Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece)

Hrisi Avgi is re-startirting its activities

In the last weeks of January, many changes occured in the Greek nationalist movement. It seems that Patriotic Alliance was disbanded, after Hrisi Avgi broke away from it. In the 2007 march for the anniversary of Imia, Hrisi Avgi was said to be the organiser of the march, and no mention was made to Patriotic Alliance. The same happened in a recent march in Ioannina. This article must be edited. Hrisi Avgi sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Indymedia source: [6] Mitsos 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Yes, but let me explain more about that. HA never actually used the word "disbandment", it announced that it "stopped its political activities". Since then it has claimed in its website (which continues to be updated) and its newspaper (which continues to be published, along with the magazine) that it "continues its ideological struggle", whatever that means. But in announcements above, it's making cleat that it will continue its activities. I will translate two titles of the announcements in the links above to make you understand: "Hrisi Avgi is not a ghost! It has leadership, tradition and fighters" and "Once more they are "disbanding" Hrisi Avgi". Also the newspaper will be now published every 15 days, instead of a month. Mitsos 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

IT IS NOW OFFICIAL, H.A. IS RE-STARTING ITS ACTIVITIES. Here is the official announcement: [7] and also an older one: [8] Mitsos 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The title of the announcement is: Our movement exists, remains faithfull to its cause, and it is going forward. Draw your own conclusion. Mitsos 12:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I bet you're excited. However, please remember that Wikipedia is not a propaganda wing of the party you support. Spylab 16:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

The number in 1994 election?

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

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

Condemnation of the 48 HA members

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

Ideology section

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

• Wikipedia is not supposed to provide a soap box for specific groups or individuals. Having a huge section of long propaganda quotes directly copy and pasted from a group's website and publications is the exact definition of a soap box. See WP:NOT#SOAPBOX for Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter. Some of that information could be summarized and merged into another section, but the huge unfiltered propaganda section should not be re-added. Spylab 13:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• • As I already said, the section simply describes their ideology by using their own words. It is not a soapbox. You can modify the section if you want, but you have no right to remove it. Mitsos 15:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• As I explained, that is the very definition of a soap box. I'm curious about what you imagine a soap box is, if that isn't it.Spylab 17:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think both of you are right. This article has its own "soapbox", named "Allegations of connections to the Greek Police" which is black propaganda and has been denied by serious greek authorities (minister), and it is written, but it still continues to be in the text...

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

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

Shouldn't atleast the image on the ideology section be kept?? Mitsos 14:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Fake Details

As i read the "Violence by and against Hrisi Avgi" section, i saw this: "In June 2006, three members of Hrisi Avgi were attacked and severely injured by anarchists in Galatsi, Athens.[39][40] One of the Hrisi Avgi members ended up in a coma for three weeks, and according to police, a month earlier he had injured a police officer, and was a suspect in several attacks against immigrants and anarchists in the area.[40]" This fact is true but the only reference, that stands is Hrisi Avgi's press release. And there its is said that the person who was the victim of this attack was considered a suspect for injuring a police officer. There is nowhere a reference or anything to stand for "and according to police and was a suspect in several attacks against immigrants and anarchists in the area." Nothing at all. So i reshaped it: "In June 2006, three members of Hrisi Avgi were attacked and severely injured by anarchists in Galatsi, Athens.[39][40] One of the Hrisi Avgi members ended up in a coma for three weeks, and was a suspect for injuring a police officer a month earlier.[40]" Alex Gerakis 15:30, 14 of July

Allegations of connections to the greek police section

In this edit, the section was removed. I disagree with the removal as I believe that the section is (was) factually accurate (it reported actual allegations -allegations mind you) and is very well sourced. Alex Gerakis stated above that a serious source, a minister, has denied all that. That is true and that is mentioned in the section, with the appropriate citation. But a previous minister (an equally serious source) has claimed otherwise and his claims are also included in the section with appropriate citations. Such allegations have also been made by members of parliament and this is again properly cited and attributed. I really do not see the point were the section starts qualifying as "black propaganda" as Alex Gerakis put it. Under the above rationale, I will reinstate the section.

On a sidenote, I think I have noticed that there has been a kind of "trade": removal of the Ideology section (perceived as H.A. soapbox) and also removal of the Allegations section (perceived as a "black"(!) soapbox). I do not wish to take part in the debate about the Ideology section (although I'd be in favor of having a small section to describe H.A.'s neo-Nazi orientation, though not necessarily with direct quotes from H.A.'s pamphlets) but despite that, I tottally disagree with "trading" one section for another. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But I 'm going to reinstate the ideology section, because there must be a section that will describe the party's ideology. I encourage you to edit it or you can add info about the party's ideology from other sources. In any case do not remove it again. Mitsos 10:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not I that removed it at any time. However, I again need to stress out that there cannot be a this-for-that section "trade". --Michalis Famelis (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Could you please point out to the phrases you think make the section a soapbox? Also, could you be more specific as to what you think is false about minister Chrysochoidis denying the allegations?

Apart from the above, I believe that the section as it stands makes clear that there exist no undeniable facts to support a connection. However, as you can see from the sources provided, the allegations do exist and notable Greek publications such as Eleftherotypia and To Vima have tackled the issue. And that is what I believe the section is all about: the allegations referenced to by (at least) two notable and rather respected newspapers, reporting on ministers and members of the parliament who make or deny them.

Anyway, if you believe that you can improve the section with more photos, evidence etc, please do so, only bear WP:NOR in mind. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)