Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece)

Whats the point of this article?

It reads like a piece of propaganda. I wanted to learn what this organization BELIEVES in detail. Instead, I get an article listing their troubles in detail. Which is fine, but the entire article is very openly slanted against them. This article must be re-written in a objective and (hopefully) much more informative manner. I want to hear their side too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikoz78 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a crypto-nazi got butthurt & started to BAWWWWW. u mad bro? — Preceding

unsigned comment added by 94.66.150.83 (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC) thank you for your excellent contribution anonymous poster. It has been very helpful for the discussion. But to actually contribute, I totally agree. This article reads more like a battlefield between supporters of HA and its opponents than a proper wikipedia article whose aim is to INFORM.

I suggest we bring back the ideology section. It made the article much more complete 79.131.199.214 (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a piece of pure propaganda against it. Dead or old sources are used to accuse them of beliefs they have abandoned long ago. For every source that calls them Neo-Nazis and all that I can find a source that is NOT calling them so. But I guess that if CNN in a short (4 lines long) article, with an unknown author, calls them aliens perhaps we can also call them aliens from now on. This article is ridiculous and very biased against them. I suggest the removal of ALL content that are not linked to the party itself. If one of its members killed someone, it does not concern us. If a New Democracy, Pasok, KKE or any other party supported commited a murder, nobody would fill the party's page with junk. Same thing for the "allegations of cooperating with the EL.AS.". If people cannot stand but to propagandize against G.D. then perhaps you should make a new page using this biased and poor written content. Alexispao (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't make blanket accusations of propaganda, but name the statements against which you object and substantiate your objections in detail and case-by-case. Please show which parts of the article are unrelated (or only marginally related), and argue which sources are unreliable, irrelevant or misrepresented. --RJFF (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@ RJFF, under the 'Ideology' column, racism is cited, the source is a short paragraph with absolutely NO reference to Golden Dawn whatsoever, but rather to some vague European treaty on racism. This is just one example of a biased and unreliable article with a blatant slant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.98.21 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

File:HA610.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:HA610.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazism or Fascism

Golden dawn is neither a neo-nazism or neo-facist organization. It is characterized like that by communists and other left parties Sh4nkS-S3 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is described as supporting Nazism even by its own members. Even if they do not refer to Nazism by name, they depict themselves as following "national-socialism", which is exactly the same thing.--BubbleBabis (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"depict" is subjective. Because the media sensationalises an easy phrase cant be used to cite gospel truth on its ideology. If its RS, and it is, it should be mentioned that the international media refer to it as such. This says that the party does NOT claim to be neo nazi. You cant assign labels to the party without knowing its ideological intent.(Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)).

Not to mention that the "fascist" salute is a misnomer (intentional?) as it really is the Roman salute. In the 1940s and 1950s, school children would salute the American flag as they recited the pledge of allegiance. Were the schools, or society, encouraging Nazism? Don't expect wikipedia, a hotbed of reds and pinks, to be impartial to this, though. 50.29.0.110 (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, that's your argument? It was only a "bad thing" after it become associated with the German Nazis. Everyone did it before then, but since then only groups wishing to consciously associate themselves with the German Nazi party typically use it. No American schools were using the "Roman salute" after 1942 as it was legally banned. -- Alyas Grey : talk 21:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Roman salute" was never actually used by Roman's. In a painting done of ancient Rome from the 17th century, they use a salute like this. The Fascists in Italy revived the salute under the mistaken belief that it had been used by Romans. Part of Mussolini's ideology was that he was "restoring Rome". From there, it spread amongst the far right in europe, which is where the Nazi's got it. It has pretty much only been used as a symbol of the far right. Use of it as a "Roman salute" is, at best, historically incorrect, and likely little but a thinly veiled attempt to provide cover for what is actual sympathy for fascist movements. Use of it in a political context? I'm sorry, that at least makes you fascist. And outside of Italy, you'd have to be crazy to not realize that people are going to associate it far more with the more radical Nazism than anything else. I mean, really, if you take a far right group at it's word, that they are using a symbol of fascism in a completely and totally innocent context, you are the most naive person in the world.65.0.82.183 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Went on to the party's own website (linked in this Wikipedia article) and clicked on the party's bookstore in the same site. The store offers books celebrating (not discussing, but celebrating) Hitler and the Nazis. 70.28.5.80 (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was a pretty cool guy, despite all the propaganda written by the victors.

Original synthesis

The mention in the last paragraph of the intro section that there is no mention of the organization in the regular reporting by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) is clearly original synthesis. This is a problem. __meco (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an openly nazi ( not even neo-nazi) organization - the founder and leader of Golden Dawn states clearly in issue 26 page 10 " σαράντα δύο χρόνια μετά, μετά, με την σκέψη και την ψυχή μας δοσμένη στην Μνήμη του Μεγάλου μας Αρχηγού, υψώνουμε το δεξί χέρι ψηλά, χαιρετούμε τον Ήλιο και με το θάρρος, που μας επιβάλλει η Στρατιωτική μας Τιμή και το Εθνικοσοσιαλιστικό μας καθήκον κραυγάζουμε γεμάτοι πάθος, πίστη στο μέλλον και στα οράματά μας: HEIL HITLER!» translation " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.83.76.143 (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Source " Γράφει ο IΟΣ Eleftherotypia 2/07/1998" is dead.

Try opening the link. Only a text of gibberish appears, completely unreadable and belonging to no known language. I suggest the removal of all the content for which this link was used as the sole source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexispao (talk • contribs) 13:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The procedure recommended in case of link rot / dead references, can be found here: Wikipedia:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links. Removal of all content refering to a source that is not accessible online, is not necessary, because online accessibility is not a mandatory requirement for sources on Wikipedia. --RJFF (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not a matter of accessibility; The page itself is accessible, but the content is completely distorted and destroyed. We don't know if this source was trustworthy in the first place; I could be the very first one to point out that this source has nothing written on it. People could accuse Golden Dawn of practically anything and it would be considered trustworthy. Since this source was used for writting a big part of this page I cannot delete all of the information it was used at. Not only because I do not have the time to, but also because I'm not perfectly familiar with how Wikipedia works just yet. You seem to be that kind of guy, why don't your remove it yourself? Do wikipedia a favour, that's why you're here. Perhaps that might improve the article's abysmal rating. Alexispao (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume that when the source was cited in 2006, the page was still accessible and contained readable text. One could also go to a newspaper archive and check the 2 July 98 issue of Eleftherotypia. Again: it is not compulsory to cite sources that are publicly accessible on the internet. Print sources are acceptable as well. Why should we accuse the editors who have cited this source of dishonesty? We should WP:Assume good faith and assume that the source indeed contains these statements. If you think this article is bad, why don't you work to improve it? Just badmouthing the article and demanding the removal of information is not helpful. --RJFF (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Symbol

The party symbol is incorrect. Their current official symbol can be found in the Greek counterpart of this article. Can someone upload it and use it here? I would appreciate it, as I lack the knowledge on how to do it.Alexispao (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Done, and confirmed by checking Greek newspapers Shii (tock) 05:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Elections

Should it not be mentioned that the party will be participating in the 2012 elections on May 6th? Here is a source (in Greek though): http://www.madata.gr/epikairotita/politics/190085.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.78.195 (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Definately should...and first time in parliament at that(Lihaas (talk) 09:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)).

Definitively yes. The party is probably going to enter the parliament too. This will probably be THE most significant entry in this article to date. Make it good!Arathian (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

2012 Exit Polls

The Golden Dawn Party hits 6%-8% in the Initial Exit Polls of the Greek Parliament. Participation in the Greek Parliament is currently a certainty

Várstfoeðr^talk 17:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The description of the party as neo-Nazi must be sourced to a self-description

We cannot use the pejorative labels of the media to define this party's political orientation, for the same reason that we could not use Fox News to define the Democratic Party's political views, for example. Does the party describe their own views using the terms neo-Nazi or Nazi occultism? No? Then remove that claim from Wikipedia, which has a duty to NPOV. --Shii (tock) 23:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the addition I have made will be suitable. Perhaps someone will drop by this talk page demanding that Wikipedia "call a spade a spade", but contrary to the news media I think we must not make claims about the group's beliefs that go against their own statements. We can describe their actual activities, or mention how outside groups generally describe them as neo-Nazi. Shii (tock) 00:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the kind of people making these changes are not those who know how to use the talk page. Again, I do not think they themselves are spray painting swastikas, because it would go against their nationalist views. 430,000 Greek soldiers were killed when the Metaxas regime fought the Nazis. Calling them neo-Nazi based on their 1930s-era salute is superficial and has no basis in self-descriptive terms. Shii (tock) 08:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written from a Neutral point of view (NPOV) and based on Third-party sources. It does not have to present the POV of the article's subject, but the one of observers, analysts and researchers outside the organisation, i.e. scholars and media commentators. Neutrality does not mean that we have to please the article's subject or reflect its position. To the contrary, Wikipedia has to keep a critical distance from the subjects of its articles. The sources that verify Chrysi Avgi's description as neo-Nazi and fascist are reliable, third-party sources and preferrable over sources from within the party itself. Your claim that the party itself has to agree with its description as neo-Nazistic is contrary to Wikipedia's principles and guidelines. --RJFF (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Does that mean I can call Obama a socialist, just because there are many media sources that say so? Exactly what standard does Wikipedia require to contradict a person's own political views? NPOV doesn't mean media point of view, it means taking a stance of neutrality in the dispute over whether the group is neo-Nazi or not. Shii (tock) 09:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Golden Dawn's labelling as neo-Nazist is not only sourced to some media, but to different mainstream media outlets, that are usually considered as reliable (including CNN), and also to a scholarly study (Porat/Stauber: Antisemitism Worldwide 2000/1, published by the University of Nebraska). Same is true for the fascism label, which is sourced to an academic source (Kravva: The Construction of Otherness in Modern Greece, which has been published in an academic work and by a highly reputable publisher of expert books). Therefore it is more than just a media POV.

Contradicting a person's or organisation's own political views is not mandatory according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but basing all content on independent, third-party, reliable sources is. Media reports and scholarly studies can be third-party, reliable sources, self-descriptions by the party itself never are. They are first-party, and anything but neutral. --RJFF (talk) 09:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, Wikipedia has a commitment to NPOV in the dispute between group members and people reporting on them. Also, can I get a page number or a quote for the Kravva article? I can't find the specific page that calls the group neo-Nazi there; it does seem to be referred to as "fascist", but in an offhand and superficial way. Shii (tock) 09:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no dispute among independent observers and analysts, but a dispute between independent observers and analysts on the one and the party itself on the other side. As the party itself can never be a source for Wikipedia (as the party cannot be neutral and reliable in assessing and analysing itself), Wikipedia doesn't have to regard this position. Wikipedia only references to third-party sources by independent monitors, reporters and researchers, but not to self-statements by the article's subject itself. If you could point to scholars or mainstream media that disagree with the description of the party as neo-Nazi or fascist, the case would be different. --RJFF (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. If a news article quotes you as saying you are not-X, but the reporter disagrees and says you are X, then Wikipedia must take the stance that there is no dispute? Shii (tock) 09:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No. It's okay to write in the article's body that the party doesn't identify as neo-Nazi, although most mainstream sources describe it as such. But it's not okay to remove Neo-Nazism and Fascism as the party's ideologies from the infobox, only because the party itself disagrees, when no independent source contradicts. --RJFF (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is a dispute, then WP:NPOV seems clear to me: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes." I would be fine with a single line "usually described as Neo-Nazi, although they dispute this", which is indeed how many news reports seem to frame the issue; I would not agree with shortening that to "neo-Nazi" which seems to engage in that dispute. Shii (tock) 09:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I just realized... neo-Nazi is not being used to describe a political orientation anyway! It's used to name a mode of bigotry, like "anti-Semitic". Certainly this should go in the intro of the article, but not in the infobox! Shii (tock) 10:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The party's own online bookstore -- I'm elaborating on my comment above to another "Nazi/maybe not Nazi" discussion -- sells a book about Nazism by Léon Degrelle, the Belgian pro-Nazi politician and Waffen SS officer; a triumphal memoir by Josef Goebbels; and a book attributed to Hitler. I think this adds to the preponderance of evidence that tells in favour of this party as being fairly and accurately described as a neo-Nazi party. (It would not the only neo-Nazi movement composed of the grandchildren of men the original Nazis themselves subjugated and murdered -- an interesting psychological study.) Does anyone here dispute that the party flag invites us to think of the flag of Nazi Germany? 70.28.5.80 (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Book stores also sell books concerning Fascism (or Communism). Does that make them hardcore Fascists or Communists respectively? Are you implying that selling political books of some ideology necessarily means that you embrace those ideologies? I disagree with that view. Alexispao (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ideology

So either neo-nazism, fascism or metaxism because this doesn't make any sense. Nazism is not the same thing as fascism so is not fascism and metaxism. That's because soembody wants to throw into one "far right wing" bucket everythign he can possibly think of doesn't mean that it is truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.16.229 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, as do several other people writing here! Shii (tock) 13:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.fairplay.or.at/uploads/media/FARE-manual_racistsymbols.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.190.53.121 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is this? "Football Against Racism in Europe"? Shii (tock) 23:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the term 'totalitarian'

While the current historiography has no consensus over the term 'totalitarian', the concept has been tested by the evidence and has been redefined. The current understanding and definition of the term makes a sharp distinction between the despotic and dictatorial regimes and the totalitarian (traditionally seen as being the Nazi, Stalinist, and Fascist Italian regimes of the early twentieth century). As this regime does not fulfil the vast majority of the criteria as is currently defined, this is a misleading and unhelpful term to describe to unknowledgable readers the nature of the regime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.215 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Χρυση or Χρυσα

In article the name is Χρυση, but in infobox it's Χρυσα. Is it correct? Xpicto (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Party flag

I have noticed that the rather "suspicious"-looking party flag has been removed from the infobox as outdated. Are there any sources saying that the party has officially stopped using this flag? Watching this, it would seem that Mihaloliakos is giving his post-election speech next to such a flag. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

...and behind their new and apparently official logo. The flag was furled up on a pole. I didn't remove the flag, just moved it to the neo-Nazi section. Shii (tock) 06:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No more "furled" than the American flag here; that's what happens when you have a flag on a pole with no wind. Please do note that you were not the flag-remover in diff that I provided. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That certainly looks like the flag that was removed from the article to me. Dolescum (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not removed, just scroll down. The easiest way to confirm the change of logo is to check Greek Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 09:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Dolescum (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this reliable enough for you? http://portal.kathimerini.gr/elections-map Shii (tock) 10:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not a flag. Dolescum (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Again. Please look at the diff I gave. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I did... Shii (tock) 10:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, then you should know that a) I am not talking about anything you re/moved and b) the flag was removed from another part of the infobox (the "flag" section, not the "logo" one) as being "no longer used". User:Lt.Specht has just re-added it there. I am wondering if there is any substance to the claim that it is indeed no longer the official flag of the party (we're not talking about logos here). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking for evidence that that there is or is not an official flag, I'm afraid I can't provide it. That .SVG image was created by someone in 2005 and was never cited to anything. I would argue that it doesn't belong in the infobox if we can't prove that it's used by reliable sources to represent an official flag. Shii (tock) 10:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I just went to their blog to see if I could find some basis for a flag, but instead I found another flag that they are offering for sale! http://xabooks.blogspot.jp/2011/02/blog-post.html Shii (tock) 10:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This article from the Daily Mail uses the white-outlined black meander on a red background as an icon for the party. Not sure if that constitutes a flag, but I'll keep looking. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Another article from the Daily Mail has this caption for an image from the interview I linked in my first post: "Far right: Leader of the Greek Golden Dawn party Nikolaos Mihaloliakos is backed a by two burly supporters and his party's swastika-style flag as he speaks to reporters following strong election gains". That certainly says something. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Times of Israel has a similar photo and says in the article that their "flag closely resembles the Nazi swastika". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This photoset sourced to the AP calls it the "party flag". I think it's pretty clear that this is indeed such. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This piece over at Reuters mentions a black and red flag fluttering in the wind [1] Dolescum (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

...and not just any flag: "the group's flag"! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

These citations seem sufficient for me. Shii (tock) 11:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I am Greek. I have many connections to XA(GD). Their party symbol USED TO BE that red-black meander but it is no longer that. Why? Because after they saw they started getting so much support they wanted to make their symbol more "Hellenic". Therefore, for some months now they are using the Meandros flag with OTHER colors than red-black, and they also now encircle the Meandros with olive leafs, which is the Hellenic national tree, and is connected to our traditions and customs. You can keep this flag in the article but ONLY in the "History" section.

[2] Party Parliament Member Helias Kasidiaris wearing T-shirt with the "refreshed" emblem. [3] [4] [5] This is the symbol and colors used IN THE OFFICIAL TV ELECTIONS SPOT [6] Even their offices have changed their symbol outside the doors etc [7] Their logo used as "signature" in many articles in their official party page [8] Even in the official Ministry of Internal Affairs report for the elections, their logo is the NEW one. [9] Official party logo in their website on the "2012 elections" section [10] Leaflets they handed out during the elections: [11] [12][13] I can post a thousands sources if you wish. All over the Greek media their symbol is the new one, like it or not. The "party flag" section is useless, no other Greek party page has anything similar, and I think some only want it there to solidify claims of them being "Neo-Nazis". I am removing the "Party Flag". You can post this picture of this flag and the older red-black Meandros in the Historical section if you so much wish to do so. By the way, it's not a "swastika shaped cross" as many ignorant foreign media like to intentionally mispressent it so, it's called MEANDROS and it is an ancient Hellenic symbol, symbolizing continuity, stability, order and progression. It's a wonderful symbol and relating it to the Nazi Swastika is either an act of ignorance or propaganda. If you disagree with anything I've said, talk about it on the page before putting back the old flag as "flag logo" again. I'm sick of correcting it over and over again. Alexispao (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It also seems that the older flag is posted on the "allegations of neo-nazism" section. No need to add it anywhere else. It's already viewable on the page. Alexispao (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As explained before, logo≠flag. To illustrate, here is the logo of the NSDAP; here is their flag. Similarly, here is the logo of the Italian National Fascist Party; here is their flag. Note that they are not the same. Whether or not they changed the logo is irrelevant because logos aren't the same as flags.

You provide no response to the fact that Mihaloliakos gave his speech next to one of these supposedly retired flags, nor to the any of the other sources provided above which support the flag being still in official use. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in the sources that you've posted that states the Black and Red flag has been retired in favour of a Blue and Gold one, merely some pictures of a logo ( N.B. A logo != a flag ) and some pictures of the flag you mention. That flag was also in the video originally posted when this topic opened. We have reliable secondary sources identifying the black and red flag as a symbol of the party. Unless someone can produce a reliable source ( preferably a secondary one ) that says they're NOT using the red and black flag any more, or I've missed something, my opinion is that it should remain in the article, where it was. Also, please do not cast aspersions on the motives of other editors, Alexispao. Dolescum (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And just in case anyone was still wondering about the practise, here are more parties with separate logos/symbols and flags: Nasjonal Samling, National Socialist Movement in the Netherlands, National Unity Party (Canada), Falange, KPD, Romanian Communist Party, Syrian Social Nationalist Party, Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Iraq Region, Ba'ath Party (Syrian-led faction), French Popular Party, Fatherland's Front, Bharatiya Janata Party, Kuomintang, German National People's Party, VMRO-DPMNE, Communist Party of China. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What you posted above me is completely irrelevant. Parties in Greece use their logo as flags. So does New Democracy,PASOK,KKE,SYRIZA,DIMAR,ANEL and everyone in this country. And I see nothing in your sources that the red and black flag is still the main flag. This flag is obviously their historical flag and that's why it's along the new one (on the background). Also, can't you see the pictures? I can click on the links I provided and see a bunch of Golden Dawn photos with their new flags and logo. Here is a photo from a reuters.com article [14] depicting a Golden Dawn member holding the black-golden FLAG. This article is relatively new. Articles from years ago all depict the older version of the flag. They have obviously changed. Of course they did not do it with media coverage as before the elections they were an insignificant party with 0.29% of the votes that most people had never heard of in their life time. Even reuters.com [15] calls them "secretive". They never had media coverage and little was known for them before these elections.

Also, in the official store of the party here [16] at the "Σημαίες" (meaning Flags) section they do not have the flag you depict in the article. Please also look at this picture from Imia 2012, their most recent mass gathering. [17] Note the black-gold FLAGS (not logos, FLAGS) as well as the "ε" flags. Of course some people still take it with them at gatherings but the new flags that are being made have olive leafs and new colour patterns. If you are STILL not convinced I can provide you with the Imia 2012 video, showing that this is not THE flag but ONE of the flags that are being used. You claim it to be the "party flag". Bring me an article regarding the flag, and the official statement where they clarify that this is their "official" flag (as you depict it on wikipedia) and I will accept I was wrong the whole time. As far as the "aspersions" are concerned, I need to tell you that in the Greek counterpart of this article there is 0 objectivity. I have tried many times to ensure NPOV and objectiveness but even the moderators are biased against this party. Due to the nature of this party and all the sensualization over it's purpose and ideology I am a little suspicious when people insist on publishing incorrect information on the article. Perhaps your intentions are good and you were wrong out of ignorance, perhaps you wanted to selectively present things the way you want like some people in Greek wikipedia did. Who knows? This is in no way an offence to you, I'm just explaining why I was a little suspicious. I am removing the flag logo, ONCE again. The flag can only be put back on after you bring me the official statement that I have asked for. Thanks. Alexispao (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see a picture of a man holding a Blue and Gold flag similar to the other ones we discussed, some links to blogs ( these are NOT reliable sources ) and a Reuters article that we mentioned before you entered the discussion. We have reliable third party sources, listed above your entry into the discussion, that state the flag you seem so keen on removing is a major symbol of the party. If the articles we're using as sources are outdated, please, provide us with links to more recent articles by reliable sources that support your position, otherwise you seem to be presenting original research, which is against wikipedia policy. Again, please refrain from casting aspersions on the motives of other editors, it is uncivil. Dolescum (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This "blog" is a primary source, like it or not. Even their official page is a blog. It is a small party with limited budget, it is not my fault. Again, I am asking for proof that this is the official flag of the party. An official statement or declaration would suffice. According to ALL the pictures I have linked, their latest flags have the meandros surrounded by olive leafs. I can accept that this is "one of" the flags used by supporters of Golden Dawn, but it is not the OFFICIAL flag and therefore, it is improper to present it as such. Moreover, as I have said before, this same flag is used on the article under the "Allegations of NeoNazism" section. The flag IS present in the article, I am not "keen on removing it". I am only removing it from a section it does not belong to. I will accept this flag being presented as the "official flag" once you post an official statement. I have already provided you with the latest pictures from the latest articles. The last thing I can do is provide you with the Imia 2012 march (video file), so you can see it's not the primary flag of the party. Also I did not remove the "symbol", but the flag. I think that we all agree that the Meandros is the official party symbol.Alexispao (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand our sourcing policy. See WP:PRIMARY. Reliable secondary are the standard around here. FWIW, I have done some poking around and have found that the KKE by and large does not use its red-on-white logo on its flags, going for the classic communist yellow-on-red [18]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As for "recent sources", the ones presented above are all very recent. This, for example, is from this past Sunday. Party flag, party logo on a banner, national-type flag. Pretty standard setup. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem that I see here is that the Daily Mail is not based in Greece and should be given much less weight than any source we can find in Greek. Furthermore, other articles on Greek political parties, e.g. New Democracy, Coalition of the Radical Left do not have any image of an official flag. (Hell, Democratic Party (United States) doesn't have one either!) This ceases to be a matter of finding sources and is now about our own judgment of how to portray the group in an NPOV manner. I would side with Alexispao in saying that including a disputed "official flag" image for Golden Dawn alone seems POV, especially since the flag is already elsewhere in the article. Shii (tock) 03:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Your argumentation isn't very logic or convincing. That other parties don't have flags but only logos doesn't necessarily mean that this party can't have a flag that is different from its logo. And on English Wikipedia English-language sources are indeed preferred over foreign-language (including Greek) sources, and not the other way round, because all users can check and use English-language sources while only Greek-speaking users can understand Greek sources. --RJFF (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect. Sources written by Greeks will obviously be more reliable than those written by outsiders based in London, whom we cannot assume to have visited Greece at all. I don't even know how this could be debated. You have to use common sense with RS; see for example Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources) Shii (tock) 09:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Shii, I don't know what policy or guideline you're basing your opinion here on; it goes against most accepted practice here. WP:NONENG specifically says "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones", which means that your "incorrect" was incorrect. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You're claiming that being Greek magically makes journalists less prone to dishonesty, inaccuracy or misinterpretation? Could you explain how that works, please? Dolescum (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He is claiming that Greek journalists have much more experience and information about Golden Dawn as opposed to foreign journalists. From what I have seen so far foreign news depict the party symbol as another version of the "swastika",when in fact it's the Meandros. This display of ignorance makes it easier to believe they have little to no insight about Greek politics and especially new and secretive parties such as Golden Dawn. Are you claiming that being non-Greek magically makes journalists more prone to honesty and accuracy? Perhaps you should explain how that works, I think it would be a very interesting theory to read.Alexispao (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's saying it is a swastika per se, just that it looks a hell of a lot like a swastika. Yeah yeah, it's some nice traditional Greek design and whatnot, but it's not like the swastika was some random invention either. Angular black designs outlined in white on a red background look disturbingly like Nazi symbols. I cannot see how ChA could not have considered that as they made this flag. Not exactly a "patriotic" scheme, if you ask me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I claim journalists are equally likely to be dishonest or inaccurate wherever they come from, incompetence being a universal thing. Sorry it's not that interesting a theory. Dolescum (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Meandros is an ancient symbol...it was not created by the Golden Dawn, I hope you are aware of that. "It looks like it" doesn't make it a swastika (since it is obviously not) and the massacres you are linking us at have nothing to do with Golden Dawn. If in your eyes it resembles a swastika then you probably are biased and should choose to refrain from editing this article. By the time these massacres occured Golden Dawn didn't even exist. They put an ancient symbol on their flag, simple as that. People should stop trying to enforce their POV on the article. Alexispao (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the color-scheme makes people think it looks like a Nazi symbol. It sure looks like a swastika to me! Fleetham (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Bias against social nationalism/fascism

The presentation of this article is strongly bias against their social nationalist ideology and thus the Golden Dawn in general. Wikipedia is supposed to be completely neutral and yet this article is repleat with epithets, is constantly on attack mode, and sections are decicated to other ideologies as "accusations".

Yes, Golden Dawn operates outside of the "defined" paradym of globalist parasite neo-liberalism and soft-Marxist pseudo-socialism, offering a third positionist worldview, but look at the article on the Communist Party of Greece from the exact same country. The latter is a Marxist-Leninist party (you know, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, North Korea, etc), who got more votes in the 2012 election, yet there isn't the same hostility as you find in this article. Its the same with the Popular Orthodox Rally, the supposedly "neutral" Wikipedia, permits open season propaganda/emotive bias against any organisation which either stands up for ethnic European interests or traditional Christianity.

What is the basis for such a wide chasm in presentation? Some degenerates who attended the London School of Economics, are linked to Chatham House, or their French and American equivelents have soiled their little panties over the Golden Dawn in the international crypto-red press so we must be bias? This needs to be a completely un-emotive and neutral article. Including no bias against fascism or national socialism. Style against Democracy (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE, anyone? Dolescum (talk) 11:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

How is a group that just got 7% of the vote on its home turf a fringe group? Shii (tock) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No, Style against Democracy's views. You're not claiming that being pro National Socialism and that believing the entire planets' media are involved in a vast conspiracy are mainstream opinions in the west, are you? Plus I thought XA denied being National Socialists, anyway... Dolescum (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

New Website and Positions on Albania and Cyprus

Golden Dawn has a new website since their old one got suspended today, though I do not know if this new one is temporary or not: [19]. Also interesting article suggesting that Golden Dawn supports integration with Cyprus (possibly through invasion?), as well as liberation of Northern Epirus in neighboring Albania, these should probably be mentioned in ideology. [20] --Kuzwa (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Making this article more objective

I'm going to be adding the POV tag to this article for a few reasons:

1. This article lacks party ideology, thus makes a lot of assertions from the media without actually giving what the real policies of the party are.

2. There is a lot of information on what people associated with the party have done such as crimes and so forth, we don't have all the racists associated with the Republican party that have committed crimes listed on their page so why do we do it here? It's fine if there is to be a criticism section of some sort but it needs to be kept much more objective.

3. Lots of terminology thrown around that contradicts each other, such as are they Nazis, Metaxists, Neo-Nazis, Nationalists, Anti-Nazis. What are they? This could be definitely solved by some AUTHORITATIVE sources if there are some, the amount of simple news articles needs to be reduced on this page as many of them are non-objective.

I don't know much about this party but the quality of this article is poor, and the neutrality is questionable. Anyone with more expertise feel free to address these concerns. Thanks. --Kuzwa (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's much here to question.

1. Third party sources are more reliable since the party often tries to conceal its internally taught ideology under the umbrella term 'greek nationalism'. If you would like to add an ideology section that's great, but you'll have to find reliable third-party sources and not just copy their own flattering view on the matter.

2. We can assume the reported actions were endorsed by the party as shown by their leader's and members' support of the accused, e.g. the Periandros case. Furthermore the party self-identified itself as an association of members for a large part of their history and it makes some sense to report on individuals, especially when they remain members and their actions were never condemned by their leadership.

3. The reported sources are reliable (much more than the party itself for reasons described above). Your wording suggests that metaxist/nazi/neo-nazi/nationalist are mutually exclusive terms, which they are not; they celebrate Metaxas and the third Reich, and they are considered to be a part of the european neo-nazi movement. They are commonly classified as neo-nazi, if you have a reliable authoritative source that states otherwise then go ahead and add it.

A poor article is not non-neutral by default. Unless you have some reason to dispute the neutrality of the cited sources, I think the tag is unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.141.234.249 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the first point. Their actual ideology, according to the party itself should be explained in the article, anything being argued else-wise is simply criticism or analysis which does not constitute their policies just the opinion of experts or opponents. The POV tag should stay. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

With respect, might I point out WP:PRIMARY? Dolescum (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Dolescum, while I agree with the concept of using secondary sources first, we should also be authoritative secondary sources to explain the Golden Dawn's ideology, if this is not possible we should not just be going off the hearsay of many editorials. If the only text describing the "official" ideology is the party documents themselves then we have to use them. I should also note WP:IAR, criticisms and interpretations can be added in a criticism section or we can start a sub-article for the ideologies of the Golden Dawn and how different "experts" interpret them. --Kuzwa (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen the IAR argument invoked at Suicide Methods over including the number for crisis hotline in the article. Consenus was that if you have to quote IAR, you're doing it wrong. WP:PRIMARY doesn't mean we can't include statements from XA in the article, but regardless of your opinion of those writing the secondary sources, that's what wikipedia policy states we should prioritise. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your statements, but perhaps you'd like to review WP:SOAP, too. Dolescum (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dolescum if you are trying to suggest I am some sort of Golden Dawn sympathizer you are dead-wrong. The fact of the matter remains that we need an authoritative ideology, not random pieces put together from various editorials and opinion articles, if there are no scholarly sources then I actually think that their official ideology would be the best thing to use in references (if they have one), criticism and analysis can then be added afterwards. --Kuzwa (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Kuzwa, once again, no-one is saying that any material XA publish cannot be included in the article. What I see you as arguing is that primary sources should take priority over secondary ones, in violation of policy. Please correct me if my perception is incorrect. Additionally, politicians of all stripe hardly have a reputation for pristine honesty, what would make so XA different that suddenly all those secondary sources are wrong? Also, WP:CRIT states we should try in integrate criticism into the article as much as possible rather than producing separate sections for it, which seems to be the way you're proposing we write about their ideology, isn't it? Dolescum (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dolescum, that's not quite what I'm saying. I am emphasizing primary sources for the ideology section, because the existence of reliable and authoritative secondary sources that use the Golden Dawn ideology are questionable, and I haven't managed to find any. Secondly, pristine honesty of politicians has nothing to do with the stated ideology of party, also having an ideology section is common on many political pages, or having a separate sub-article (which I don't think is necessary here). --Kuzwa (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Kuzwa, I'm still not entirely grasping why you're regarding secondary sources as questionable. Tell you what, how about you post an example or two and state what's wrong with them? I'd like to make sure we understand each other clearly rather than risk any confusion between us. Dolescum (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. One thing I have spotted in the sources that doesn't seem to be referenced in the article is that XA members have been, assuming I'm remembering correctly, providing food and security services to the Greek population in place of their melting public services. As this isn't what I'd expect from a political party, it strikes me notable and might help readers undestand their sudden jump in popularity. Your thoughts, everyone? Dolescum (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Dolescum, there is a lot missing from the article perhaps that is why it appears so unbalanced, but an ideology section is a must. --Kuzwa (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ideology section

I thought this has been argued before over and over again but people seem to still have the need to enforce their POV on the text. The Ideology section should cover their official beliefs. There is a whole section concerning "Allegations of Nazism". Perhaps the sources concerning such accusations should be used there. In the introductory text, it is stated that they are accused of supporting Nazism and they reject it. Even at their latest interview (I can translate it when I have time if necessary), Elias Kasidiaris (the Press representative for GD) said "We are not nazis, we are Greek nationalists". I consider it unfair and extremely biased to mispresent their ideology as Nazists just because people accuse them of being that. If we all start calling Obama an "alien" and we gather enough articles of people considering him as an alien, perhaps we could also switch his nationality to "extraterrestial", for instance. I ask that the ideologies they are rejecting are removed from the Ideology section. I will leave you some time to use the sources to expand the "Allegations of Nazism" section, if you so wish. If it does not get removed I will dispute the neutrality of the article. Thanks. Alexispao (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone else disputed the article's neutrality before I did.Alexispao (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It was already disputed an idiot IP just took it down. --Kuzwa (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You still don't seem to understand the basic principles of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on third-party, independent, reliable sources and not on partisan press releases by the subject of the article itself. If all reliable sources writing about Golden Dawn describe it as neo-nazi, then for Wikipedia it is a neo-nazi party. If all reliable sources writing about Obama would describe him as an alien, he would be an alien for Wikipedia. The difference is that they don't. --RJFF (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It probably is you that doesn't understand it well RJFF. Nobody here is saying that we shouldn't mention that Golden Dawn might be/probably is neo-nazi. But for that we have a seperate place called "allegations of neo-nazism". In the ideology section we should mention what they officially believe.

To give it simply, imagine a description. Right now we are doing this "the neonazis would say they are nationalists who officially believe x but probably are neo-nazis because y". It should be "the far-right who officially believe x but probably are neo-nazis because x".

In short, we keep the sections seperated, not for some sort of bias, but for the sake of readability. The sections are mixed up and a mess currently. Arathian (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All content of Wikipedia has to refer to independent, third-party, reliable sources. We don't structure the article in some sections that are based on what the subject of the article itself says (first-person) and some sections that represent the outside view. The whole article, like every other Wikipedia article, has to be based on sources independent from the article's subject. If all sources outside the Golden Dawn describe this party as neo-Nazi, then it is neo-Nazi in the terms of Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is based on secondary sources. --RJFF (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

But not all of the articles say that. Some of them say they are not neo-Nazi, including all the citations I had in this article yesterday, which have mysteriously disappeared today. Shii (tock) 14:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

First you claim that only (probably biased) media, but no authoritative sources, tag the party as neo-Nazi, now that academic sources have been added, supporting the same statement, your argumentation seems to reduce to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are several reliable, academic sources verifying that Golden Dawn is a neo-Nazi party. How can you dismiss these sources and invalidate their assertion? --RJFF (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

RJFF, which are the academic sources? --Kuzwa (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Miliopoulos, Lazaros (Ph.D. in political science, lecturer at the University of Bonn) - article is part of a scholarly work, published by an expert publishing house (SpringerLink)
Chalk, Peter (Ph.D. in political science) - article is published in a scholarly journal and by an expert publishing house (Taylor & Francis)
Dina Porat (Ph.D. in Jewish history, professor at the Tel Aviv University) and Stauber, Roni (Ph.D. in Jewish studies, lecturer at the Tel Aviv University) - work published by the University of Nebraska Press

I don't think you understand the pinciple of NPOV. If the organization does not describe its ideology as Neo-Nazi then we cannot declare its ideology Neo-Nazi no matter how good the sources are. Besides, just because someone has a PHD in Political Science that doesn't necessarily mean they're qualified to comment professionally on the subject (it's a broad field.) I would actually be surprised to see the group described as Neo-Nazi outright in an academic publication since the group appears to have more the characteristics of a Neo-Fascist organization. Very similar of course, but not the same, and I would expect that differentiation in an article written by a specialist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.165.181 (talk) 17:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The editors at both British National Party and English Defense League seem to disagree with your interpretation. Dolescum (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I know it sounds like hairsplitting but I think it's an important distinction to make if we want to improve the quality of the article.. and dolescum, stop changing the damn ideology section. The text in the body already alludes to the fact that the group are effectively Neo-Nazis; explicitly labeling them Neo-Nazis disregards NPOV, it looks amateurish and it degrades the article. If Golden Dawn say they aren't Neo-Nazis then, as a matter of neutrality, we have to take that at face value. The point of the article isn't to tell the reader how to perceive Golden Dawn, the point to present the facts and allow them to draw their own conclusions based on those facts (which suggest they're basically neo-nazis anyways.) unsigned comment added by Uastyrdzhi (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, that is erroneous. Accepting it would mean we could not say Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust unless he confessed to it, which is ridiculous when the other evidence is he was is overwhelming. See this discussion over at English Defense League, to start. If the 3rd party sources say such things about their ideology, that is the end of the matter. Are we really going to have to repeat that debate? Dolescum (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Apples and Oranges. This isn't a historic debate and we're dealing with subjective qualifications. Besides, even a good holocaust article would present evidence alone and leave that facts to the reader to assess. The other issue here is that there are some differences between Golden Dawn and more 'classic' Neo-Nazi organizations which subscribe to Nazism as their stated ideology and have a world view predicated upon biological racism and racial antisemitism. Now, obviously there is going to be some overlap with Neo-Nazism within just about any far-right organization and there certainly is in the case of Golden Dawn; that does not, however, mean that the entire group can be accurately characterized as Neo-Nazi just as organizations like the Italian Social Movement, English Defense League or British National Party are not Neo-Nazi organizations per se. In the case of Golden Dawn you have a broad far-right movement which includes neo-nazi elements but which also has a strong nationalist-populist tendency which does not fit within Neo-Nazism as a generalization. All that aside, your sources are, frankly, weak: I believe you posted only one academic article and it was written in German which makes it useless to an overwhelming majority of readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uastyrdzhi (talk • contribs) 20:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What you are doing is WP:original research, which may be very interesting, but is deprecated on Wikipedia. If reputable scholars describe the party as neo-Nazi, then we have to accept this, as Wikipedia is based on WP:verifiability and WP:reliable sources. Unless you can show that these sources are unreliable or partisan, I cannot accept that they are ignored or rejected. --RJFF (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It has yet to be demonstrated that reputable scholars consider Golden Dawn to be Neo-Nazi. If somebody were to find academic articles written by experts in the area of far-right political movements which characterize Golden Dawn as a Neo-Nazi party then we could lay this issue to rest. I doubt you will be able to find such an article, however, for the reasons I've mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uastyrdzhi (talk • contribs) 20:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I can count four academic sources verifying Golden Dawn's categorization as a neo-nazi party. --RJFF (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Then they should have been linked in the infobox. Which sources are we talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uastyrdzhi (talk • contribs) 20:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

They were, as can clearly been seen in this diff you chose to revert. [21]. Dolescum (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dolescum: I reverted it because the sources are insubstantial. You have a German source and the stump of an article about security in the middle east, the only source which appears to potentially be relevant or helpful is Anti-Semitism in Greece which has no link. I haven't even been able to verify that any of these documents support your argument because access to them is restricted. RJFF: I'm not doing original research, I haven't entered new information into the article, all I've done is delete input which shouldn't have entered the article in the first place. Nobody has provided significant evidence that Golden Dawn is widely considered a Neo-Nazi organization in any relevant field of study; put some meaningful source material up and I'll bend my NPOV position in compromise, but for now I see very little justification for the label so I've got to play devil's advocate. - Uastyrdzhi

I believe English sources are prefered, not mandatory, hence the presence of Greek sources. An EU-wide review of extremists is a valuable source, regardless of language. The document is available for anyone to purchase, without restriction. If you are unwilling to pay, that is your choice but it doesn't give you an excuse to imply I am a liar. Dolescum (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that you're a liar, sorry if it came off that way; it's just that I'm not convinced that the prevailing scholarly view holds Golden Dawn to be Neo-Nazi. The German source would be fine if it were accompanied by more accessible supporting documents. Obviously I'm not going to buy the other articles for the sake of settling this matter. What we need here is some English language source material that is accessible and describes the organization as Neo-Nazi in some detail. It's not enough to depend on articles that make passing reference to Golden Dawn as Greek Neo-Nazis, if those standards applied then the Republicans would've made Socialism a permanent fixture in the Democratic Party's infobox by now. - Uastyrdzhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.165.181 (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You compare publications by reputable scholars to partisan propaganda. Unless you show why they should be considered biased or unreliable, it is unacceptable that you just dismiss them. You say that you're "not convinced that the prevailing scholarly view holds Golden Dawn to be Neo-Nazi". No offence, but you don't have to be convinced - the sources speak for themselves. If you don't want to pay money, you could go to a library and search the book there or you could just trust the users who have added the reference per WP:Assume good faith, which is a basic principle of cooperation on Wikipedia. While English-language sources are preferred, sources in other languages are valid as well. Removing them together with the content they support is unacceptable. --RJFF (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Lazaros Miliopoulos, by the way, is an extremism expert, and his article is detailed. Thus your opposition is invalid. --RJFF (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

First you accuse me of original research, which is absurd considering I didn't enter any text into the article. Now you're putting words by claiming that I compared scholarly publications to partisan propaganda which I certainly didn't - read my comment again if you need to, I said if any passing reference to an organization by this or that definition were acceptable then partisan commentary could enter articles easily, I wasn't comparing these articles to anything. WP:Assume good faith has nothing to do with this either, I am not accusing anybody of trying to sabotage the article, I'm trying to improve it by insisting on stronger sources in support of information that is disputed. You claim the predominate academic view of Golden Dawn is that it's a Neo-Nazi organization but you haven't produced any verifiable English language articles describing Golden Dawn's ideology in any detail. What we need are sources which confirm this assertion beyond a reasonable doubt; what we have are sources which are inaccessible or non-english which by themselves are unsatisfactory. - Uastyrdzhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.165.181 (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, the party's own terms should come before any terms assigned to it by scholars, unless if you have reliable sources that says the party lies about its own beliefs. Shii (tock) 11:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Looked at your proposed compromise in the history, that looks reasonable to me, though an IP edito disagrees and has reignited the edit war, it seems. Dolescum (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy or something. We don't vote on what's right and we don't make compromises to make some users happy. Everything that can be verified with reliable sources must be included and cannot be dismissed just because some users don't like it. If you think that the sources aren't reliable, please let them be checked at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you think there is a problem with neutrality, take it to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --RJFF (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

RJFF this has nothing to do with what I like or dislike. You persist in framing this argument in your own terms to trivialize my position without actually addressing any of the points I've been making. You do not have verifiable sources and the Neo-Nazi label is disputed. Payblocked articles and a German article alone do not justify your position. If you can find a single, verifiable English language source that details Golden Dawn's Neo-Nazi ideology in any detail whatsoever, post it and I'll drop the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uastyrdzhi (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to purchase sources to verify our claims to your own satisfaction is not a reason to imply another editor is lying. This has been pointed out to you before. At me count, your account or the IP your are editing from ( see this diff as clear evidence you are editing at that IP [22] ) four times in the last 24 hour. You would appear to be in breach of WP:3RR. Dolescum (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not implying that anybody is lying. The excerpts which have been provided do not actually describe Golden Dawn's ideology, nor do the stubs for the payblocked articles which are considered second-rate sources anyways. Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources" exceptional claims including "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community" in this case the relevant community being Golden Dawn, which disputes Neo-Nazism as their political ideology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uastyrdzhi (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

They aren't second-rate. There is no guideline to prefer free online sources over sources published in books and journals that are not gratis available on the internet. Most high-quality acadamic sources are in books and journals and not on the net. Stop dismissing these sources just because you can't acccess them from your desktop at home. --RJFF (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines state that accessibility doesn't affect the reliability of the source material. I don't doubt that these sources are from reputable publications and could be used reliably in a certain context. My problem with these articles, besides the difficulty of verifying them, is that they don't appear to elaborate on Golden Dawn's ideology in any depth and cannot be construed as high-quality sources in relation to the claim they're being used to support. The excerpts which have been posted so far apply the term Neo-Nazi to Golden Dawn but don't actually describe the organization's ideology. These sources would be sufficient if it weren't for the fact that the organization itself disputes the term, so obviously some further clarification is necessary. I think that the best way to resolve this dispute would be for those parties with access to this source material to post more detailed excerpts in support of the label's inclusion. We should confirm that these sources either justify the application of the term Neo-Nazi or find better supporting sources, if neither is manageable then the term has no place in the infobox. Again, I don't doubt your honesty or goodwill, but at an impasse like this we should cooperate to determine whether or not the inclusion of the term is appropriate. Uastyrdzhi (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hold on. You're simultaneously claiming that you know the content of the sources is insufficient while also claiming that you can't look at the sources. You could not possibly make a judgement as the the content of the sources without examining them. Both claims of your cannot be true at the same time. Didn't think this through, did you? Dolescum (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Your first time reading, Dolescum? You misunderstood: I haven't been able to examine the documents, I said I've read clips of text that supposedly support your claims, RCFF posted excerpts from the sources. However these excerpts actually tell us nothing as they do not describe the party's ideology and do not seem to indicate that the sources describe it at any length either. If you and RJFF worked as hard trying at making this article better as you do at trying to make me look like an ass then it'd be featured by now. Uastyrdzhi (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion on a factual level, WP:assume good faith and avoid WP:personal attacks. No one wants to make you look like an ass. I have tried my best to argue factually. My apologies if you had the impression that someone argued against you personally. Dolescum, can you access the Miliopoulos article in full? If not, I will go to the library and try to find the book. --RJFF (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Uastyrdzhi (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Metaxism

Since Metaxism is an avowed form of Fascism, but largely unrecognized in the English speaking world, does it seem like a bit of a cop-out to anyone else to list their ideology as Metaxism rather than Fascism or perhaps both? It comes across as a bit of a "dog whistle". -- Alyas Grey : talk 07:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Metaxas was allied with Britain and fought both the Nazis and the Fascists. This article seems to be mostly edited by non-Greeks who want to insert their own ideology, and thus this whole debate is getting ridiculous. Shii (tock) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, what on earth is going on with this article? I had about 5 reliable sources lined up from Reuters and the Greek press, why were they all removed and replaced with ? Shii (tock) 13:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Being Greek is not a requirement for editing Wikipedia articles on Greek topics. --RJFF (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Metaxism is not generally considered a form of Fascism by scholars working in the area, although it did borrow some of the trappings of Fascism. Metaxism is considered a conservative-authoritarian doctrine which is traditionalist and actually at odds with Fascism, the latter being a more radical and modernist movement. The Metaxas government is often described as Fascist, but erroneously according to specialists like Stanley G. Payne. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uastyrdzhi (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough... The Metaxism article definitely needs some work then. -- Alyas Grey : talk 04:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, its somewhere on my to do list. -Uastyrdzhi— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.165.181 (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Far-right or "right wing extremism"

am removing some recent edits on the political position where it said "right wing extremism" Far-right is more universal and could more easily find sources that it is so 67.212.88.26 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that verify right-wing extremism. If you want to change, please present sources of the same quality level that contradict. --RJFF (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

it is more common to use "Far-right" to describe the party and means the exact sam thing 95.200.34.147 (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. "Right-wing extremism" is the terminology which the cited, reliable sources use. --RJFF (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

[23] "One could ask whether the inclusion of small parties on the far left (AN- TARSYA) or the far right (Chrysi Avyi) could have influenced the position of the established parties."[24] "the rise of far-right parties: the Sweden Democrats, the British National Party or the Golden Dawn in Greece" [25] "after far-right groups like the Hellenic Front and Golden Dawn organized demonstrations" [26] "The Golden Dawn is a small extremist organisation of the far-Right" [27] listed in the Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right [28] "sponsored by the Greek far-right group Golden Dawn" [29] "minor public incidents instigated by small far-right groups like the 'Golden Dawn'. See also a whole slew of news hits Please note that Right-wing extremism redirects to Far-right politics. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia says: Maoists and Trots are good, but Golden Dawn are very naughty boys

This talk page is for the improvement of the article Golden Dawn. Please discuss other issues elsewhere.
The following discussion has been closed by RJFF. Please do not modify it.
Following on from above, I'd like to point out another major POV bias on Wikipedia presentation of Greek politics. SYRIZA got 52 seats in the recent election, this party is a coalition which includes Maoists (Communist Organization of Greece), Trots (Internationalist Workers' Left (Greece), Anticapitalist Political Group, Κόκκινο) and other associated hardline communists (Movement for the United in Action Left). Yet in the intro, they are just described as "left", not far or extreme, epithets used in regards to the Golden Dawn. They're not called "neo-commies" or "neo-bolshies", in fact the userbox and introduction makes no mention of communism. There is no section of ideology as "accusation". They're presented to the world by Wikipedia as good happy-go-lucky democratic guys fighting globalism and capitalism. Style against Democracy (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC) "Communist Organization of Greece" is far-left, so this group should be far-right, roughly. Shii (tock) 05:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC) All of those organizations seem to be described as 'far-left' or 'radical left' in their articles apart from Syriza which is a coalition and includes a variety of parties with a range of views. Trotskyism, Leninism and similar descriptions imply Communism which is obviously a far-left position. If you take issue with the way those articles are being managed then you should address the problems with them in their talk pages. Uastyrdzhi (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Areas which appear to hold bias (of some form or another)

-The "allegations of Nazism" section does not provide, IMO, an adequate defense from Golden Dawn party members. Perhaps we could cite an interview with a party member such as this one (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0428/1224315295898.html) which explains why these allegations are false. --Mathiasr101 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Over reliance on Jewish/American polemical sources for "neo-nazi" claim

The sources cited in the introduction for the claim that this is a so-called "neo-nazi" (a political epithet) party are exclusively Jewish, American and/or polemical in nature. This includes Peter Chalk of the neocon RAND Corporation, as well as American-based Jewish polemicists such as Moses Altsech, Roni Stauber, etc, who specialise in pseudo-sciences of "anti-semitism studies". Many of these external articles cited as references, contain propaganda phrases unacceptable to any project which aims to be neutral; such as "extremist" (WP:EXTREMIST) and "hate group" (a subjective concept, propagated mostly by radical Ashkenazi Jews in the United States with groups like the ADL and SPLC, against political and ethno-religious rivals). It would seem that these are not reliable sources for the article due to problems of political neutrality. Certainly they shouldn't be cited in the intro and if included at all, it should be made clear who exactly is making the claim. Style against Democracy (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• I took one look at this article, took one look at the logo and the party flag, and went "Aw HELL NAW". Nobody make them pick those colors to go with that symbol, and quite honestly, the only thing that could make that flag look more nazi-like is if they added a white circle to it. The sources should be made clear, but I think it's kinda hard NOT to see the resemblance on at least a superficial level. Veled (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)