and policies present within the Greek government, and as such Golden Dawn is cited as a political organization which supports policies which would malign non-greeks, considered racist by the authors. This is all well and good and should be mentioned in the article (perhaps under a section titled political positions and alleged racism), but they do NOT assert that Golden Dawn espouses racism as a political ideology. Ergo, to claim such, and to cite those articles as evidence of that claim, is clearly in violation of the synthesis rules; no matter how justified allegations of racism are, it's simply non-sensical to describe it this way. To demonstrate, furthermore the unprecedented nature of this claim, we can look at the articles for a few well known political parties which, if any party did, espoused ideological racism: namely NSDAP, [[9]], [[10]], or modern avowedly Neo-Nazi parties such as [[11]]. In none of these articles are the party ideologies labelled as "Racism," though they themselves are, by common knowledge, been referred to as racist and it would be a trivially easy task to find a source describing them thusly. Why then, in the face of both this synthesis breach and the lack of any precedence, is this claim being so stubbornly adhered to, when more appropriate labels have been proposed and instituted, only to be reverted? Anon - 12:47, 8 August 2012 (GMT+2)
It isn't a synthesis to report what the sources say. If you are incapable of grasping that large numbers of academics calling them a 'racist group' is a direct comment on their ideas ( and thus ideology ), that's your issue. You yourself, in your first comment, suggested that their ideology is "Ethnic Nationalism", which is notably included in the racism article I suggested you read under ideology. So it seems the debate is more one of specifics than correctness.
The reason this claim is being adhered to is because it is what the sources state. The sources do not state "Ethnic Nationalist", they state "racist". Come on, it's reasonable to ask editors to show some evidence when changing that, just like you'd want some proof if I claimed to be the president of the U.S.A, yes? Dolescum (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
This is synthesis because neither source claims that the party adheres to racism as a form of political ideology, or if it does, please feel free to post the supporting sections here. The claim should be removed or adequate citation, claiming racism as a political ideology, found. Anon - 10:20, 8 August 2012 (GMT+2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.70.45 (talk) — 130.237.70.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No, it isn't a synthesis, as I stated earlier. If an academic source says a they are a "racist group", then that groups ideology is racism, however much you may dislike it. Dolescum (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This is nonsense. "Racism" is as sensible a description on a political party page as "heretic" would be on a religious group page. Even the Klu Klux Klan article on wikipedia doesn't have "racism" included as its ideology. This should definitely not be in the infobox here, to push for it is aggressive pov. It IS a synthesis.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, accusing me of POV pushing is uncivil and considering the length of time and the number of disputes you've been involved in, Gaius, you knew that when you typed it. Apologise and redact your accusation, please.
Secondly, it certainly does say "Racism" in the KKK article, it's just spelt "White Nationalism", a more specific descriptor. Once again, it's not synthesis to report what academic sources say. If you have better sources than those extant in the article, present them, please. Dolescum (talk) 07:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
More than half of your entire edit history has been on this page, is it not safe to assume that you have an agenda? No? I'm so sorry if you do not, perhaps you are just fascinated with Golden Dawn. "White Nationalism" isn't the same word as "Racism" though is it? It does not have the same weight, the same instant damnation. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. It is not a political ideology. The KKK article does not even have it, the Nazi page does not have it. Accusations of racism and evidence of racism are not the same as having racism as an ideology in the infobox. If it was, both of those pages would have it included in their infobox. Are you telling me nobody has ever found an academic source for proving that the KKK and the NSDAP were racist? I could find you one in seconds and yet it does not say "RACIST" in their infoboxes. Does this not tell you something?Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
You're now using using your "offer" of an apology to continue to cast aspersions on my motives, Gaius. That's still uncivil. Also, would you mind indenting your comments so others may follow the discussion? Do you honestly think that the English speaking world isn't aware that "White Nationalism" is a synonym for "Stormfront Userbase", these days? It IS a political ideology, there are numerous sources that say as much such as this one and, I'm sorry Gaius, but I'm not in the habit of taking the opinions of random people on the internet over published academic journals. I would hope you would do the same. If both yourself and the IP who posted are so concerned about the matter, wouldn't it be easier to simply go and locate the source I keep requesting? Or do you expect me to do your research for you? Dolescum (talk) 01:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasm is lost on you sir. Your edit history shows that you have a deep seated interest in keeping "racism" in this articles infobox. I care not at all for golden dawn and I'm not Greek but your edit history is more than 50% golden dawn and your agenda is obvious. You are not attempting to improve an article, you are attempting to push a pov. "Racism" is not a verifiable ideology for a legitimate political party, it is an accusation. It is like having "Heresy" in the infobox for a fringe religious group. I repeat, the KKK article does not even have it, the Nazi page does not have it. Accusations of racism and evidence of racism are not the same as having racism as an ideology in the infobox. If it was, both of those pages would have it included in their infobox. Are you telling me nobody has ever found an academic source for proving that the KKK and the NSDAP were racist? I could find you one in seconds and yet it does not say "RACIST" in their infoboxes. It is an attack and would have been previously unheard of to use as a ideology in the infobox as you have insisted upon based on a few flimsy references. I do not apologise for your agenda pushing. If you do not have an agenda, why is the majority [12] of your edit history on this one article? I would like to take this to a higher power as it is clear that you are not to be reasoned with. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I've already answered everything in your comment, Gaius. Repeating yourself will not increase the probability of your arguments being accepted. If you feel you must escalate the matter, please do so. Dolescum (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest taking racism out. We all agree racism is a correct description for the party views, but Gaius doesn`t think it is a particularly political ideology. I disagree, but understand that he has a good point on whether it should be in the infobox - I think that nazism is a better descriptor that encapsulate the idea of racism in this particular political form, and it is already there. I would go with neo-nazi, though.
On the other hand, the comparison with "heretic" is not a good point: every christian congregation is heretic to many others and it has nothing to do with being "fringe", it has to do with theological principles that lead to a certain conclusion, based on a specific theological POV. The concept of racism does not need such theological dogmas to be held as a valid descriptor of someone`s ideas and the only reason it is an accusation is because most people believe (thankfully) that racism is terrible and racists, not wanting to be stigmatized (and, in some cases, prosecuted) conceal their ideas on the public sphere. There is no point in an encyclopedia to comply with their obfuscation.
The problem is, since the national socialism descriptor is marked as contested - contested by them, that is - the racism descritor falls on the same situation. So why keep racism there if there is already nazism, which is a much more specific definition and includes racism? Is it because they don`t disagree that they are racists, while denying being nazis? If so, we should keep it, otherwise it is not necessary. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 10:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Completely agree. Apart from the fact that "Racism" is NOT a political ideology and has no business in the infobox, the ideology section mentions national socialism(i.e. nazism) and other dogmas of fascism, which I think connotate their belief of belonging to a superior nation/culture, making them discriminatory and consequently racist.
It also has to be noted that the source cited does indeed call them racist, but it doesn't use the term in any way implying it is their political ideology. I suggest the immediate removal of this "ideology" from the infobox. Alexispao (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It's been clearly shown that it is an ideology, Alexispao. Marco, the reason for the disputed tag on the nazi label was that it's use as a descriptor in academic literate is by no means universal. The other editor I was discussing the matter with accepted that there is strong evidence for it, both in academic sources and from the partys own actions ( by all means look in the archives and confirm this for yourself ), but a good number of other sources limit their description to the use of the term neo-fascist. Rascism is used as a descriptor for the group almost ubiquitously. Wikipedia is based on third party sources, as per WP:RS. Dolescum (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It has not been "clearly shown" at all, Dolescum, that is purely your opinion. If it had been "clearly shown" we would not be here. Just in case any of you have missed the tag on this page, I invite all editors here to to give either voice your support or opposition to the inclusion of "racism" as a political ideology on this page at the "requests for comments" page, follow the "Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law" link at the top of this talk page and scroll down to the Golden Dawn question.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"If racism is not a political belief, the actions of the apartheid administrations in south africa look a bit odd, no? Regardless, the sources in the racism article disagree with your position and your argument is akin to claiming it's unfair to call a convicted rapist such, because they preach their innocence to all who would listen. Maybe take a look at WP:PRIMARY again, because as far as I see, that makes it pretty clear that is secondary sources disagree with primary sources, we go with the secondaries" - Dolescum
The rape analogy is interesting given that sexism that _misogyny_ infects the broader community is popular in popular culture and underpins the third most lucrative industry on the planet; an industry frequently defended by liberals by anti-racists. Hypocrisy is boundless and ideological editors on Wikipedia like yourself epitomise this and this is why the resource will never be taken particularly seriously in academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.162.175.211 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I welcome the removal ofracism as a particular ideology, but it seems we've gone a bit overboard in compensating for its removal. The addition of Third Positionism and Anti Zionism remain, as of yet, uncited, while the former is wholly redundant given the formal association of Metaxism, Fascism, and Nazism within the spectrum of the Third Position. I will remove these two descriptors for now until sources are provided, and would suggest that Third Positionism remain unincluded if for no other reason than its redundancy. 130.237.70.45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC) — 130.237.70.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Are we seriously still talking about this? No, racism is NOT an ideology. It can be (and it is, in this case) PART of the ideology but stating "racism" in the infobox would be the equivalent of putting "national socialism, nationalism, socialism" in the infobox of NSDAP. Come on gentlemen, this is rediculus. Arathian (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Dolescum, all I see is POV on your part as you continue to display and unwillingness towards any general discussion of the matter. Again, the sources do not claim that Golden Dawn espouses racism as a political ideology. If you wish to include racism, you should make an additional tab in the article entitled "Allegations of Racism." Furthermore, you have not clearly demonstrated that racism is a political ideology. If you do this, those who are dissenting maybe come around to your point of view. Calling their arguments "emotional," is not, however, going to be effective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.70.45 (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — 130.237.70.45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Emotional response? Honestly? Let me re-re-re-explain (that has already been done 100 times in this thread) our position: Racism is not an ideology by default. It is a set of beliefs on race, that can be adopted by actual ideologies, like nazism. This is a VERY clear, non-emotional arguement. Indeed, even if it WAS, in fact, an ideology, we include it within the "neo-nazism" tag. I will repeat my arguement of saying it would be equally pointless to include "national socialism, nationalism, socialism" in the NSDAP article. The reason it would be unessecary, although accurate, is simply because it is already stated! This is the exact same case in this thread, so please stop pushing for this clearly POV, meaningless position. Arathian (talk) 08:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Some academic documents :
It is important to recall that precise political reasons made it expedient to develop racism as a political ideology.Source
In addition, higher educational institutions did nothing to increase my peers' limited understanding of racism as a political ideology.Source
That is why far right populists still use racism as a political ideology, and interpret in racist terms such social phenomena as social marginalization of some groups of native population, problems on the labor market or high rates of criminality.Source
Additionally Arathian, it certainly isn't covered by the "neo-nazism" tag, because in the same way that something yellow is possibly golden, that one states their ideology is possibly racism when academic consensus is definite on that point.
How you see "our position" is irrelevant. You are the one that is deaf to all reason in this regard and you are the minority voice here. I have tried to resolve this through talk, through requests for comment and inviting you to a request for mediation but you refused. You cannot justify reverting and continuing to ignore all of the above discussion regarding "racism" not being a political ideology. It isn't recognised as one on ANY other political article and is not on wikipedia as an ideology. Although your account is overwhelmingly used for this article only, you do not own this article. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I must now take this to the next level. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Did you even bother to read the message I left on the talk page of the mediation case, Gaius? Your claims are nonsense Gaius, a number of established editors seem in agreement with my reasoning, judging by the history of this article. The above "discussion" has consisted of faulty logic, ignoring any evidence presented and "I don't like it". Of course I don't own this article, but that's not an excuse for you to disregard evidence and policy. If you feel you must continue to escalate the matter, I'm saddened but understand that this is your choice. 14:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolescum (talk • contribs)
Faulty logic like: a source describes a group as racist therefore that group must espouse racism as the fundament of its political philosophy? This synthesis doesn't belong on this page. I warmly encourage you to write a section on all of the allegations of racism towards the group, as has been done with allegations of nazism, but this infobox drive-by is weak to say the least. In any case, the sources are incredibly weak. One of them is a 37 page document which only mentions Golden Dawn in paraphrase in its bibliography, the other a 31 page document which devotes an entire sentence to the party. What's the faulty logic in requiring that sources used to describe the party ACTUALLY provide an in-depth discussion of the party? These do not do that, and to what extent they do discuss it they make no assertions regarding the party's political ideologies. You are welcome to explain how these sources imply that, rather than dismissing arguments as "emotional." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.70.45 (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Once again, if academic sources describe them as an racist group, that is their ideology and it isn't a synthesis for remark upon it, no matter how much you may dislike it. Dolescum (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm perfectly satisfied with this compromise. The problem was never with the sources or the assertions that the party is racist, merely that the sources were not claiming they espouse racism as a political ideology. This should be a compromise we can all live with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.70.45 (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Racism should not be considered an ideology, as this will lead to a slippery slope. If we consider racism an ideology, then of course, we'd have to consider "homophobia" an ideology. And then, "xenophobia." Then we could go further and further down the slope, and have more convoluted things being considered "ideologies." This would only create more unneeded controversy in such articles. Poached Turkey (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Racism is one of those heavily contested words, in academia just as anywhere, and can mean anything (structures, discourse, beliefs, practices...) and apply to everything (whenever people see any socially constituted properties and categories as organic). "White supremacist" has the advantage of being much more specific. For the record ideology is also a contested notion (usually "they" are ideological, "we" are not), and although it is recognized as a thing of nature by wikipedia, many prominent researchers have discarded it entirely (P. Bourdieu for instance). The argument should not be whether "racism" is an "ideology" (a political debate, not really a scientific one) but whether "racism" is the best word we have to characterize Golden Dawn with precision (and consistency). "White supremacy" does a better job in my opinion Jagiello (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Third Position?
I'm with User:RJFF on preferring not to list Golden Dawn as a Third Positionist group. Third Position was more inspired by people like Gregor Strasser and Alain de Benoist; furthermore, in Greece, Golden Dawn is the group that adheres to the lines of the NSDAP, promoting Adolf Hitler more than Strasser or the others that Hitler murdered during the Night of the Long Knives as part of a "purge" against elements that were deemed undesirable to the military and corporate "elite" of Germany. Not that ThirdPositionism is not found in Greece: there is an offshoot of strasserists named "Mavros Krinos"[1]; these guys hold Aristotelis Kalentzis, a convicted neonazi terrorist (and now held in high esteem by the horseback archery lot) as their mentor. Furthermore, the frontman of the neo-pagan YSEE, Vlassis Rassias, has openly expressed his admiration for Alain de Benoist. Interestingly, various groups tied to the YSEE cooperate with Kalentzis, who trains them in "ancient martial arts" and in platonic politics. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Number of sources validating claim that Golden Dawn is far-right
I'm not sure we have enough to cover this point - does anyone have any ideas as to further websites/articles/journals we could be citing here? Surlyduff50 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
You mean that the multitude of articles, websites and journals that document Golden Dawn as a party that is not only far-right, but openly nazi aren't enough? Where exactly are you getting at? Moderatelyaverage (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Adding ten more sources to prove this point is more than unnecessary. Not the quantity of sources decides, but the quality. We already have a selection of three high-quality reliable, academic sources verifying this statement. Adding references to newspapers or Socialcam is not helpful. The first sentence looks ridiculous with its 13 (!) footnotes in the middle of the sentence now, instead of creating the impression of a reliable information source. --RJFF (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Having so many footnotes is indeed way beyond ridiculous. And this "oh, we don't have enough sources to say Golden Dawn is far-right" when, in fact, we have - as you have correctly pointed - high-quality, reliable, academic sources (of which we already have more than enough) doesn't contribute at all. I'm with you on this one and agree with you. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I prefer the term "far right" instead of "extreme right" because it is more commonly used both in scholarly sources and in other Wikipedia articles. TFD (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I have to object. "Extremism" is an established and defined term in political science. Extremists fundamentally reject the established, liberal democratic system, whereas the term "far right" only roughly describes the position of a party in the political spectrum. Greek LAOS, or well-known European parties, like the Freedom Party of Austria or the Dutch Party for Freedom can be described as far-right, because they are further to the right than the conservatives (who are centre-right), but they accept and work within democratic institutions, and have even joined, or supported, coalition governments. In constrast, Golden Dawn principally rejects and attacks multiparty democracy, and a liberal, pluralistic society, which makes it an extremist party. Therefore "extremist" is more exact and apt than the more general and vague term "far right". --RJFF (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
The most common use of the term "Extreme Right" in political science is describe parties that are to the right of traditional conservatism. See for example "A fourth phase of the extreme right?". Note that Laird Wilcox who is mentioned in the "Extremism" article includes the John Birch Society and the Christian Crusade in his book on extremism. As Clive Webb writes in Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era, "Radical right is commonly, but not completely, used to describe anticommunist organizations such as the Christian Crusade and John Birch Society.... [T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists." Obviously these and other terms are often used interchangeably. TFD (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Evidence of Golden Dawn being a neonazi party
Please see this extensive article from the Greek anti-racist blog "Jungle-Report". It has plenty of scanned material from Golden Dawn's own magazine, showing (a) Golden Dawn using and adopting nazi symbols, (b) Golden Dawn outright saying (and proudly) that it is a national-socialist (nazi) party, (c) Golden Dawn's own leader praising Adolf Hitler and his party. There's plenty of material to substantiate the claim that Golden Dawn is a neonazi party. Golden Dawn's trolls here on Wikipedia have perused and abused the language barrier for far too long to misinform other Wikipedians. Feel free to ask any Greek-speaking Wikipedian to translate the article and the scanned Golden Dawn articles for you; you'll all find it extremely interesting. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 10:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, "Jungle Report", although it uses a blog platform, happens to do some actual reporting and it does bring up evidence that mainstream (see: corporate) media simply refuse to show (or instance, the videos of Golden Dawn rallies etc, as well as all the clippings from the magazine of "Golden Dawn" showing the nazi regalia and the articles that praise NSDAP members and foreign collaborators). In the same way, se should be considering rags like The Sun or The Daily Mirror to be by definition reliable, just because they are newspapers and not blogs. We should be examining the quality and verifiability of the information, not the type of platform used. A blog can be reliable, but it can also be unreliable - this depends exclusively on its owner. Oh, and I'd like to break the news to you: the English version of Wikipedia is considered unreliable in Greece, because (a) it does not pamper Greek nationalist views, (b) it does not flatter Greek Orthodox saints and monks, (c) it is not edited by people approved by the Greek government. In the meantime, I'd like to show you this evidence: it's a photo of Golden Dawn MP Panayiotis Iliopoulos, who recently drew his (most likely illegally owned) handgun against anti-racist protesters. In this photo, he proudly shows his "Sieg Heil" tattoo. Enjoy: https://twitpic.com/azvpwiModeratelyaverage (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
That might well be true or they might be throwing out photoshopped images and politically motivated propaganda. The point is that if the Sun or the Mirror cook the facts up, at least in theory, they get fined and have to tell you as much. Bloggers? Not so much, just look at Answers in Genesis. Maybe pop over to WP:RSN? What Greek wikipedians do is up to them, there are similar issues with Spainards and the Falklands, it's still not an excuse for those of us working on this project to disregard policy and this isn't the correct forum to discuss what wikipedia policy should be.
Actually no, I saw that image on the guy's own Facebook page. He was damn proud of it. And I found the articles in a local journalist's archive. They were not photoshopped; instead, they were scanned as they were in their original printed form. And... By the way, who can tell you that a newspaper doesn't alter images? They do and, especially in Greece, they even narrate things in an entirely different manner from what actually happened, according to each corporation's interests. Heh, "To Vima" reported a meeting between Erdogan and Karamanlis that never took place and it was the "unreliable" bloggers that pointed it out and then had a field day! When it comes to the "coverage" of neonazism in Greece, I've found that anarchist and left-wing bloggers are a lot more reliable than the mainstream media, which were the ones that actively promoted Golden Dawn (for instance, by inviting its members from various areas and presenting them - misleading the public - as "concerned citizens", hiding the fact that these people were actually members of the nazi party). And the mainstream media in Greece even went as far as to tell us that national socialism and nazism are different things! Bloggers, on the other hand, didn't do that. I have hundreds of such examples. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I said before, we follow policy here, not decide it. If you have an issue with wikipedia policies, take them up with the policymakers in the appropriate forum. In the meantime, all your stuff, while very interesting, doesn't pass RS. Dolescum (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I thought we were trying to have verifiable sources, not say "well, this piece of info came from a newspaper, so it must be reliable" (regardless of that newspaper's practices). I know that journalists ought to try to cross-check the information they post. Maybe cross-checking the information being published here could help us? For instance, in the early '00s, a hoax started circulating in Greece; it was about the "Hellenic Quest", an alleged project and application allegedly co-developed by Microsoft, Apple and the CNN, with which top execs around the world would be taught the "superior" (yeah, right) ancient Greek language, which supposedly enhances their management skills and IQ and is, in the words of the hoax, "the only language that computers understand" (sic). It was on newspapers, on magazines - it was republished by nearly everybody, his brother and his brother's dog. No one bothered to look for original references and announcements in the parties involved (they didn't exist). No one bothered to look for factual errors or even errors in logic. But it was news: it was published in magazines and newspapers. Even the magazine of Greece's Technical Chamber (to which I subscribe by default, as I am an engineer by profession) republished it! None of the journalists in Greece did any kind of research. It was blogs (which by default are not considered reliable soures) that pointed out that what we had there was a hoax. Fun fact: No Greek journalist at the time bothered to say "wait a minute, why can't we find ANY original sources in English about this?". Food for thought mainstream media credibility and reliability - especially that of Greek mainstream media. Of course, this doesn't make our job any easier. Considering mainstream media to be reliable by default and blogs to be unreliable by default is easy. But what happens when we're presented with a pattern of unreliability displayed by the "old media"? Like I said, this doesn't make our job easier, instead it only gives us more headaches. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Sources have to be both verifiable and reliable. Yes, media organisations are't infallible, that's well known, but their businesses depend on telling the truth, hence wikipedia policy. I've suggested a couple of things you might like to do about that if you're unhappy. Anyway, if the content is so stunning, surely it'll show up in a media corporation report at some point, yes? Dolescum (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
That depends on many factors; it depends on how impressive the information is (let's face it, sensationalism does play an important role in many media's policy); whether it hurts the interests of the newspaper/TV/radio station's owner (and the ones of his/her favored politicians) or not; and so forth. More often than not, the public gets extremely important information too late or in a distorted form. Like I said, all this doesn't make our job here any easier and we end up having to read between lines. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Golden Dawn gaining support in Greece
Perhaps it is worth mentioning that since the last elections, their popularity has dramatically risen to over 25% of vote intention, making it the 2nd most voted party after SYRIZA. 85.58.222.232 (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a news outlet. We should be careful and avoid WP:Recentism. As long as this is only about only short-term opinion poll ratings and not election results, it does not belong in an encyclopedic article on an organization that has existed for 30 years. --RJFF (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, flies like a duck... It is a duck. A party whose official magazine heaps pages upon pages of praise, admiration and worship for the likes of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Léon Degrelle and Savitri Devi, praises the Security Battalions, adopts and proudly displays nazi regalia, badges and symbols (including the symbols of the Thule Society), publishes articles in which the party itself openly describes its ideology as National Socialist and tries to justify the crimes of the Nazi armies in Greece; a party which has commited hundreds of crimes of racial violence; a party whose members post death threats against artists, journalists and human rights activists... Well, this party can only be called a nazi party. Like it or not, Golden Dawn is a nazi party and its supporters are, well, nazis. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:The duck test is applied for inner-Wikipedian matters, not for the content of Wikipedia articles. The article says that scholars consider it a neo-Nazi party, that it used to display Nazi symbols and praise Nazi leaders (which is all verifiable). How much more explicit do you want to convey it? --RJFF (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it is an oversimplification to call all the supporters of Golden Dawn nazis. Most of them are people who are just desperate because of the crisis and the immigration problems in Greece; they are not nazis. In any case, as regards the article, I have some serious doubts about the inclusion of the "neo-nazi" ideology in the article's infobox. Mainly because the party itself has recently distanced itself from the symbols, badges and pro-Nazi publications, which characterized its past. It still has a quasi-military structure, but they deny any connection with the Nazi ideology. Michaloliakos himself during the pro-election period was asked about an article of his which lauded Hitler, and he answered "Am I going to be judged from what I was writing 20 years ago"? Additionally, its political opponents regard Golden Dawn as far-right and extremist, but I think that they have generally dropped the "neo-nazi" accusation. What is for sure is the group characterizes its ideology as "nationalism"; that it does have a quasi-military structure (but I think that they are mainly influenced by the Metaxas party); and that its leader has publicly declared that he does not like elections, and that he does not regard them as useful.Yannismarou (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
The fact that these "desperate" people praise the violent and downright criminal actions of the NSDAP-praising Golden Dawn leads us to the conclusion that they agree with quite a great deal of its platform. Also, as to your doubts, the fact that even today Golden Dawn members use the nazi salute (which they fraudulently and misleadingly call "Roman" or "ancient Greek" - even though it's a well-known fact to anyone that is not as illiterate as Golden Dawn supporters hope others are that this salute was never documented in any ancient text or source and first appeared in Jacques-Louis David's painting "Oath of the Horatii), the fact that they actively promote and sell CDs with NSDAP marches and music, CDs of neo-nazi bands, nazi memorabilia, as well as the fact that their own anthem is a rework of the NSDAP's anthem all lead us to the conclusion that they are indeed a neo-nazi party. And if its voters don't like being put in the same basket as the Golden Dawn neo-nazis, that's their problem, not Wikipedia's. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 10:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, what's going on? Why do so many Greeks defend this violent group and try to whitewash it? It uses nazi symbolism. It uses nazi music, salutes etc. It praises NSDAP leaders. It praises people who betrayed their countries and sided with the Third Reich. Why are Greek Wikipedians trying to tell us to ignore these facts and say it's not a neo-nazi party? Moderatelyaverage (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
They obviously can't admit they're National Socialists, but all their program and behaviour tells us that they share same ideology as National Socialist German Workers Party, except that enemy are not just Jews, but also Non-European immigrants in Greece. When they win power, you'll see it..They demand Istanbul and return of today's Turkish coast line to Greece and demand Cyprus. They are neo-fascists and we and you know it. Please call it with right names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.157.159 (talk) 05:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
In a magnificent display of the Freudian slip, Golden Dawn's spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris said on TV (it was recorded and documented on this video, skip to 0:31) the following "Ακούστηκε και από τον εκπρόσωπο του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ μέχρι και ότι είμαστε νεοναζιστική οργάνωση. Δεν είμαστε οργάνωση, είμαστε πολιτικό κόμμα" (translated from Greek: "It was said by the spokesman of SYRIZA even that we are a neo-nazi organization. We are not an organization, we are a political party"). Thus, we are left with two possibilities:
One possibility is that Mr. Kasidiaris inadvertently admits that Golden Dawn is neo-nazi, but they want to be considered a political party rather than an organization.
The other possibility is that we must be led to unflattering conclusions about the intelligence of Mr. Kasidiaris.
At any rate, this is most amusing, especially considering the sheer number of annoyed Greek neo-nazis who come here to try to censor the article so that people abroad will not have access to the facts about this "party". Moderatelyaverage (talk) 10:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
They are probably Nazis but we cant subjectively call a group something so this needs to be changed. Instead have a section with the claims by the citations of Nazi only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's what UEFA has to say... http://www.epo.gr/refs/pdf/racist_symbols.pdf (page 26, it's the Greek translation of a manual to Greek Football Association). I translate what it says: "Golden Dawn is a far-right neo-nazi party in Greece" (original: η Χρυσή Αυγή είναι ένα ακροδεξιό νεοναζιστικό κόμμα στην Ελλάδα). Pretty clear, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.135.9 (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
This site is not "UEFA", the article is anonymous, its sources are three german unofficial sites and the Greek football people would better concentrate on the manipulated matches. Btw, WP is not a forum.
Actually, it's a translation of an UEFA initiative, as posted on epo.gr, the website of the Hellenic (Greek) Football Federation. Of course, it annoys you that everyone hates nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.135.9 (talk) 01:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Golden Dawn New York and Montreal Chapters not covered
The recent addition of 'Golden Dawn New York' and 'Golden Dawn Montreal' Chapters are not covered in the current article. They have their own websites and party offices. The Golden Dawn in Greece stated that they are doing this to reach out to the Greek diaspora by expanding into other nations. This needs to be covered. Look on New York Times website for (biased) information. --Nikoz78 (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
LOL, why is it that most Greeks on Wikipedia are so friendly to nazism? Hasn't your country suffered enough at the nazis' hands? Stockholm Syndrome perhaps? Or just plain collective insanity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.135.9 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
"Stance towards Turkey"
I was looking for a source that had Michaloliakos's original quote for wanting to "take back" Constantinople and Smyrna. Clearly, the Turkish newspaper distorted his words since in a highly nationalist statement like this, he would not use the Turkish names "Izmir" and "Istanbul" (are transliterations of these terms even used in Greek?). However, I could not find any reporting on this issue from non-Turkish websites, which suggests that it is an obscure statement by one person, and not representative of the party's policy towards Turkey. Shrigley (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is the speech the leader of Golden Dawn made about Asia Minor on video with English subtitles: Golden Dawn on Asia Minor
The speech doesn't make any mention of Constantinople and Smyrna. He mentioned a general "our lands". That can mean Constantinople and Smyrna, or it could mean North Epirus, or it could mean anything, really. I am removing the section unless somebody can provide a better source... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arathian (talk • contribs) 06:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, to be very clear about this: the article is by a small Turkish newspapper. Its source is a speech, but the speech itself does NOT mention Turkey in any way, nor does it mention Smyrna or Constantinople. Thus the information cited is false, either due to a translation error or due to simple political purposes. The weight on the claim that he wants to "take back Smyrna and Constantinople" is not on me to disprove, but on whomever wants to put that section to prove. If you have an actual speech where he claims he wants to take back formerly-Greek Turkish cities, I have no problem linking them and putting the section back up. But as of now, the information is unsourced and thus doesn't belong in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arathian (talk • contribs) 23:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The word "Istanbul" is a derivative of Greek, meaning "to the City" (Est-en-polis). And no, not many Greeks, from Fascists to Communists, would refer to Smyrna as "Izmir." Likely in the Turkish press they refer to the cities by names the Turkish reader can recognize, not to mention that to them those ARE the names of the cities (officially). If you speak the Greek language, you will find a great many sources on Golden Dawns stance on these issues. --Nikoz78 (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't matter at all which name you people use in your "internal market" for public sentiment reasons. Abroad, everyone calls it Istanbul.
Both neutral scholars, and the party's own leader identify Golden Dawn as racist. Racism is an ideology. (Martin N. Marger: Race and Ethnic Relations: American and Global Perspectives, 2009, p. 19; Robert Miles: Social Theory and Social Structure, 1989, p. 3; "Racism." Encyclopaedia Britannica Online) Therefore, there is no reason to exclude racism from the ideology field of the infobox. --RJFF (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
This again? *Sigh*. Again: regardless of racism being an ideology (I don't believe it is, but lets move on) it is already covered by the neo-nazi tag. Not even the NSDAP or the KKK has the "racism" in the ideology. So no. Arathian (talk) 03:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Infoboxes are supposed to contain concise information, not extensive detail. We should just state that their ideology is "far right", which includes neo-nazis, neo-fascists, racists and ultranationalists. While there are sources that describe racism as an ideology, I do not see it as a normal categorization of the ideologies of political parties. What is the racist view on economics, same sex marriage, social welfare? TFD (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"Far-right" is a position in the political spectrum, while ultra-nationalism, neo-nazism and racism are ideologies. Ideologies do not necessarily have views towards all political issues or questions, compare e.g. nationalism, populism, economic liberalism, social conservatism. --RJFF (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
"Position is the political spectrum" is no longer part of the standard template because it is ambiguous. However, even though the term far right is derived from their perceived position in the political spectrum, it is used to describe a specific family of ideologies. See for example Webb, Clive. Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2010 ISBN0820327646, p. 10, "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists." Can you think of a better term to describe the family of ideologies that includes both the KKK and the American Nazi Party? TFD (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, xenophobic. Xenophobia includes racism and is an actual ideology. Racism is not an ideology and is already covered by neo-nazism which, by the way, no longer has the "disputed" tag. Honestly, this article, as of now, is not balanced. Arathian (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Racism and xenophobia is not the same thing. Xenophobia is the hate of foreigners. But racists do not care if someone actually is a foreigner or a native if they only look differently. E.g. Afro-Americans are native to the U.S. (at least as native as the descendants of European settlers), but racists deem them inferior. Roma and Jews have lived in Greece for centuries, there are no foreigners, yet racists deem them inferior. --RJFF (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
How many times is this going to be brought up? If you felt so strongly RJFF, why did you completely duck out of the monthlong discussion that was had regarding this issue and which was ultimately SETTLED by moving the racism descriptor to the text of the introduction and removing it from the political ideology infobox? It doesnt belong there and should be removed. As of now, it isnt even sourced...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.237.70.45 (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2012
It is sourced. The references are in the article's lead section. It is not necessary to repeat them in the infobox. I do not feel strongly about this. I just do not accept the argument "Racism is not an ideology". I have shown that racism is often considered an ideology by scholars. --RJFF (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
And, as underpinned the previous discussions, the point of contention was not:
-whether the party was racist, per se
-whether the sources cited describe the party as racist
In these points I think there was general agreement. The contention was rather:
-Can racism, purely in itself, be described as a political ideology: which, if it is, then it is odd that no other historical political party of note is described as such (see NSDAP, South African National Party, Dixiecrats)
-Do the sources explicitly state that the party espouses "racism" as a political ideology, which surely must, at minimum, be sufficient for Wikipedia to define as the party's political ideology, and which has not been demonstrated (in my opinion)
To claim that the ideological and motivational basis for a political party IS racism is both a rather strong and general claim due to the inherent emotional power of the word, and doing so should not be done flippantly or without explicit citation from a highly reliable source. The compromise of including those sourced statements in the introductory paragraph, along with the fact that these are perceptions based on a number of academic/scholarly references, seemed perfectly reasonable Kjell86 (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
That's because they ARE racist. Nobody denies that. The debate is whether a racism is an ideology (and if it is, why no other party has it as an ideology?)Arathian (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Your post is not conclusive in any way, shape or form. I still believe it isn't. Not that is makes a difference, mind you. As per standard wikipedia practice, we should NOT include racism in the tag simply because a) it is covered by the neo-nazism tag and b) it is not there in any other article, from NSDAP to the KKK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arathian (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This discussion is leading nowhere. I think the ideology is well summarized with Ultranationalism and Neo-Nazism in the infobox. The fact that it is a racist party (classification both by scholars and party's self-identification) is in the lead section. Unlike chat rooms, Wikipedia article talk pages are reserved to discussions aimed at improving the respective article. I don't see how this continued discussion might improve the article. --RJFF (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Neo-Nazism/National Socialism still "disputed"?
In this article, there is a characterization of North Korea as a "national socialist" state, sourced by three (3) citations. As long as North Korea is characterized as "national socialist" (rather than Stalinist) in a Wikipedia page, why is there still a "dispute" about the Neo-Nazism of Golden Dawn, who have used (and still use) symbols associated with Nazism? There are notable citations sourcing National Socialism as an ideology of the party, so why "disputed"? You may say, the party itself disputes it. So? Did the North Korean Government ever say it is National Socialist? No. Still Wikipedia characterizes it as such, because there are notable academic sources claiming so. This could be also the case with Golden Dawn. Putting the word "disputed" next to Neo-Nazism just doesn't make sence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.183.144 (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Recently, the party has explicitly denied being Nazist. I don't have a strong opinion in this question. Parties' ideologies always must be described from a neutral point of view (POV), and not from the respective party's own POV. However, if the party firmly denies to have a certain ideology, I find it acceptable to add the word "disputed" in brackets. I would both accept adding or removing the word "disputed" (because it is not neutral scholars who dispute it, but only the party itself). The article's lead section already says that "the group rejects these labels". --RJFF (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
"...with Kim Il-sung and his heirs adopting many aspects of Empire of Japan, especially under Tennō Hirohito in the 1930s, including propaganda style, “paranoid nationalism”, xenophobia, and racism[9] – leading to the most recent characterization by some academics as national-socialist state.[10][11][12]" from Politics of North Korea.
The fact that the depiction of DPRK as Nazi is not the majority is indeed my point. As, even though it's not the majority, it is still claimed in a Wikipedia page. In the case of Golden Dawn, depiction as Nazi IS the majority. So why a majority thought needs to be continuously "disputed" by what a biased party line says? Wikipedia is edited from a neutral point of view, and the neutral majority views GD as Neo-Nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.176.160 (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree.Golden Dawn actively praises members of GErmany's nazi party,many of its posters are copies of the gernan NPD's ads,it uses nazi insignia, sells nazi CDs.It IS a nazi party, everyone says so.In fact, yestreday even its leader said so: "we may be nazis, but we are not thieves", and then gave the nazi salute to his followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.135.9 (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The neo-nazism tag should stay, as it is properly sourced, but the disputation by the party leader should also be mentioned.Kjell86 (talk) 12:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed that part because it was unsourced. The one source is false (the article claims things that the video linked which the article is based upon does not say). The source itself is a small Turkish newspapper and the "news" is not reported anywhere else. In fact, I remember a place where he said he did not intend to "take back Constantinople, for the time being". I will re-remove that section. The weight on sourcing information is on the guy putting the article up, not the guy removing it. That part is, essentially, unsourced and thus has no place in the article. Arathian (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all writing an "I will remove" note on my TP and removing what you do not like in an article in a few minutes is not a proper search of consensus, it cannot even be called "discussion", Arathian. What you call "a small Turkish newspaper" are the English websites of the two most prominent Turkish newspapers, "Hürriyet" and "Zaman". Are you serious when you say "I remember a place where he said he did not intend to..." (etc) or is it a figurative speech? You mean we will wait for you to remember -and find out- where you "heard" (I hope with that you mean "read") what you heard? In the meantime we have to remove sourced info, seriously? I added "try to" to my above talk because I am not sure how to discuss with you. The edit will come back anyway, because I am sure I will not be the only one not to agree with your "Arathian" way of doing things in WP... --E4024 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Arathian has a habit of removing (see: censoring) material he does not like, simply because it disagrees with his political stance, even if it's properly sourced and cited. Talk about "good faith". Then again, that's what most Greek Wikipedians do when it comes to matters sensitive to them, i.e. protecting the public image of Greek neofascist and neo-nazi groups. It would seem that the Greek far right had embarked years ago on a campaign to establish its influence on Wikipedia by inserting users who pretend to be acting in "good faith" and then censoring Wikipedia articles on Greek far-right groups and gaming the system to have non-fascist Greek users banned. It's a common practice they employ. Beware the Greeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.183.95 (talk) 08:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
"everyone that tries to be objective and isn't a patriarchy-smashing antifa is a fascist". Yeah nah. I am just trying to be objective here, and the part about Turkey is weakly sourced and its sources provide no source either. If we allow that part, might as well put stuff here that are written on golden dawn's website. Arathian (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between a flag being used at a meeting or a demonstration and it being the official party flag. First port of call when you want to find someone's official flag is go to their official website. That should be the main site. Here it is, Blue, white and gold:
The reason you use their main website to find the official flag is because the media and many older members of Golden Dawn use different variations of the flag, none official..
Here is another example of the official blue white and gold flag:
So what's the conclusion with this? It seems strange to use two flags for the party. I'm inclined to assume that the flag used on the party's website is their most current and official version, even if others still circulate. My vote would be to scrap entirely the "party flag" subsection so that the infobox follows the format used here and here or hereKjell86 (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
My main issue with ditching the flag is that there are quite a few news reports that explicitly mention it, thus implying that the flag itself is notable. Additionally, given wikipedia's ethos of showing our users things and letting them make their own minds up rather than just telling them things they should accept at face value, surely we'd be doing our users a disservice to redact the flag, given some of the accusations made about it? Dolescum (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
My vote like Kjell86 is to scrap the 'party flag' section and leave only the official flag and to only use the one on their official website. This might not please some of the more left leaning editors, but they should not be allowed to hijack an article just to make them sleep better at night. Reaper7 (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think, in general, this article should move towards conformity in style with other political party articles, particularly greek political parties. In that sense, the inclusion of two party flags in the infobox rather breaches that. While I am not opposed to including the red/black banner in the article per se, I do think the infobox should be reserved for the current official party banner. That being said, there is certainly nothing preventing the red/black banner to be included elsewhere, perhaps including a heading describing it as as former or alternate form of the party flag. Kjell86 (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree this article like many greek political articles has been over edited by left wing editors, but we are trying to fix this. Reaper7 (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Olympic salute, not Nazi salute
The salute with the right hand high is the olympic salute, not the nazi salute. Nazis had nothing theirs, everything was Greek. Please, correct your manipulative POV. 95.17.44.74 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly. This "Roman" or "Olympic" salute didn't exist in ancient times. No one used it, either in Rome or in Greece - or anywhere. It was depicted much later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.160.189 (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
NPOV
The neutrality of this article is definitely lacking. Paragraph after paragraph describes all the terrible allegations against the party and its members, but there are very few counterpoints. Golden Dawn seems messed up, and perhaps they are, but the lack of views other than that of those opposing them definitely impedes anyone trying to get an objective view of the party through this article. I have nominated that this article be checked for NPOV. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me!23:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality does not mean we look for counterpoints for mainstream descriptions but that we present fairly the mainstream views. Can you provide any mainstream sources that place Golden Dawnin a favorable light? TFD (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I, too, would like to see any mainstream source that speaks favorably of this party whose leaders have repeatedly and openly praised nazism. Could you, dear User:Member, bring us any such mainstream and respectable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.183.95 (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Forget it; no mainstream source will ever write anything favourable about "Golden Dawn". In fact, every reference you will read in non-Greek media, from Bloomberg to the New Statesman and from the Guardian to the New York Times describes the party as a neo-nazi group of extremely violent thugs who commit crimes out of racial hatred. JeremyMasters (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Neo-Nazi Ideology in info box
The party denies it is Neo-Nazi despite some more left leaning media outlets in Greece declaring Golden Dawn Neo-Nazi. So therefore, it is not correct to put under their ideology Neo Nazi. There is already a whole section drawn up to discuss whether or not this party falls into that category with both sides being fully explained. Therefore, I am happy to keep the ultra-nationalist but the Neo-Nazi label should not be in their infobox. There are parties in Europe who are clearly neo-nazi and openly declare it. Golden Dawn is not one of these parties, even if certain media outlets seek to put this label on them. I understand that this is a highly unattractive party to support, but just because they are not pleasant, does not mean editors are free to invent their ideology. The obvious two undisputed ideologies are Ultra-Nationalim and Metaxism which needs to be added. Reaper7 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
You must have watched the video in the external links. The leader of the party says "We did not receive money from the Nazis" and asked about their "Heil Hitler" salute he says "You cannot say Heil after a dead person". (In all the interview he is not capable of pronouncing the words "We are not Nazis" though...) --E4024 (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
@E4024 I have not watched any videos on the external links, I am just saying that this article needs work for the reasons stated in my first comment above you. You may see Golden Dawn as Neo Nazi, so may some Greek media outlets, but they state they are not and whether they are or not is debatable to the neutral and therefore should not be forced into the info box as fact. Reaper7 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
It is supported by reliable, academic sources, which you can see when you look at the references. Wikipedia is based on WP:reliable sources, therefore what is supported by reliable sources is considered a fact on Wikipedia. --RJFF (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
A reliable source as per your link states: Context matters. So a left wing journalist, media source or writer calling Golden Dawn Neo Nazi, is not reliable in this case, is it? What we have here for the neo nazi tag is about 4 writers who in various books, most not even about Greece, mention Golden Dawn as Neo Nazi. Lets look at these fact sources. Lets see...Lazaros Miliopoulos - academic left winger who wrote a book on Atlantis.. then....I mean how desperate do these editors have to be to quote a line from Chalk, Peter (2003), "Non-Military Security in the Wider Middle East", to prove Golden Dawn are neo nazi? If you look at the latest press releases about this party, the party is mentioned rarely as neo nazi, but most in the correct terms 'far right' or ultra nationalist. Another reliable source used to prove Golden Dawn's Neo Nazism? Dr. Moses Altsech - a jew from Salonika who now lives in america writing books on anti zionism..The other sources used? You guessed it! dina porat - a professor at the Department of Jewish History in Tel Aviv University..and RONI STAUBER, also a professor at Tel Aviv university...are these really neutral sources for neo nazism? This article needs serious revision. We can dig up 100 books that describe Golden Dawn as far right and not neo nazi (obviously not so many publish in Israel it seems). Therefore we need to remove the neo nazi tag as it is not used by the party and debated in public anyway (outside zionists and pseudo communists I mean). Reaper7 (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
While I absolutely agree that context is of utter importance, and many sources at present are probably used out of context or come from a biased viewpoint; citing casual references to the party rather than an in-depth discussion of the party itself and its politics, the fact is that there are not a plethora of sources which discuss the ideology of the party and its politics in an-depth manner. Most discuss particular policy objectives, acts of violence, or western outrage at a particular action, and then lob labels at them. As a non-greek speaker, my own ability to find/translate reliable greek articles about the party's politics are limited. Even if, however, I may have reservations about citing casual references, these are the only references we have. The party disputes the label of neo-nazism and this has been noted in the infobox, but until references are found which contradict the neo-nazi label (and you are free to find them) then I think the label should stay in the infobox. Kjell86 (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Problem with that is Kjell86 is most Greek sources, in the news, dont refer them to them as neo nazi, outside a couple of far left papers and the occasional centre paper. Some Greek papers also have english editions, and when they mention the group they do not refer to them as neo nazis. For example, the most popular Kathimerini here refers to them as Far Right and Neo Fasist in this article from november. Example 1 Here the Vima (big centre left paper describes them as fasists: Example 2. You see this is the problem. Most websites and media correctly dont label them neo nazi which is a very specific term and should not be abused. However you will not find a website or writer debating if they are neo nazi or not. You will either get certain leftist or Israeli writers as is the case in our sources in the infobox labeling them neo nazis at the same time as most media calling them fascists or far right. Sometimes a paper that does not label them neo nazi will have 1 writer who always does in their staff, however to me that does not make Golden Dawn certified neo nazi just because that particular writer likes to throw around that phrase. Most media sources do not label them Neo Nazi, in Greece and abroad. That is why this label is more opinion than reality. If all the media outlets labelled them neo nazi and they denied it, then perhaps the infobox is structured correctly. However not all media labels them as neo nazi in articles, not even half, so therefore that ideology is heavily debated to say the least and should not be stamped as fact in the party's info box. Metaxism however should definitely be there. There are parties in Europe who embrace neo nazism and there is no debate. This party denies it is neo nazi and most articles in Greek about them do not label them neo nazi although some do. That is not enough to give them that tag in the infobox.Reaper7 (talk) 12:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You have not proven that the cited sources are not reliable. Lazaros Miliopoulos' article on extremism in Greece is an in-depth study of far-right tendencies in Greece, not a "passing-by mention" of Golden Dawn in "left-wing media". Milioupoulos has a Ph.D. in political science, he is a lecturer at a German state university, he edited the book together with very reputable European political scientists and got it published by VS Verlag, a well-known German publishing house of expert literature. There is no doubt that this source satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable one. Your claim that he is a "left-wing writer" is unproven. Even if it was true, it would be irrelevant, because we have to assume that a professional scholar of political science is able to put aside his own preferences when writing an objective, academic article. Unless you can prove that this source is biased, your criticism of it is invalid. Neither can I see that you prove the second source (Peter Davies, Paul Jackson: The Far Right in Europe: An Encyclopedia) unreliable. I will not answer your argument that some authors are unreliable because they are Jews. It disqualifies itself and indicates a peculiar world view. --RJFF (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that descriptions in newspapers are poor sources for ideology. Writers often ignore the subtle distinctions between different ideologies and are rarely experts on far right ideology. However, academic sources have been provided. We come across this discussion with all far right groups that have begun to receive mainstream support. They try to distance themselves from their past, yet few if any are able to escape it. I do not find the argument that we cannot accept accept sources written by Jews to be convincing. TFD (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Lazaros Miliopoulos' article on extremism in Greece states, Golden dawn are openly Neo National Socialist. Well by openly I take it he means, what exactly? Golden Dawn deny they are Neo National Socialists and the media is torn on whether they are, so his statement automatically becomes rubbished. Golden Dawn are not openly Neo Nationalist Socialist, at best he could at least attempt honesty and write something like: Golden Dawn deny they are Neo National Socialist, but I think they are. For Lazaros Miliopoulos to rewrite fact is not new, but I think him coupled with the other 3 Israelis is a bit much for an infobox ideology on a far right party.. but like Lazaros Miliopoulos, I am just giving my opinion. Finally I am afraid an Israeli source on Golden Dawn being Neo Nazi has as much value as Bin Laden being used a source on American greed. This is pretty basic stuff, seriously and speaks volumes for the lack of understanding of the Israeli state and its government sanctioned universities. As a jew, I try to at least be intellectually brave and independent enough acknowledge the weaknesses in Israeli political science as well as its need to fabricate. I think it is obvious the left and many zionists are too quick to label a party neo nazi they feel hates jews, without realising in fact they are weakening the word by using it incorrectly and abundantly. Greece's leftist dominated media and universities have worked tirelessly to defame and attack Golden Dawn and the usual leftist terrorists who usually target Greek civilians have now started a regular bombing campaign against Golden Dawn. This article however is not Greek, leftists or Israeli. It belongs to the world and the world is undecided on whether Golden Dawn is Neo Nazi. The Britanica has it correct in its description of Golden Dawn: ultraright-wing nationalist. I think there are some real simple rules here, that may hurt the head, but are easy if you accept them into your heart. Dont wait for Israeli academics to be neutral on anything concerning nazism, dont wait for Macedonian/Skopje scientists to explain anything rational on who modern Greeks are and dont ever wait for the Greek leftist machine to express any type of neutrality on any subject whatsoever. You will be waiting centuries. Dont let this article be a victim, lets try and keep the writers and academics with agendas outside please. Samaras is already trying to stem left-wing recruitment policies in Greek universities, but until this process is complete, we have to tread carefully with Greek academia..Reaper7 (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
In Greece, the two governing parties were PASOK and ND for decades now; prior to them, there were the Colonels' Junta and ERE. None of these parties were left-wing. Even PASOK, which fashioned itself as "center-left wing", was never truly left-wing; more like centrist. So, the claim that all these (right-wing, extreme right and centrist) governments had embarked on a campaign to get leftists (in modern Greece, it is a... crime to identify yourself as a human rights activist, a leftist or an anarchist, but it's perfectly praise-worthy to identify yourself as a nazi) in the academia is entirely false, misleading and an attempt to WP:GAME. And yes, Golden Dawn is openly neo-nazi, with its obituary for Rudolph Hess that was full of praise, its "Hitler for 1000 years" articles and the praises to the likes of Leon Degrelle, or the symbols taken directly from foreign neo-nazi parties like the German NPD. It seems that Reaper7 tries to discredit mainstream, verified and perfectly accepted worldwide academic and journalist sources and have Wikipedia deem the sources he likes (what are they?) as credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.183.95 (talk) 06:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Why has user User:Alexikoua deleted the single phrase «Tread VERY carefully with Greek Wikipedians, especially in their recent rabid defense of neo-nazism.» from the above unsigned personal opinion, claiming WP:TALK?? Compare revisions 14:25 <--> 18:47, 11 January 2013 [14]. Sperxios (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Why do you think he did that? To me at least, it seems that User:Alexikoua, whose political leanings (if his contributions are any indication) are rather friendly to the far right, wanted to censor this warning. I'll say it now and if he tries to censor me, I'll say it again: Tread VERY carefully with Greek Wikipedians, because the far right, sponsored by Greek kleptocrats, smugglers, gangsters and weapons dealers, has taken over the Greek internet years ago: if you see which blogs and websites have the highest popularity in Greece, you'll be disgusted, as they're all far-right, nationalist and racist websites and blogs like olympia.gr and its ilk. 94.66.160.189 (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Indymedia as a source
I've spotted that we've got a few links to Indymedia in our referencing and I'm less than comfortable with this. My own experience of the site is that while some of the contributors do a wonderful job of writing factual news articles, a significant proportion seem to consider this secondary to advancing political polemic. Given how contentious the content of this page can prove, I thought I'd ask the rest of you your opinions on removing these, rather than simply extracting them. Hopefully this will defuse any potential edit war that might erupt? Dolescum (talk) 07:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I say keep it. Despite its anti-authority bias (no, it's not far-left; most of those who frequent it criticise the left-wing parties for being softies and vague at times), many of its contributors bring good stuff. However, as it's a community, it's a mixed bag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.183.95 (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Indymedia is really not a realiable source. As mentioned it is far left (anarcho-communism is far left, sorry) and very very biased. If we use them as source, might as well include golden dawn's official website. 69.9.64.43 (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-neutral sources are by definition unreliable, ergo why I mentioned Golden Dawn's website.. One can present neutral facts while taking sides, sure, but indymedia does far from that. I am sure that, for example, NY times doesn't exactly sympathize with neo-nazis either, but they DO try to present neutral facts. 69.9.64.43 (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I would say that there is no such thing as a "neutral fact" when it regards something inherently subjective, i.e. sociological phenomena concerning politics like this. Every source, every source, contains some amount of bias no matter scholarly or academic it is. However, we can hope that the subjectivity of the academics whose work is used in the writing of this article is tempered a) by their study of the field and b) the peer-reviewed nature of their work, which leads to an "acceptable" level of subjectivity. Indymedia possessing neither of the former, I would be hard pressed to believe that their subjectivity is tempered by any degree. FWIW. Kjell86 (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
We should not lead this discussion in the abstract, but in concreto. The article contains two statements that are sourced to indymedia. One is backed both by indymedia and Eleftherotypia, which is to my knowledge a mainstream broadsheet newspaper and not a far-left propaganda outlet. The other statement (sourced solely to indymedia) is:
"Also, on January 2, 2005, anti-fascist and leftist groups invaded Golden Dawn's headquarters in Thesaloniki, under heavy police surveillance. Although riot police units were near the entrance of the building alongside the intruders, they allegedly did not attempt to stop their actions."
That statement is either true or false, rather than neutral or biased. Either the groups invaded GD's headquarters or they did not. TFD (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Accusing the Greek police of dereliction of duty on the basis of what is essentially a blog post seems rather...bold. I have had a passing search for contemporary news reporting on the matter on google news, I came up empty. Dolescum (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The discussion got diverted on the issue of neutrality, which is separate from reliablity. But the source appears to be a report from an eye-witness, which would not meet reliability. TFD (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
February 18 4idaho Edits (non contentious)
3:
The word increasingly, in the sentence...
"In June 2011, Foreign Policy reported that in the midst of the 2010–2011 Greek protests, gangs of Golden Dawn members were increasingly being seen in some of the higher-crime areas of Athens.[51]"
... was changed to frequently.
"Increasingly" seems the more accurate phrase here. The text in the source actually says:
...a troubling increase in violent crime has also egged on once-marginal neo-Nazi gangs, whom some longtime inner-city residents now see as a more effective security force than municipal and Greek police.
The source doesn't explicitly state that their presence is common, merely that it has increased. Frequently implies their presence is common, which we don't have sourcing for. Dolescum (talk)
Actually the whole thing seems unwieldily worded. I would think the logical tense structure would be perfect - plusquam perfect such that:
"In June 2011, Foreign Policy reported that in the midst of the 2010–2011 Greek protests, gangs of Golden Dawn members had increasingly (or "more frequently" though it seems less fluid) been seen in some of the higher-crime areas of Athens.[51]"
The article links a series of unfounded claims from Golden Dawn itself that the police is in cahoots with New Democracy against them. This is not properly sourced and I could not find reliable third party sourcing of these claims, so the paragraph...
"Golden Dawn stated that rumours about the organisation having connections to the Greek police and the government are untrue, and that the police had intervened in Golden Dawn's rallies and had arrested members of the Party several times while the New Democracy party was in power (for example, during a rally in Thessaloniki in June 2006, and at a rally for the anniversary of the Greek genocide, in Athens, also in 2006).[49]"
... was removed. If reliable third party sources are found, this can be reinserted.
The articles says the "international news media" regard the party as neo-nazi, but the Greek press does as well. This was changed to "news media and academic sources" as reflected by the article's actual sources.
Again, I have to agree with you here. Apologies for slicing your post up, BTW, but it seemed the best method to address each of the issues. Dolescum (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
...from the ideology subsection of the infobox on the grounds it's not relevant whether the party disputes it. Wikipedia relies on third party sources.
2: Commas and format
The initial opening paragraphs are very oddly worded. It is stated the party is far-right extremist, but then goes on to state "Scholars and media describe it as neo-Nazi[3][6][7] and fascist,[8][9] although the group rejects these labels.[10]"
Wikipedia contains verifiable statements, and, like all other political parties on wikipedia, this article should directly state Golden Dawn's ideology in the opening paragraph(s). If their ideology is at all in doubt, it should be removed from the article (although it must be disputed by reliable third party sources.) But this odd "some say" phrasing is unacceptable on wikipedia. It was changed from...
"The People's Association – Golden Dawn (Greek: Λαϊκός Σύνδεσμος – Χρυσή Αυγή), usually known simply as Golden Dawn (Greek: Χρυσή Αυγή, Greek pronunciation: [xriˈsi avˈʝi]), is a right-wing extremist[5] political organization in Greece. It is led by Nikolaos Michaloliakos and has grown considerably since its inception to a widely known Greek political party with nationwide support.
Scholars and media describe it as neo-Nazi[3][6][7] and fascist,[8][9] although the group rejects these labels.[10]"
... to ...
"The People's Association – Golden Dawn (Greek: Λαϊκός Σύνδεσμος – Χρυσή Αυγή), usually known simply as Golden Dawn (Greek: Χρυσή Αυγή, Greek pronunciation: [xriˈsi avˈʝi]), is a right-wing extremist,[4] neo-Nazi,[3][5][6] and fascist,[7][8] political organization in Greece. It is led by Nikolaos Michaloliakos."
The statement about its growth was removed because no such statement exists on other articles for political parties. Such information belongs in the section on their electoral history.
Additionally, there were some minor spelling/grammar fixes, such as breaking up an overly long sentence into two sentences, commas around "in turn" and de-capitalization of the word party.
The word slightly, in the sentence...
"Following a second election in June, this was reduced slightly to 18 seats."
...was also removed on the grounds it is subjective.
It is contentious not to at least mention the party's dispute of that label. Wikipedia's ethos is to present our readers with information and let them decide for themselves, not make those decisions for them. Dolescum (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
"Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. This is contrasted with a secondary source, which is one where the material presented is based on original material, e.g., a non-fiction book analyzing original material such as news reports, and with a primary source, where the source is the wellspring of the original material, e.g., an autobiography or a politician's speech about their own campaign goals."
... please note how wikipedia policy on primary sources directly applies in this case.
Indeed, but primary sources can be used to illustrate what article subjects say about themselves. You've read WP:SELFSOURCE, I presume? I can see merit in informing our users XA claims everyone else is incorrect in their assessment of them and such material does seem seem usable for such a purpose.
I have no other issues with your proposed edits here, but I would ask you tread lightly on this. That infobox has proven the most contentious section of this article, so it would seem wise to at least attempt to give everyone a chance to thrash any issues out here rather than precipitating yet another edit war ;) Dolescum (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, but note the difference. The party's platform is not in dispute, only what ideological box it fits into. A candidate's website would be an acceptable source for the details of a policy program, but not said primary source's opinion of said policies. This falls into the category of a politician's speech about their own campaign goals. This is Golden Dawn's self-analysis of their ideology, which violates wikipedia policy on primary sources.
In this I have to disagree. If you look at the pages for new democracy, pasok, the parties are defined by their general political positions on the spectrum, i.e. left vs right, while the particulars of their ideologies are defined elsewhere in the article. I think the present wording is both sufficient and in conformance with other greek political parties, though I would suggest changing the wording to the following:
"The People's Association – Golden Dawn (Greek: Λαϊκός Σύνδεσμος – Χρυσή Αυγή), usually known simply as Golden Dawn (Greek: Χρυσή Αυγή, Greek pronunciation: [xriˈsi avˈʝi]), is a right-wing extremist[5] political organization in Greece led by Nikolaos Michaloliakos...... Scholars and media describe it as neo-Nazi[3][6][7] and fascist,[8][9] although the group rejects these labels.[10]"
In general I do not oppose the use of primary sources so long as as it is explicitly clear in the text that these statements come from the party itself, which has been done for these cases. As for self-analyses, I think it would fall under the umbrella of BLPPRIMARY, which does not disallow such interpretation, so long as it is included with caution. (which I believe has been satisfied by the caveat that this from the party itself)Kjell86 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
New Democracy is listed in its infobox as a christian democratic, pro-european, liberal conservative party, and PASOK is shown as a socially liberal and social democratic party. The infobox clearly contains two separate areas for general ideology (far left/left-wing/center-left/center/center-right/right-wing/far right) and specific ideological provisions within that spectrum. Golden Dawn's "vague" political position is on the far right, and it is specifically a neo-nazi and fascist party. The infobox contains separate areas for both.
The wording is simply unacceptable I'm afraid; Golden Dawn is either neo-nazi and fascist, or they're not. If there is any dispute on this, such statements must be removed. But if there is not dispute, it must be stated directly. This odd "some say" phrasing is most certainly different than other articles on greek political parties, and needs to be rectified either by removing references to the party as neo-nazi and fascist, or by confirming that it is directly.
BLPRIMARY also does not say what you seem to think it does; it says primary sources may be used when confirmed by a reliable secondary source. ;) --4idaho (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Your argument seems to hinge on, please correct me if I'm wrong here, the premise that we're reporting their claims as fact. We're not. We're stating it's a fact that's what they claim! Follow me? Dolescum (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand that. :) My argument is that their claims aren't relevant. In no other wikipedia article, on any group or person, is it normal to report the subjects own editorializing on themselves. I'd almost say this falls under written like an advertisement, considering the inserted claim from the party they're not neo-nazi goes against all of our third party sources. We have no reliable third party sources disputing Golden Dawn's ideology; it's an incorrect claim, and being honest about the untrustworthiness of the source doesn't justify inserting something that's false. --4idaho (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This line of reasoning is what occurred to me as well, Dolescum. We are stating as fact that a reliable third-party source quotes the party as refuting that as its ideology. If, for any other political party, there were interviews in which the leaders denied being ideologically "socially conservative" or "market liberal," then that would be something worth adding to the article. I think it is a reasonable thing to point out, even if their political positions (which, I must say, are sorely lacking from the article) would contradict that. Does anyone know of a good source which outlines GD's suggested policy recommendations?Kjell86 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
4: Objectivity in writing
The article states that Golden Dawn's activities are "appreciated" by the citizens, and refers to the party as a local Robin Hood. This does not meet wikipedia's standards on objectivity. The sentences...
"In May 2012, the BBC reported on how Golden Dawn had become sort of a local 'Robin Hood' in some high-immigration areas of Athens,[52] since the party was developing a social program including the delivery of free or minimal cost food among the most unfavored strata of ethnic Greeks.[53][54] The party offers protection for victims of crime, a service that has been appreciated by citizens and utilized by the police, which refers Athenians to the Golden Dawn for help, especially when immigrant crime is involved. The party, however, demands allegiance in return for their service.[55]"
... were changed to...
"In May 2012, the BBC reported on how Golden Dawn gangs had began distributing food in some high-immigration areas of Athens,[50] since the party was developing a social program including the delivery of free or minimal cost food among the most unfavored strata of ethnic Greeks.[51][52] The party also coordinates closely with the police,[53] which refers Athenians to Golden Dawn, especially when claims of immigrant crime is involved. The party, however, demands allegiance in return for their service.[54]"
"claims of" was inserted on the grounds guilt is not established at the time citizens were being referred, they were referred upon making allegations or complaints to the police.
Thank you, I'll wait 24 hours to see if there are any other objections on points we agree on before reinserting that portion of the edits. --4idaho (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the wording of the original is unsubstantiated by the tone of the source. Good catch. However, I believe the rewording you propose contains some charged language: use of words like "gangs" which is non-neutral in tone. I would suggest:
"In May 2012, the BBC reported on how Golden Dawn supporters had begun distributing food in some crime-ridden areas (actual article wording) of Athens,[50] since the party was developing a social program including the delivery of free or minimal cost food among the most unfavored strata of ethnic Greeks, particularly the poor and elderly.[51][52] The party has offered protection for victims of crime in high-immigration areas (source wording), a service which has given the party a sort of "Robin Hood" reputation, and has led to allegations of coordination with police, which has referred Athenians to the Golden Dawn for help, especially when claims of immigrant crime are involved. The party, however, has demanded allegiance in return for their service.[55]"
In particular, none of these sources mention a "close coordination" with the police, merely that some were referred to Golden Dawn in cases involving immigrant crime.Kjell86 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
After reviewing the sources, I agree with word "closely" should be removed. "Robin Hood" is editorializing on BBC's part however, and violates wikipedia's standards on objectivity. The article should state what happened. It's also not an allegation of coordination, if the Police are referring complaints to GD, that is coordination ipso facto. I'd also like to replace the word "especially" with "particularly", if that's OK. --4idaho (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the "Robin Hood" statement: it isn't the BBC editorializing, it was stated by "Thanos Veremis, professor of modern history at the University of Athens," and is just a direct quote from the article. If the sourced articles do not claim coordination, then it would appear to be WP: SYN. What the sources state is that there have been reported instances of people being referred to GD by some members of the police. This is what the article states. If readers think that this implies a connection based upon these facts, then that's dandy.Kjell86 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
5: "Left-wing" newspaper
The article refers to the high-circulation newspaper Eleftherotypia as "left-wing" although this is not sourced here, and no political orientation is mentioned on the newspaper's primary wikipedia page. So this was removed.
The wikipedia page refers to the newspapers political leanings as "social democratic," socialist, and that it supports PASOK. While that article is sparsely sourced itself, it seems reasonable to use the label "left wing" or "centre-left" based on these considerations Kjell86 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a good point. In general I think these sorts labels are a bit too pervasive in the article so it could bear removal. I understand that whoever included it meant to convey possibility that the newspaper may be reporting out of ideological bias, which is probably valid to point out, but the wording could certainly be changed. Perhaps it would be sufficient to point out that the paper is affiliated with "social democratic" politics. Is that sufficiently muted?Kjell86 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
"On February 2, 2008, Golden Dawn planned to hold the annual march for the twelfth anniversary of the Imia military crisis. Anti-fascist groups organised a protest in order to cancel the march, as a response to racist attacks supposedly caused by Golden Dawn members. Golden Dawn members occupied the square in which the march was to take place, and when anti-fascists showed up, clashes occurred."
... this fails to establish that Golden Dawn instigated the clashes, so it was changed to "violently attacked." (violently is necessary to distinguish from verbal attacks. Attacked in itself I felt was too vague, but I suppose "attacked" would work if Dolescum feels strongly about it.
I am of the opinion that "clashes occurred" is what the source provided reports and is accurate. The provided source in no way supports your claim here. To claim otherwise is OR on your part. Dolescum (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
"On June 7, 2012, Golden Dawn spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris slapped Communist Party MP Liana Kanelli about the head three times during a television debate; she had swiped at him with a newspaper for throwing water over a fellow guest."
... this does not meet wikipedia's standard on objectivity. Third party sources use the term assault, as do the Greek police, just as in America (my own country) no one gets arrested for "slapping" someone, they get arrested for assault. Assaulted is the neutral term, and the sentence was changed to as follows...
"On June 7, 2012, Golden Dawn spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris assaulted Communist Party MP Liana Kanelli during a television debate; she had swiped at him with a newspaper for throwing water over a fellow guest."
Slapping someone is assault and I suggest your local police are being a touch slack if they refuse to investigate violence when citizens complain. Slapping is a reasonable description of how Kasidiaris attacks Kanelli in the video. Attack seems a vaguer replacement. Dolescum (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, but there's no objective way to choose slap over, say, "hit." Assault is the neutral and technical term used by the police as well as the news media. --4idaho (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The article in question uses both words, with slapped being more frequent, so I would suggest a compromise wording:
"On June 7, 2012, Golden Dawn spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris assaulted Communist Party MP Liana Kanelli during a television debate. Kasidiaris slapped her repeatedly after she had swiped at him with a newspaper for throwing water over a fellow guest."Kjell86 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, the purpose was to remove the subjective language. That just reinserts it and makes the paragraph needlessly wordy. --4idaho (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The language isn't subjective, though. It's describing the nature of the battery. (Actually using assault might be construed as misleading since assault is actually "attempted battery"). However, I am not familiar with "batterying" someone as an actual verb, so I believe it's appropriate to offer the clarification.Kjell86 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
8: Connections to the Greek Police
Since some level of connection is established in the article, the subsection heading "Allegations of connections to the Greek Police" was changed to "Connections to the Greek Police."
In retrospect, I actually think it would be better to title it "Connections and allegations of connections to the Greek Police"
It's good to be as concise as possible, but not at the expense of accuracy. The wordy-but-descriptive route seems best. --4idaho (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I would tend to disagree. The sources indicate that there is some contention as to the depth and institutional nature of these connections. I think it's fair to use the term "allegation" due to this uncertainty, and particularly due to the continuity it creates with the "allegations of nazism" subsection which follows it.Kjell86 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The proposed title does use the word allegation, and should be adopted because while the depth and institutional nature of these connections is uncertain, some level of connections is established. "Connections and allegations of connections to the Greek Police" should be used because it accurately depicts that it covers both what connections have been proven to exist and what else has been alleged. --4idaho (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm in favor of using either "Allegations" or "Connections" or "Ties," but not both. If connections have been demonstrated, then the stronger word should be used as an umbrella. But I think, so far, that connections have only been demonstrated between certain elements of GD and certain elements of the police, rather than institutional coordination. For that reason I prefer allegation. Thoughts?Kjell86 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Till when an ancient Greek and Celtic symbol (a cross inside a circle) is Neo-Nazism symbol? This is in the same logic like "everyone with short mustache is neo-nazist". Please remove it, it is ridiculous. However, if you are referring to Meander, this is an immiscibly ancient Greek symbol, that has nothing to do with German neonazism. It is obvious that some people provoking this article, please be discreet next time.
Such conversations take place again and again and this has become at least boring. If Golden Dawn is not a nazi party it seems that Golden Dawn is too unlucky.
1) Golden Dawn's symbols happen to remind a lot of the symbols of the Nazis. The meander not only looks like a swastika, but the original flag which is usually used by G.D. has exactly the same colors as the nazi flag. Not only its a black symbol with a red background, it also has a white outline. Really bad choice of colors.
3) They chose a salute which, according to them is an ancient Greek one but they were again unlucky. It was used by the Facists and the Nazis some decades ago.
4) In the first congress of G.A. the hall was decorated with an ancient indian and also greek symbol called "swastika" which unfortunately enough was also used by the nazis. Not to mention the Wolfsangel which was also used by himler.
5) They wear black shirts and they' re said to attack immigrants, and communists. Once more unlucky, since Musolini had created teams who served his party - inofficially - who attacked the ones the party was against. They were called Blackshirts. Michaloliakos has spoken of those "Golden Dawns guys in black shirts" with pride.
6) Many of Golden Dawn members like to shave their heads but...that's one more bad choice. Many have noticed that it's a common haircut among noenazis.
7) Michaloliakos appeared sometimes (1, 2) on Greek TV with an eagle on his desk. Again this could be a symbol of USA, Zeus, or Assassin's Creed, but it was also used by the nazi's.
Not to mention Zaroulia's iron cross, Iliopoulos' sieg heil tattoo (by the way, is there any good explanation which includes ancient Greek customs for sieg heil?), their love for Rudolf Hess, or for the great social reformer and military genius - Hitler?
Someone with a short moustache is not Neonazi. Someone who likes eagles is not a nazi. Someone with a shaved head is not a neonazi. Someone with a black shirt is not a neonazi. Someone who generally uses ancient symbols is not necessarily a neonazi. However, if you do all that Golden Dawn does...either you' re really unlucky since you have the same taste in symbols and behavior as the nazis did or you're just a nazi. In fact the question is what would a neonazi party do that isn' t done by Golden Dawn (except for not having said publicly "Yes we are nazis")?
In this video, uploaded on Golden Dawn's Official Dailymotion Channel one can listen to the song "Ορθό το λάβαρο" ("Keep the flag high"). But this is one of the most unlucky choices Golden Dawn has made. The music they used is unfortunately the music of Die Fahne hoch ("The Flag on High") which was the anthem of Hitler's Nazi Party. However one can say that they just put some music notes one next to the other and the result sounds by chance identical to the nazi anthem. Maybe they just like to sing the anthem of Hitler's party. Maybe they are just nazis.--Alien?23:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Notice that they have chosen to use one half of a meander, and the symbol when used in art is repeated. TFD (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Nazi flag
Golden Dawn's flag
Even if it was not going to be repeated in their flag, they could use this part of the ancient Greek meander as their symbolmeander:
However, this is not satisfying since this shape doesn't have central symmetry. On the contrary by using the part of the meander which is used in Golden Dawn's flag one achieves central symmetry just like in the case of swastika. This shape supported by color - painted black with a white outline and a red background - reminds the viewer of swastika, even if the viewer doesn't realize why this happens.--Alien?04:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, note it states they claim. Their claims are a primary source, the newspaper itself is merely reiterating their claims, not supporting them. All the academic secondary and tertiary sources we have state something quite different. As per WP:PRIMARY...
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.
Were secondary and primary sources disagree, Wikipedia goes with the secondaries. As we don't have a secondary source to support your edits and as such you are misusing primary sources. Please stop until you have one that does. Dolescum (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I have to disagree with both of you. It is not a primary source. If the AFP article would say "Golden Dawn claim to follow the ideology of Metaxas", we would have a perfectly valid secondary source verifying that Golden Dawn claim to follow the ideology of Metaxas. (Unlike, if Golden Dawn would say on their website: "We follow the ideology of Metaxas", this would be primary.) However, the article just reads: "the party admires Greek dictator Ioannis Metaxas". Admiring is not the same as following the ideology. And there is no contradiction. Maybe, they admire both Metaxas and the Nazis... So, this statement should stay out of the article. --RJFF (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
first you (dolescum) claim that this is a misuse of primary sources now your claiming it does follow primary sources but not secondary sources admiting the validity of the primary source and if we should include neo nazism which is disputed it is olny fair to include their own view too 90.236.167.119 (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with RJFF, the source used does not say that the leader espouses Metaxism, merely that they admire Metaxas. They are not the same thing. We are responsible for including, faithfully, the content of the original sources. Not interpreting, not deducing things based upon them. That is for the individual reader. This does not belong in the info box, imo. Kjell86 (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
when was golden dawn founded?
some user say it was 1993 i earlier agreed but in section History of 1980-1985 states:
"In January 1985, he broke away from the National Political Union and founded the Popular National Movement – Golden Dawn, which was officially recognised as a political party in 1993."
and it mentions the party during the Macedonia naming dispute which was in 1991 and 1992 so the party/organisation existed before 1993. 95.200.137.151 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not the reason for our dispute on Michaloliakos bio. I wasn't arguing that there wasn't some sort of grouping around his magazine publication prior to 1993. I was pointing out that 1993 seems to be the earliest record of him using the position of "General Secretary", when the group registered as a political party. If you can show evidence otherwise, that's great, please contribute it to the article. If you can't, we have to go with the evidence we do have. Dolescum (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Michaloliakos' military service and discharge
Added citation needed tag about his dishonourable discharge cause it isn't found in the cited sources, at least not per se.The only relevant passage inside the cited sources, one that can be found inside the third cited "source" is the following:
Ekei lambanei kai to eggrafo tis kathaieseos tou, upogegrammeno apo ton tote upourgo Ethnikis Amunis Euaggelo Aberof.
Sugkekrimena ekpiptei apo ton bathmo tou efedrou axiomatikou stin taxi tou stratiotou dioti sumfona me tin apofasi summeteixe "se nazistiki organisi pou aposkopouse stin anatropi tou dimokratikou politeumatos kai stin amblunsi tou ethnikou fronimatos ton Ellinon".
Ton Ianouario tou 1979 katadikazetai apo to pentameles efeteio Athinonse fulakisi 13 minon (mi exagorasimi tote poini), kritheis enoxos gia katoxi ekriktikon ulon..agnostou tupou kai posotitos!!! Apofulakizetai ton augousto tou 1979 kai stin sunexeia topotheteitai san aplos stratiotis (entelos paranoma bebaia) se monada tou pezikou stin Mutilini kai meta apo aitisi tou Dioikitou tis ASDEN metatithetai sto 567 tagma pezikou sta Ellinoboulgarika sunora.
Teleionei tin thiteia tou ton Noembrio tou 1980
The only semi-verifiable, semi-citated analysis of this subject I've found on the net is this.In short, according to this text-article (cannot verify claims or sources thereof, no access to them), Michaloliakos was demoted from ΔΕΑ, i.e. Δόκιμος Έφεδρος Αξιωματικός (mind you that unlike what the wikiarticle reads, in Greece it's only about conscripts and military service, not about voluntary enlisting to become directly an (commisioned) officer; one starts as a conscript private and may apply or get selected to become a (YEA and then) ΔΕΑ; to do that one has to first pass through and complete the ΥΕΑ school) to private and reassigned from the Special Forces Corps to the Ordnance Corps(not sure about the translation; in Greek it's Σώμα Yλικού Πολέμου).
Serious resources-references are anyway needed; either to back the claim of a dishonourable discharge up or more preferably to present a clear overview of what really happened. P.S.The aforementioned third source imo hardly constitutes a source; it's a page on a Nazi or whatever domain ethniko.net, that shows a -badly- translitereted-transcribed Greek text with a footnote claiming To keimeno parthike apo tin efimerida tis Hrysis Avgis, i.e. the text was taken from the newspaper of Golden Dawn; while there is hardly a doubt about Michaloliakos' demotion, this linked to page is not a serious source; I wouldn't consider it a source at all.Does anyone even know whether this domain is officially affiliated to Golden Dawn and not just a creation-pet-project of one their admirers-voters?
Thanatos|talk04:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
(note - I have moved the first sentence from the section header into the top posting - it was messing up formatting. ATG)
It is irrelevant whether the incident was recorded in parliamentary records or not (assuming that the link you provide is indeed to the records). We cite several reliable sources that state that the incident occurred. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
If I understood your argument correctly it is based on two points.
Point A: It is irrelevant if the incident is recorded in the parliamentary records because several outside sources, in this case journalists, report that things happened in a certain way.
There are 4 outside sources cited. However 2 of those ( The Washington Post and the Searchlight magazine) cite in their articles the International Business Times as the source of this piece of news. The other 2 sources are the Greek Newspaper Vima and the International Business Times. Vima presents no sources for the article itself so the validity of the article can not be checked. That leaves us with the link provided by the International Business Times as the source for the article, which is a youtube video of the incident. In the video in question we can hear the shout "Heil Hitler" but we can not see who is shouting it. However if we refer to the session minutes (page 33) we read that the person shouting "Heil Hitler" is not a member of the Golden Dawn party. This also proves that the incident was recorded in the session minutes.
So in conclusion:
(a) The several sources that provide the source material for this paragraph are all based on a single youtube video which does not show who is shouting 'Heil Hitler'.
(b) The incident is recorded in the Parliament session minutes and the 'Heil Hilter' shout is credited to an MP that does not belong to the Golden Dawn party.
We do not require newspapers or other media to cite sources. As for the remainder of your comments, I think that it might be best to wait for others more familiar with the Greek language than me to respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Everyone should be very careful on what is accepted as truth about the Golden Dawn party.
It would be more fair to say that "Some sources claim ... but this is not reflected in the parliamentary record" and provide references. Further, and I really really should stress this - the Golden Dawn party representatives were not removed by security for berating other MPs with derogatory language. The Golden Dawn party representatives left on their own volition (probably to avoid being forcibly removed, but that is just my conjecture). This fact is reflected in the official parliament record as linked by TasosGr. The relevant section is on page 25 when GD parliament member Papas says (and I am pasting verbatim here from the official entries in [] is my own translation):
ΧΡΗΣΤΟΣ ΠΑΠΠΑΣ: Εμείς θα φύγουμε. [We (Golden Dawn members) are leaving (the session)]
Presiding the session Mr Dragasakis responds.
ΠΡΟΕΔΡΕΥΩΝ (Ιωάννης Δραγασάκης): Έτσι μπράβο! Κύριε Παππά, είναι μια καλή πρωτοβουλία. Φύγετε για να μη σας διώξω με έναν άλλον τρόπο, αφού δεν σέβεστε τον Κανονισμό. [Well! It is a good initiative (you've taken) Mr. Papas. Leave lest I send you off in another fashion as you are not adhering to regulations.]
Page 26: again this is verbatim from parliamentary records. You can trivially use google translate/bing translate/babelfish/anything and get the gist of it.
(Στο σημείο αυτό οι Βουλευτές του Λαϊκού Συνδέσμου - Χρυσή Αυγή αποχωρούν από την Αίθουσα)
[At this point the Golden Dawn parliament members leave the room]
You don't have to take my word for it or TasosGr's. I invite you to inspect the official parliament record AND check the multitude youtube videos of the exchange. It is all there. I have even pointed out the pages for you. This is not original research. It is a simple statement of the facts based on existing sources.
I am forced not to log in here to propose all this - the animosity against the Golden Dawn party has reached a feverish pitch in certain segments of the Greek populace but the truth should not fall victim to blind prejudice no matter where it comes from. Wikipedia should be about the facts and in this case these are stark clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.54.23.51 (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia requires that articles are based on reliable sources, such as newspaper articles, and does not question those sources, unless subsequent reliable sources do. If you do not like that policy, then you should argue on the policy pages. If you do not like media portrayal then you must complain to them. This is not the forum to correct whatever bias you believe is practiced by the media. BTW why do you believe the media is biased against Golden Dawn? TFD (talk) 00:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I wrote the previous comment (though my IP is different this time). I am sure you intend well with your response but I am unable to fully ::comprehend it. You write that wikipedia requires articles to be based on reliable sources (of course you are right, I have read the policy pages). ::But I think I have provided a reliable source (the parliamentary record) which directly supports my case. Are you telling me that if I got you a ::couple of sources from the popular Greek press on this you would be ok with amendments? I am not being facetious here - I am trying to understand ::your point.
As an aside you can easily check videos such as this:
and verify with your own two eyes and ears (or get an opinion from a credible/reliable Wikipedia contributor who is familiar with the Greek ::language) what happened in the room (please look at 4:51 to see the point where the parliament chair "commends" the GD party members for leaving ::the room).
To sum up: I believe I provided a very credible source (the parliamentary record, well actually TasosGr did) that clearly indicates what happened. ::I think a balanced approach would be to replace
"On 17 May 2013 Golden Dawn MP Panagiotis Iliopoulos repeatedly shouted "Heil Hitler!" as security had to forcibly remove him for berating other MPs with derogatory language.[134][135][136][137]" with
"Some sources claim ... but this is not reflected in the parliamentary record" and a reference to the record
On a personal note (and I know I am opening myself up for ridicule by saying this and this is perhaps not the right forum to write about such issues but I just need to add it here): I find your comment: " This is not the forum to correct whatever bias you believe is practiced by the media" personally distressing because my intention and the rest of the comment was not meant to convey a personal belief. Maybe I should not have written the last paragraph in my previous entry as I was offering a personal opinion and this is irrelevant here but surely anyone examining the facts can see that the issue was misrepresented in the sources (it is so obvious to me that maintaining such a false entry serves some political agenda).
Since you asked I will tell you why I believe there is a bias in the media. It is because the GD party is xenophobic, irrational and mostly anti-democratic which are not "values" shared by most of the Greek intelligentsia or indeed the modern world. However, by presenting inaccuracies such as this simply to smudge GD reputation when the evidence to the contrary is so obvious (and so easily found) has the opposite of the intended effect and (most crucially) shows no commitment to the truth which I am sure is something you care deeply about. Please consider these points - I am not making any edits until there is a consensus or some understanding because I know they will just be reverted and I will be branded a fascists or some such by well-meaning but misguided individuals. I am really unhappy to have to state what I believe about GD because it should be irrelevant in a discussion of facts - nonetheless here I am feeling I have to do so in order to be heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.77.228 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I hear the same thing you presumably do: someone shouting 'Heil Hitler'. Page 25 in the parliamentary record attributes this to Mr. Georgios Pantzas, a non-GD member of parliament. This is what TasosGr mentioned at the very beginning of this discussion. Maybe hearing the parliament member of that non-GD party admitting shouting 'Heil...' himself can finally convince people. Here:
Notice how the article states very clearly that GD members were not forcibly removed as mentioned in the wiki entry: "as security had to forcibly remove him for berating other MPs with derogatory language". This statement is factually wrong. I cannot say whether GD members shouted 'Heil...'. I was not there. But there is absolutely no positive evidence I can find of this and the wiki entry makes it appear so. Surely, surely anyone can see how this is misleading. If you think my suggestion is biased then please suggest something else but certainly you must agree with me that the current entry is factually incorrect and biased.
Please though, if you offer an objection (I don't know if you are) state it clearly. I can only guess your ultimate question or objection here (I presume you were not literally asking for a description of the audio recording - you can certainly hear that yourself).
Again, consider the statement: On 17 May 2013 Golden Dawn MP Panagiotis Iliopoulos repeatedly shouted "Heil Hitler!" as security had to forcibly remove him for berating other MPs with derogatory language.
Do you think it accurately reflects reality, after having considered all of the above?
Anyway, thanks for reading up to here, I hope I have made you think about this - I must now depart from this impromptu debate for, like you I suspect, can only devote so much time on such matters. I don't expect this to be the last work on the subject but maybe some debate will result in article improvements - for the sake of an accurate summary which I know is what all wikipedians strive for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.77.228 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to direct you towards WP:CCPOL, particularly WP:OR. It's not our place to make these judgements; the text reflects the sources. I only skimmed your comment and don't mean to comment on the voracity of your remarks, but wikipedia isn't the platform for this discussion. What was written in the article has been sourced above and beyond in compliance with WP:SOURCES. --4idaho (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Syriza MP Giorgios Pantzas has admitted that it was him who shouted "Heil Hitler" (in protest, to mock the Golden Dawn MPs). [15] Obviously, the initial reports were mistaken. They are now corrected by several other reliable sources (I only cited the English one, but there are many others available in Greek and German - you'll find dozens of them if you google "Pantzas + Heil Hitler" resp. "Πάντζας + Χαϊλ Χίτλερ"). --RJFF (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Party policies and programs
The article at present lacks any description of the party's actual program or stated policy goals, which is generally customary in political party articles. Having found only once source for this, namely the program, I will add these points to the article, with the caveat that these come from the party itself. Others are encouraged to challenge these and supersede with 3rd party sources, but it also generally not the case that 1st person content is removed wholesale. Take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SELFPUB I will reinstate the content which was removed.Kjell86 (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
It is the obligation of the user who adds information to provide adequate references, not the one of other users who dispute the verifiability of the material. In this case, you have to research and cite secondary sources before you upload the information to the article. There are enough secondary sources, including academic research papers, about Golden Dawn. Therefore, it is just unnecessary to use material published by the party itself. Every political party (not only Golden Dawn) tries to present itself in a favourable light and is therefore as a rule not a reliable source when talking about itself. Again: there are enough secondary sources dealing with Golden Dawn's ideology that may be used and cited. --RJFF (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia's policy on the use of self-publicised sources. I will include it here:
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
* the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
* it does not involve claims about third parties;
* it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
* there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
* the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Primary sources are allowed, but they are superseded by secondary sources. IF users have a problem with the content, they should find secondary sources which dispute GD's claims in their program. Primary content is not to be removed purely because it is primary. At present, there are NO secondary sources in the article which describe the party's official platform or policy objectives, ergo the lack of that section. I encourage you to criticize the information presented rather than removing it wholesale, as a presentation of specific policy objectives should be included in any political party page (and is routinely done so). If you still wish to remove it, I would ask that you explain how the content violates SELFPUB rules. Kjell86 (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I find the claims to be self-serving; indeed, most every political party attempts to cast themselves in a favorable light. I think it would be more fruitful to comb the ideological citations we already have for specific details on individual policies. However, I question the very existence of this section, and whether these individual policies fail WP:N, as I personally think their ideology is well established enough already, and you seem to be having such trouble finding non-GD sources. So it's not just about sourcing the policies (which is a grave concern itself) but establishing their notability, as, even if we come to a consensus on establishing an ideology section, notability will play a key role on deciding which policies merit inclusion. --4idaho (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
@4idaho: Are claims being made? If so, then I have not done an adequate job at attempting to keep it strictly "the facts of what GD has said." In the end, this is what should be reported: specific statements of policy that GD says they will implement if they could. This is embarrassingly lacking in the article. There's no harm in trying to raise the bar a bit to present actual policy objectives, especially when such objectives are presented. Does it fail WP:N? Notability refers to the eligibility of SELFPUB material in the creation of an entire article and, according to the section: "They do not limit the content of an article or list." The article itself is well sourced by third party sources, which is as it should be. Would changing the title to "Political positions" or "party program" or "policy objectives" mollify concerns? I only chose Ideology as it was the most succinct, but if you feel it's inaccurate, then fine.Kjell86 (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Please calm down; you seem to be irritated. This is just a discussion of how best to improve the article, a goal I'm sure we both share.
The claims at stake are Golden Dawn's claims regarding their political program, as we already have conflict between reliable third party sources analysis of Golden Dawn's ideology and their self-described ideology elsewhere. The section is not "Golden Dawn's platform I found on their website, reprinted verbatim" the section is Golden Dawn's "Ideology" (swapping the title to "political positions", "party program", or "policy objectives" would not change that.) This requires the same level of sourcing required for any other segment, because we're not trying to ascertain what Golden Dawn said about their ideology, as that is not relevant to wikipedia. We are trying to ascertain what reliable third party sourced have reported about Golden Dawn, as per WP:CCPOL.
Reprinting their party propaganda verbatim, when reliable third party sources already dispute their claims about their ideology, would seem to have serious conflict with WP:NPOV. Indeed, if I could briefly quote from the lead of NPOV:
"... representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
Now to quote from the next segment, "Article structure", we see the continued problems of your proposed edits. If I could quote briefly:
"Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents."
This, again, shows the troubling nature of your edit, as you've introduced a new article segment based solely on Golden Dawn's POV regarding their ideology (which shouldn't be in the article in the first place.) If I could quote from WP:STRUCTURE again briefly:
"It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints."
Again we see some of the disturbing implications of the proposed edit, as you've isolated Golden Dawn's own POV on their ideology into a section called "Ideology" while isolating the reliable third party sources opinions of Golden Dawn's ideology, the ones that wikipedia are supposed to be based on, into other sections such as "Allegations of Nazism" (emphasis mine, for reasons I hope you're starting to understand.)
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views." (emphasis mine.)
Firstly, I'd like to apologize, I was very sleep deprived when I'd responded to you the first time and I confused WP:UNDUE with WP:N. My apologies. What I was attempting to say was that even if consensus is reached on establishing an "Ideology" section, not all policies might be included, only the ones which are found notable by third party sources. We will also have to be careful that we represent views on their ideology in a way that is fair and consistent with what third party sources represent, so that this simply doesn't become, as WP:STRUCTURE warned, a back and forth with a list of Golden Dawn's claims about its ideology vs. a list of third party sources views on its Ideology.
To return to why I questioned the section's very existence under WP:UNDUE, lets examine the next paragraph:
"In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view." (emphasis mine.)
Obviously, as has been succulently demonstrated in the infobox, Golden Dawn's claims about their ideology clash with what third party sources represent. So although this is an article about a tiny minority (Golden Dawn) their viewpoints on themselves are themselves a minority which clash with our reliable third party sources. And yet, the troubling edit proposed represents solely Golden Dawn's views about their own ideology.
And even should we adopt an "ideology" section for the article, the perturbing proposed edit fails to at all represent that Golden Dawn's views on what their ideology is represent a minuscule minority regarding how reliable third party sources represent their ideology.
But to move along, I would like to quote from the final section of WP:NPOV, namely WP:IMPARTIAL:
"Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article."
Once more, we see the distressing violations presented by an uncritical reproduction of Golden Dawn's claims represented as their "Ideology."
As a final note, I would like to say that, by a long shot, I don't think the only violations this unsettling edit present are in WP:NPOV. I merely wanted to get the ball rolling on what I'm sure will be a productive discussion. Thoughts? --4idaho (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite calm, I'm not entirely sure how my previous statements were perceived as angry or unduly energetic, but that was not my intent. Following this, I suppose the main point is: do you believe that the information which I uploaded is not genuinely the policy platform that GD would implement? Do you believe it conflicts with 3rd party sources elsewhere in the article, or is conflicted by 3rd party sources out there somewhere? If so, I would ask that you be specific in your criticism. As it stands, my goal is merely to add a section about specific policy objectives for this political party which has parliamentary representation. I realize there are plenty of articles about controversial statements/actions/news stories about party members and I think it's perfectly legitimate that they be there. At the same time, however, I do not think that statements of fact (the fact being that GD says they will do X) should be discarded merely because it's a primary source - unless of course disputed by a 3rd party. Is it "biased, inaccurate, or partial" to quote GD as having said a thing? Kjell86 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
My apologies; it can be hard to read tone online. Sorry I haven't been able to get back to this very quickly since life's been hectic, but Kjell86, you're clearly outvoted on Talk, so even if the discussion isn't continuing, you can't keep unilaterally restoring an edit which the general consensus is clearly against. --4idaho (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
This isn't a "vote," 4 idaho, this a place where people discuss the merits of including or not including specific pieces of an article, and then substantiate why that is so. If you do not have the discussion, as you have not for the past week, then you have no basis to object to content's inclusion. I would be more than happy to discuss this with you or anyone, because I believe strongly that a policy objective summary belongs in any political party article. Kjell86 (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict with 4idaho)
"there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" - the cited source is a blog post. How can we know for certain that it is the official party position and not just posted by a random Golden Dawn supporter?
"the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" - if you write that Golden Dawn advocated national independence for Greece, it implies that Greece is currently not independent, a fringe view by Golden Dawn which does not harmonize with a neutral point of view. If you write that Golden Dawn wants to enforce German war debt, it implies that Germany has not yet paid its war debt. Is this true? Moreover, party platforms are, as a rule, self-serving. They are written and published in order to convince voters. They present the party in a favourable light. Unlike publications from independent third parties, they intend to advocate the positions and serve the interest of the party.
WP:NPOV (one of WP's core policies which is "above" a secondary policy like WP:SELFPUB: all parts of the article have to be written from a NPOV. If we render publications of the party without critical review and refexion by independent sources, it does not comply with a neutral POV, but advances Golden Dawn's POV
WP:NOR (another core policy): who decides which parts of the platform are notable and should be included in the article and which can be shortened or cut? We need secondary sources to decide this. If Wikipedians take this decision, it will be a form of original research.
These are reasons not to take this presentation of Golden Dawn's platform as a source, but insist on backing it up with secondary sources.
I understand the self-publicised sources policy to the effect that it is acceptable to take them to support facts. (If we would, e.g. cite Golden Dawn's website for the fact that they were founded in 1985 and their leader is Michaloliakos, would not argue with you), but not for presenting positions, because then it comes into conflict with WP:NPOV, which is the more important and weighty policy and "beats" WP:SELFPUB. --RJFF (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
@RJFF:
Point 1 is of course valid. It is merely a blog, but if you look at the GD website you will find their political positions located here (in Greek): http://www.xryshaygh.com/index.php/kinima/thesis
From what I can tell, the blog seems to accurately translate the content of this page, though I could caution that my knowledge of greek is limited to just above the alphabet and how to order a beer:
As for point 2 and 3, if you have a problem with the language used in a particular phrase, please change it. I attempted to convey in each statement the fact that these statements are what Golden Dawn says, without making claims as to their being true or false. If you believe I have not done this adequately, then I welcome you to make that more clear. Moreover, I fail to see what is self-serving with a party platform; it is merely a statement of what they intend to do, and I attempted to keep the reporting strictly limited to statements about their policy intentions. As per SELFPUB, it is permitted to use primary sources to refer to themselves, and I therefore tried to avoid any statements about other third-parties, (and there are many, many references in the program), since this would violate the terms for viability.
As for the NOR criticism, this is something which occurs in every article. How do you decide which part of a source to include when you add it to the article? You add a statement to the wiki, and you back that statement up with a source. This is what I have done. If you think more or less of the platform should be included, then change it and be prepared to support it. This criticism I find a bit forced. I welcome the addition of secondary sources - I myself haven't found any. Therefore I do not see the problem with including self-published material SO LONG AS, and that is critical, that is very clear to the reader that this information is coming directly from the party, and not to be confused with secondary sources. Kjell86 (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, just to let you both know, since it's been a week without a response, I will reinstate these edits. Discussion can continue if you like.Kjell86 (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
We should not use party documents as sources except for non-controversial information, such as the address of party headquarters. If people want to read these documents they can follow the links to the party websites. TFD (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Primary sources can be cited on the basis that they speak in a factual way about themselves. By constructing the section in such a way that it is clear to the reader that "Party X wants to do Y," which is what the citation says, not a reporting of factual information?Kjell86 (talk) 09:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No other comments on this? I really think this section is lacking and, short of adding something, even controversial, it's not going to get done. For those opposed, would it be possible to break down individual "clauses" so objectionable phrasing can be identifieid?Kjell86 (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
The main point of the objection is not a certain phrasing, but adding a whole section which only references a text by the party itself, without any secondary sources. In the time you are using for this discussion (which certainly will not lead to any consensus) you could have researched for secondary sources that analyse and discuss XA's programme. This is the problem: i don't claim that the source you propose is wrong, but it is un-encyclopedic to just present a programme paper without any analysis and commentary by experts. Otherwise, there would be no difference between the WP article and the party's own website. It is not WP's objective to simply echo its subjects' self-presentations. --RJFF (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
This is of course a very fair point. In general primary content should not be relied upon, save for in the absence of third-party sources. If there is a secondary source out there which has done reporting the issue of specific party policy, then I have not found it; and it is not for a lack of trying, I assure you. That is not to say that there are none, there are most certainly some in Greek, but if they exist then they seem to be inaccessible. I agree with what you say regarding WP's job, but as contributors there is nothing wrong with making fact-based statements using a primary source as a citation, particularly in the vacuum of others.(which is the conclusion i've come to after several months of trying to dig anything up on the matter via English/Swedish news articles, FWIW)Kjell86 (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Alien ? 23:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
.svg)
![[1]](http://xryshaygh.com/resources/img/logo.png){kind=link}
![[3]](http://www.xryshaygh.com/resources/img/footer-logo.png){kind=link}
