Talk:Golden Dawn (political party)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golden Dawn (political party) article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Article policies
|
||
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | |||
|
|
|||
| Golden Dawn (political party) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 1 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
Contents
Links[edit]
>>v Greece's ultra-right party stages protest >> Two Golden Dawn MPs imprisoned in Greece> >Greek riot police clash with anti-fascists (Lihaas (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)).
Category:antisemitism[edit]
I have removed this category because as per various resolutions bias categories are generally not allowed for individuals and organisations, unless they themselves self-profess an anti-semitic motive, or the organisation is relative to the history of antisemitism in general.
Using these precedents, I have removed the antisemitism category tag because, while many cadres in Golden Dawn express anti-Jewish intent and ideology, they themselves are not primarily motivated by antisemitism in general, but what they perceive to be the nationalist interests of Greece, which would make them perhaps fascist, but not inherently anti-semitic, which would make this category fail the test of the two resolutions I posted regarding bias categories, so I will remove this category tagging.
Solntsa90 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Detailing Metaxas in the lead[edit]
@Sperxios: I see your rationale about adding detail on Metaxas in the edit comment, but I'm still not entirely sold. The language you've used is a definite improvement over your last attempt, but given that the lead is supposed to be a quick synopsis of the article, this article is focused on XA rather than Metaxas himself, XA's regard for Metaxas is expanded lower down in the article and Metaxas name is wikilinked allowing curious users to click though to learn more, I'm still not seeing the need for that much information at that point. Fancy enlightening me? Dolescum (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that this "Metaxas" issue is too much for the lead, but this small phrase is not the cause of its clutter. You see, under normal circumstances, explaining that GD belongs to the far-right spectrum, would not take refs, quotes, etc, a small phrase would suffice. But given the circumstances (edit-war), I can understand the need for such pedantic efforts. Regardless of the above point, the phrase "admire Metaxas" must always include the "dictatorship" explanation, otherwise it gets lost in the meaning - few readers will understand that they need to click Metaxas to understand the real meaning of the phrase, the rest will just skip reading to the next sentence. In an nutshell, move the whole point into the body where fewer and more careful readers proceed - but i would refrain from leaving such a phrase unexplained.
- I still think what you've added is excessively detailed for the lead. The phrase "Greek dictator" accomplishes what you wish to remark on, surely? I don't see a need for adding more specific content than that, such as linking to the 4th of August regime article. On reflection, I think the dates that were there originally were superfluous, too. I know this article attracts a lot of contentious edits, but personally found the solution has been to add it to my watchlist and watch the edits like a hawk. Things do seem to have calmed down as a result. Dolescum (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Removing the red and black flag[edit]
This is no longer the party flag. The current flag, according to Golden Dawn's own websites is blue and gold. 90.244.6.33 (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please read WP:PRIMARY. We've had editors make this claim before. As per policy, we need more evidence than simply claims on the XA website. Dolescum (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
-
- I have read the archives, I am afraid that policy does not apply here because the primary source is the XA website and all the secondary sources include the meander with laurel, ie, not your duplicated image you are trying to protect. If you can find any primary or secondary sources that disagrees with what XA says their logo is, please provide sources and we can look to reverse the edit based on reliable sources. Until then, the flag goes I am afraid. There only needs to be one party logo per info box in accordance with other Greek party pages. The only other logo I see often in relation to XA in the last year is this one I am afraid, shown here also, here, here, EU here,and here. Notice all these images include the laurel around the meander missing from your image. Finally, that exact image you are trying to protect is already in the article further down the page, there is no need to repeat it logically. Wiki usually does not allow identical images twice in the same article as it doesn't make sense. Hope that makes sense. Each image needs a description ideally but never a repetition. You can keep 1 of the duplicated logos you are trying to protect, as long as you clearly and honestly explain it is the old logo, unless you have any evidence (primary or secondary sources) at all that it is the current logo. Reaper7 (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
- I have to agree with the above. Firstly, one should not repeat identical images. Secondly, there should be one image representing the party theme/flag/emblem in the infobox, not two. Thirdly, according to the references, the image that was removed is not the emblem of the party according to primary and the majority of secondary sources. The blue yellow and white emblem should be respected as the party's own choice. If there is any debate, the secondary emblem should be the one according to the majority of secondary sources which is this one: Golden Dawn. The image that was removed still has a twin further down the article. The article should mention that this is no longer the official emblem but an older or earlier version as it is not used by party members in press conferences, on their official website and is missing the laurel which all current new agencies show depicted on the GD emblem. Zenostar (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- So, the pair of you think a blog entitled "Destroy Zionism" is a reliable source? Well, if you want to play that game, I can start linking to imaged posted on VNN and Stormfront this week clearly showing XA members waving that flag. There's also an image of that flag on iefimerida this week. Seeing as Zenostar is fond of crashonline, I'm sure you'll be happy to see this image showing lots of big red flags ata rally posted four days ago according to google, a couple of stories on clearly using images of variants of that flag in their reports over past couple of months, there are these big red banners with black meanders on them in a image posted as part of an article on their own site two days ago, plus this article posted yesterday on their site clearly shows that flag, here it is again, post in a story on their site on the four days ago.
- The self-declared official logo might well be the one you point to, it's certainly the one used on the site of the Hellenic Parliament. Strange that the party keeps posting lots and lots of pictures of this flag you're so keen to remove from the infobox on their website if it's not notable though, wouldn't you agree? Perhaps you'd like to explain why a party would post tons of pictures their members waving an unremarkable flag on their website? Dolescum (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think we will have to start a arbitration however we will try one last avenue as is policy. You refused to answer the fact that there are two identical images in the same article, you refused to acknowledge that having two logos in one one infobox is not wikipedia policy, you reverted anyway... and finally you refuse to understand the basic logic that parties, like football clubs have logo variation among supporters and even internally, but the one any logical user should recognise is the one behind the party member speaking or the one on the actual party website. Your obsession with this needs outside help I am afraid. Sit tight. I will organise some help before the request for arbitration due to your reverts. Zenostar (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish to seek input from the wider wikipedia community, feel free. As I recall, there's discussion in the archives that the flag and the logo are separate things. Both appear to be notable visual representations of XA affiliation. The image is repeated lower down as it is relevant to the text in that section. I am unaware of a Manual of Style or Policy guideline specifically barring repetition of an image. If you are aware of one, please link to it.
- As far as attracting "outside help", you realize this looks like an overt declaration of intent to canvass, don't you? Dolescum (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think we will have to start a arbitration however we will try one last avenue as is policy. You refused to answer the fact that there are two identical images in the same article, you refused to acknowledge that having two logos in one one infobox is not wikipedia policy, you reverted anyway... and finally you refuse to understand the basic logic that parties, like football clubs have logo variation among supporters and even internally, but the one any logical user should recognise is the one behind the party member speaking or the one on the actual party website. Your obsession with this needs outside help I am afraid. Sit tight. I will organise some help before the request for arbitration due to your reverts. Zenostar (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
MP Count[edit]
In the last election, Golden Dawn is stated as getting 18 members in Parliament. However, the infobox gives their number of MPs as 16. If one of these numbers is wrong, it needs to be corrected; if they lost two members between the election and the present, the reason should be noted.
Is the discrepancy at all related to the arrests of several high-ranking Golden Dawn members?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/28/us-greece-goldendawn-idUSBRE98R02Q20130928
This article on the arrests states that, "Greek lawmakers do not lose their political rights or seats unless there is a final court ruling against them." Has such a ruling been made? I have been unable to find any source that points to this being the case, so I'm confused as to why there is a discrepancy in the number of MPs for this party. SusanBroil (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
- Old requests for peer review
- Old peer reviews using manual archive naming
- B-Class magazine articles
- Low-importance magazine articles
- B-Class Greek articles
- Low-importance Greek articles
- Politics and politicians task force articles
- WikiProject Greece general articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Low-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- B-Class fascism articles
- Low-importance fascism articles
- Fascism task force articles
- B-Class political party articles
- Low-importance political party articles
- Political parties task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
