Talk:Golden Dawn (political party)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golden Dawn (political party) article.|
|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.|
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?
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)
- Two of Golden Dawn's MPs have left the party but retained their seats as Independents. These are Chrysovalantis Alexopoulos (Alexopoulos is independent from now on) and Efstathios Boukouras (Boukouras left Golden Dawn). Hansi667 (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Socialist is far left wing, not right wing
Calling any socialist organization "right wing" is totally factually incorrect and a slander to right wing persons who believe in freedom from government control as opposed to dependence upon the government as in socialism. Any large government in which government is given a great deal of control over the lives of the people and is allowed to interject itself into what would ordinarily be the private lives of the individual citizens, thereby inhibiting the exercise of their freedoms, is LEFT WING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- No, regardless of how often this argument is repeated, it is wrong. The kind of right-wing ideology prevalent in the United States is not the only form of right wing ideology. If National Socialism == Socialism, then the People's Democratic Republic of Korea is clearly a democracy, yes? Your position is not taken seriously be academia. Dolescum (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- Eh, that's the most stupid thing I could every read!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
In "The Gathering Storm," Winston Churchill wrote "As Fascism sprang from Communism, so Nazism developed from Fascism." Churchill was right more often than not, and ignored -- especially by academia -- more often than not.188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Giannopoulos represented the party at a gathering in Moscow that is characterized as a "far-right gathering." In Moscow! Really? A "far-right gathering" in Moscow?
Golden Dawn MP Ilias Panagiotaros described Hitler as a "great personality, like Stalin." Claiming that Nazis could not have been socialists because they attacked communists is like claiming lions are not carnivores because they attack hyenas. No, Nazis attacked communists for the same reason lions attack hyenas, not because they are opposites, but because they compete for exactly the same space. Of course, this is not taken seriously by academia, because anything that tarnishes international socialism is not taken seriously by academia. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the description "Far-right" says much more about the phobias of those in the habit of alleging it than about any palpable feature of Golden Dawn. This is why we encounter so many flimsy retorts such as "that's the most stupid thing" and "only fringe sources" upon challenging the accusation of "Far-right". At any rate, the article has some grave shortcomings. For example, it needs more info about GD's economic and commerce policies.
- So, is their alleged "Fascism" in favor of a state accident and insurance company such as that imposed by the Mussolini regime in 1936? Or some other welfare statist health care program? Basically, we need to know if GD wants the state to provide cradle-to-grave support or to coerce ostensibly private providers to do so.
- And is GD a pack of Keynesians? Do they prefer commerce to be rigged by government? With government picking winners and losers with stimulus here and stimulus there? Are they central banking ideologues? Does GD want government to rig money markets though manipulation of interest rates? Do they favor inflationary money supply policies?
- What's their tax policy? That taxation is theft? Not likely, I think. Neither the Nazis of Germany nor the Fascists of Italy could have tolerated such a position, for they wanted everything for the state, nothing outside the state, and nothing against the state. (Hitler was, however, more eager for nationalized businesses than Mussolini.) The "Far-right" tax policy which follows is that one's every possession is, as in all leftist politics, the property of government, which has the right to tell you how much of its wealth you will be permitted to keep.
- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Here are some issues which I had also mentioned in the past:
- Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be up to 4 paragraphs, briefly covering the article's main points.
- An "Ideology" (or whatever other similar name) section should be introduced, clearly explaining their political ideology, stances towards social issues, religious beliefs, e.tc.; maybe the section "Views on foreign policy" can be made a sub-section of "Ideology". Per WP:ABOUTSELF, self-published sources can be used to support claims about the subject, so with their official website as a source some of their beliefs which are currently not included in the article can be introduced, e.g. anti-communism, anti-liberalism, anti-cosmopolitanism, anti-internationalism, "racial inequality", opposition to homosexuality.
- Golden Dawn are neither a far left or far right party. Like the Nazi's they are central economically, but very authoritarian. Please refer to the following reference to get a better understanding of what I'm saying.  It would be better to refer to them as an "extremist" party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless of whether the political spectrum is misunderstood, the term "far right" is used to refer to neo-nazi, neo-fascist and similar parties. And WP:ABOUTSELF says, "so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving." I can think of no cases where a party's website is a good source, except for basic info such as party officials and address. TFD (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Indigenous Turkish minority?
"and the indigenous Turkish speaking Muslim minority of East Macedonia and Thrace that dates to the early Ottoman period"
Few dispute the rights of the Turkish minority to reside in northern Greece, but to refer to them in the article as "indigenous" is intellectual dishonesty. The Turkish peoples are not indigenous to Greece or even Asia Minor; they are not even an indigenous Mediterranean peoples.
Also, the "early Ottoman/Seljuk period" was 800+ years ago; Turks did not conquer Macedonia until almost the 15th century. Hardly their "early period".
Americans with English blood/heritage number fewer than 6% of the U.S. population and have been in Maine for hundreds of years --are they too "indigenous"? Historical revisionism is what this is. And it's especially offensive considering the Greek Genocide which wiped out 3,000 years of the genuine indigenous Hellenic population of Asia Minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Indigenous? no, but perhaps if DNA evidence is done on that specific group, the thing is most turks in modern day Europe/asia minor are actually genetically made up of former Armenians/Asia minor indegenous people that were turkified, hence why there are clear racial differences within Turkey and in comparison to the Central asian 'pure turks' and the somewhat more mixed Turkey, which also absorbed and quickly assimilated muslims fleeing Europe/Crimea in various wars.
Instead of indigenous I think just say, 'greece born', I can see you sound very strongly about this, but you have to remember, this stuff happened almost 100 years ago, to blame modern day Turks or Greeks or Russians or Austrians for various atrocities in Balkans or Crimea would be insane, you'd be transferring blame of atrocities down generations considering most Turks aren't even 60 years old, compared to a 80/90+ year old genocide. As for the Cyrpus island dispute maybe, but again that's a separate issue from the one you brought up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Unevidenced claim that GD advert featured burning American and Israeli flags
I could not find a Golden Dawn advert that had burning Israeli and American flags. The source given does not link the advert. Please provide me a link to the advert in question.
- The statement is reliably sourced to a mainstream news outlet. In order to argue for removal you would need to show that they published a retraction, a complaint was upheld against them or that other mainstream news media have questioned their claim. Or email the journalist (the address is on the McClatchyDC website.) TFD (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
It's irrelevant what 'mainstream' news website has made the unsourced claim... As far as I know, the advert in question never existed! Surely, if GD burned American and Israeli flags, there would be huge commotion in the West and Israeli media. I mean, every time a Palestinian steps on an ant there are American talking heads sounding off about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is relevant, per reliable sources, while your opinion is irrelevant, per no original research. TFD (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)