Talk:Golden Dawn (Greece)/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Flag

the red, white and black meander flag is their official flag, it is seen all over greece within golden dawn context 95.195.200.199 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not the official party flag according to their website. There are not two flags in the infobox because the article style is meant to be consistent with those of other Greek political parties, which contain only one party flag in the infobox, displayed prominently at the top. Why should GD be any different in style and format? Kjell86 (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

which other flag? there is no other flag in the golden dawn infobox and the meander flag is the official flag see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueJ-lWWvuvU 95.199.23.136 (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

If you notice the flag at the very top of the article, this is considered to be the official flag per their website. The red/black meander flag and its significance are discussed later in the article. Kjell86 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, we should not confuse internet and reality. If they show a flag on their website, which is never used in reality, but we know from reliable sources that a different flag is usually used at gatherings, then of course we should show the flag that is really used, not the one that is only displayed on the website. --RJFF (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

If you recall from the discussion which took place last time, evidence of both flags really being used was presented, the difference seemed to be that the blue flag had replaced the red flag in official capacities, i.e. on the website, at press conferences, and official party functions, while the red flag was still certainly observed to be in common use. The present configuration seemed to have been chosen by consensus, even if IP's continue to add it back in without reading the archives.Kjell86 (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

As I recall, we had sourced information from 3rd parties that their flag was the red one and absolutely zip from 3rd parties stating they'd stopped using it. If you have new sources, please present them, otherwise please drop the stick and step away from the horse carcass for the time being. Dolescum (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

this this this There are plenty of sources showing both, because both are used. We even a third from the Greek Ministry of Interior here At the end of the day, it's not important which one is used, but rather that the style of this article is coherent with its peers. This dead horse keeps getting beaten because people don't read the archives. Kjell86 (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, people are rather keen to speak rather than read but you did just claim that "the blue flag had replaced red flag". I don't think anyone would dispute the presence of those blue and gold flags, but until those red flags have clearly vanished for quite a while that's a premature thing to say. I dug out this image, showing those red flags in the background posted YESTERDAY on their own website! Dolescum (talk) 08:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, fair enough. Regardless, I think keeping a consistent format trumps any desire to include any and all flags in the infobox - without meaning to imply that you've advocated that. Other flag variants can, should, and are used elsewhere in the article, but no other party uses a dual flag format in their article -> even though most parties also have multiple flag designs. Kjell86 (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

the "blue flag" is not a flag but a logo, where did to get the idea that it is a flag? if there are other flags the logo used in the article is not a "flag" for you claim we cant have two flags 95.199.25.92 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do you say it's not a flag? If you look at the sources I quoted above, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/26/golden-dawn-greece-far-right%20 this] this this, it is clearly labelled as a flag, in those sources "the" flag, of the party. I'm not really claiming anything other than having multiple flags and logos in the infobox violates the format used for other party articles, which is not something that should be done, in my opinion. Is there some reason why you think GD should have its own, special format?Kjell86 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Small thing: why is there a disconnect between the group name and the magazine name?

I am to understand that "Chrysi Avgi" is a romanization of "Χρυσή Αυγή"? Is there a particular reason why "Chrysi Avgi" and "Golden Dawn" are being used to refer to two different things, then? Despatche (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

– Regrettably, this is now the primary meaning, the others seem relatively obscure. PatGallacher (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Over the past 90 days, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (which is frequently referred to as the Golden Dawn) has got nearly 65,000 page views—a substantial fraction of the hits for the Greek party (especially if one discounts the anomalous total for June 2)—so I'm not seeing clear evidence of a primary topic here. Deor (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. I would have said the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is the commonest meaning for "Golden Dawn". No clear primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose. As noted, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is historically the primary topic for the term "golden dawn", and there's no evidence that the political movement has displaced it or will continue to experience such high interest. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose WP:RECENTISM , per above. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Support. For December, I get 26,905 views for the magic cult, 41,386 for the political party. If the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is handled with a hatnote, it will remain one click away from the base lemma in either set up. Kauffner (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Pure recentism. Doesn't prove anything. If, nearly a century after its heyday, the Hermetic Order can still get five-eights as many hits as a current high-profile political party I think that says something about the relative importance of the two subjects. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  - The "Recentism" essay says nothing about page moves. Even if this RM is approved, the magic order would stay where it is. So I doubt a move would have any significant impact on that article. The DAB gets only 2,400 views a month, and I assume the majority of those readers are seeking the political party. Kauffner (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Oppose The recentism argument is reasonably convincing. XA are getting a bit of news coverage in the English language press at the moment, mainly due to their unusual political beliefs, but they're still a minor party and there's little to say at this point that what attention there is happens to be anything more than a insignificant blip in the annals of history. Dolescum (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Attempts at propaganda

The external links at the bottom are of questionable value, indeed being uncommented they look very much like a flat-out attempt at propaganda. Do not flame me, I am not claiming the act of linking them in this way was necessarily an act of propaganda, but the so-called "international press room" seems to be nothing but a propaganda blog. The others are no better and should not be linked uncritically as external sources. Also the "xaameriki" site greets us with an inaccurate account of the history of the party (as compared with the other sourced information in this article) and "how to help the movement". Lending credibility to this hardly helps the neutrality of this article.Best keep only the official greek party website, that's enough of a platform. 79.110.133.246 (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. You have removed all external links except to the party's websites in Greek and English, which should be kept because they help readers who want to know more about them. TFD (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the 2 removed sources are not officially affiliated with the party and as such there doesn't seem to be any merit in including them. Agreeing with TFD, the xaameriki site seems to be official and would therefore be worthwhile to include for interested readersKjell86 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Flag (again)

Should the party flag be included in the infobox? 90.129.66.38 (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

the logo is not a flag, look on the file it specifically says its a logo, the red, white and black meander flag is their official flag, it is seen all over greece within golden dawn context 90.129.67.35 (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for this? This has been claimed a multitude of times and I do not doubt it, but it certainly the fact that it is used does not give it primacy as "the" party flag when it contradicts the party website, electoral sources, as well as numerous media outlets. See: this this this Kjell86 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

quoting RJFF "Well, we should not confuse internet and reality. If they show a flag on their website, which is never used in reality, but we know from reliable sources that a different flag is usually used at gatherings, then of course we should show the flag that is really used, not the one that is only displayed on the website" 83.180.178.144 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, feel free to provide a source other than RJFF. Kjell86 (talk) 00:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Include It is the most recognizable symbol of Golden Dawn. It is probably embarrassing to them now, because it was designed when they were playing up their connection with nazism, but that is no reason to exclude it. TFD (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

TFD, their flag is already included under the "Allegations of Nazism" section. I feel a more accurate question for this RFC would be "Should the flag be included in the infobox?". Dolescum (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

changed rfc accordingly 90.129.90.86 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Weak Exclude - I'm a tad confused. Is the proposal to replace the current image in the infobox with the "flag", or is to add along with the current image? I don't think we need two images there. If the proposal is to replace, could someone explain why the current image is less appropriate than the flag? NickCT (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The proposal is to add it to the infobox alongside the current logo, I believe. Dolescum (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

yes that is correct that it is to add it to the infobox alongside the current logo, actually many wikipedia articles about political parties include the logo and have a flag at the bottom of the infobox for example see the german Nazi Party or the syrian Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region 83.189.162.89 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Other Wiki pages aren't really a "source", although stylistically it may make weak sense to align articles. FWIW. Republican Party (United States) has just one emblem in the infobox. I think this ought to turn on sources: which graphics do sources use to symbolize the party? On the other hand if this is sourced overall, I can't think of very strong reasons to exclude even if the flag would be rarely used. --Dailycare (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

i never said the articles were sources i just gave some examples to confused users like above just to show it is common, i neither claimed we should align articles but rather that i think this particular article (golden dawn) should have the flag as it is widely used unlike the logo 90.132.104.52 (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"Exclude" I am very much inclined to support the status quo on the grounds of format reasons. On the one hand, I don't really understand the repeated push: the flag itself is most certainly not being excluded from the article, and its obvious parallels with the NSDAP banner are discussed in a neutral way in the "Nazism connections" section, which I think is wholly appropriate. At the same time, however, I think the best way to preserve neutrality is to keep a consistent format with other greek political parties, which the present infobox seems to do. Why the push for double inclusion? Does it not make things a bit redundant?Kjell86 (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
the logo that is included is rarely used unlike as the flag which is the most recognizable symbol of Golden Dawn andThe flag is always seen on demonstrations, official events etc it is also the most widely used symbol to a greater extent than the logo which is rarely used 83.180.179.243 (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

again, you claim that the blue flag is not used, but there are a multitude of third party sources, which can be provided - again - if requested, which show use of the "current" flag, among the most weighty of which are the greek election commission itself, a host of online newspaper articles, and GD's website. The former being the most official and the latter bearing the most recent information. The red flag is included and discussed in the article, is there really any reason that the GD article format be purposefully different from other greek parties, or that the flag should be double-included in the article?Kjell86 (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Kjell86, I can't see why you're bringing up the blue flag at this point. IP was talking about usage of their logo. Dolescum (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Pavlos Fyssas assassination

Be on the lookout for reports on this. If it's not opportunistic, it smells like a set up by intelligence services to frame the party. --105.236.226.90 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Article moving

Why was this article moved from Golden Dawn (Greece) to Golden Dawn (political party)? I'm not sure I see any improvement in the new title. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I am the editor who performed the move. The reason is that the phrase included in the parentheses should include clarifying information on the article subject's nature, not on its country of origin, except if there was a Wikipedia article on another, foreign, party with the same name (so this one would have been named Golden Dawn (Greek political party) and the other one in a similar fashion), which it does not. I really hope I illuminated the situation. Thank you. Hula Hup (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I support Hula Hup's move. It doesn't make sense to specify the country of a political party which is the only political party with that name. An good example would Republican Party. --Երևանցի ^talk 02:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Political position

Wikipedia is meant to be neutral and non-political. Yet to describe Golden Dawn as a right wing extremist organization - when it rejects that label - can only be political. The party is certainly right wing, but it is not so clear that it is either far right or extremist. Organisations on the left of the political spectrum are usually described as left wing rather than far left wing extremists, yet often (in Greece) have policies that are every bit as extreme as Golden Dawn's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The claim you're pointing to is sourced to academics, who's assertions we give far more weight to than those of a primary source, in this case XA themselves. You might like to take a look at the FAQ on our neutrality policy. Dolescum (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that position in the political spectrum is a pointless field. It has led to countless arguments across hundreds of articles that basically repeat each other. For example some editors consider the Democratic Party of the U.S. to be centrist while others consider it to be center-left or center-right. No one questions the relative position of parties, merely the absolute position. The field no longer exists in the template.

That does not mean we cannot say the party is far right. The far right is the term used to refer to parties like Golden Dawn. Unlike liberals, communists, etc., there is no other name to call the political family that includes such groups as Golden Dawn.

TFD (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Any group that espouses unlimited central government with central authority having free, unfettered ability to nationalize corporations, and is, at its heart, anticapitalistic with a philosophy against private property and individual liberty is completely without association to what is commonly known as 'right wing' in America. The term "right wing" has no real meaning other than to make intellectually dishonest associations between individuals (i.e in the tea party) who detest centralized government and anticapitalistic philosophy with 'right wing' fascists who would fully persecute the tea party as they would any other non participating minority. Right Wing, as often used on Wikipedia, is a loaded concept with multiple fallacious intentions that are based on manipulation of facts. Many pseudo-intellectuals like to deliberately associate American tea party members, for example, with fascists, by linking them with the term 'right wing' when the fundamental beliefs of both groups are mutually exclusive. The unlimited, centralized government of a fascist regime would throw tea partiers straight into the concentration camps right with the jews, blacks, gays, and everyone else who did not conform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.42.104 (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Rather than persue several discussions about essentially the same thing, I shall reply below. TFD (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is worthless, I learned nothing

What are their political positions? What is their stance on capitalism? What is their stance on freemarkets? What is their stance on gun control? What is their stance on private schools? What is their stance on corporations? What is their stance on individual self determinism? Do want a society of equal outcomes, or favor a society of equal opportunity, or other? What is their position on taxation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.42.104 (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Do they espouse a large central government with unlimited authority to nationalize corporations at will?

Whoever wrote this article has an agenda. I was in a debate with someone over Golden Dawn, and neither of us knew their positions on capitalism and free markets, and such a basic, fundamental philosophical position should be readily found here. All I read is a thousand sentences of 'right wing, its right wing, its right wing, its right wing..." This article lacks intellect, it lacks professionalism, it lacks any kind of depth, it is more like a repetitive rant. This article is a prime example why academia forbid students from sourcing Wikipedia, because you end up with a bunch of hawks who collude to write an article to convey a single message. The only thing one learns on this article is that its right wing. Yea, yea, I got that. Can we talk about their philosophical positions now? Views on Abortion, Homosexuality, Marriage, Taxes, etc, etc. They are a POLITICAL PARTY right? So....what is their PHILOSOPHY? Don't just rant about your judgment of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.42.104 (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Articles are based on mainstream sources, which tend to emphasize things like xenophobia and violence over things like their stance on private schools. In fact their own manifesto does not mention any of the issues you find important.[1] TFD (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

If xenophobia, violence and being "right wing" are the most important aspects of this "political party" then I think it is worth noting in the article itself that Golden Dawn, according to itself, has no formal position on capitalism, free markets, and self determinism. Issues I find important are irrelevant, a political party is a party that is seeking government authority, therefore fundamental issues of government become of paramount importance to voters. If Golden Dawn doesn't have a formal position on the role of government in a society, then that is worth mentioning in the article, no? I think any political group seeking elective office that has no position on such fundamental concepts speaks volumes to the validity and merits of the group. I would rather know that the group itself has no formal position, then to hear some "academic" declare it as such. Sometimes the lack of information itself is worth noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.74.128 (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You need secondary sources to show that these policies are significant for inclusion in the article. The party has in fact received significant coverage for their connections with nazism, violence and alleged criminal activity, which is why it is mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Common sense is all that is needed. When Wikipedia stops being informative due to this kind of irrational resistance to basic, common sense items worthy of inclusion in an informational article, the entire site is devalued. This is a political party. You state it in your title. Therefore, simply due to that, it becomes a basic assumption that the article will cite the groups declared political positions on key issues regarding government. And here you are, using and twisting every wikipedia rule you can to prevent it. What is your motive? I am curious about what this group believes, and you adamantly refuse to state it! You realize you are blocking this article from being informative, and keeping it as nothing more than a tabloid. I would like to advise you to read up on the NAZI articles here on Wikipedia (speaking of fascism), they are actually informative. I can learn about what NAZI's believe in those articles, I learn things from their own mouths, I can learn about NAZI philosophy from their own documents (oops, does that violate neutrality? I'm glad someone over there on those articles recognized it did not). Now, if you want to enhance this article, you will stop this blockage of what this group believes regarding society and government. I know they hate people and advocate violence. Check. Got it. Now, I would like to know what they believe, what is their hope for government, for society? What would they do to democracy if they gained power? Anything would be better than what you have now. The entire article is nothing more than a commentary on academia about fascist affiliations and violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.74.128 (talk) 03:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Rather than persue several discussions about essentially the same thing, I shall reply below. TFD (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

=== The article is awful. Terribly done, with a clear agenda. Come-on Wiki Admins, you've done better than this.

Issues

I proceed to address certain major problems concerning all areas of the article. As there doesn't exist a specific style guide in the corresponding WikiProject to follow, I tried to write the proposals below based on the general guidelines which apply to all articles and common sense:

The infobox should be rid of criticisers' subjective point of view (labelling as extremist, neo-fascist, and/or neo-Nazi) and be neutral, because the place to describe the reception (i.e. personal opinion) by the community is a "Public image" section discussed below; the only unbiased characterisation is the general "far-right wing", all others are far too opinionated.

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be up to 4 paragraphs, briefly covering the article's main points.

The sections should, in the following order, be "History" (left as is, but with the section "Political representation" merged into it and the included mentions of the party's embraced religions moved to "Ideology and stances towards issues" which is appropriate for this kind of info), "Ideology and stances towards issues" (describing the ideology that the party itself says to have, not the one attributed by mass media and academics/scholars as this is not the section to describe others' personal opinion, as well as the stances towards issues, for example social, economic, and foreign policy issues, with the proposed legal measures), "Activism" (as is), and "Public image" (containing the personal opinion of the mass media and academics/scholars about the party as well as the ideology which they link to the party, which means that current bits "Allegations of Nazism", "Allegations of connections to the Greek police", and "Violence involving Golden Dawn" should fall under this section).

Ideas and other proposals welcome. Hula Hup (talk) 01:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The official website contains their ideology and stances, thus an invaluable source for the respective proposed section. I'll try to provide links to videos where high-ranking members express the party's ideas on social issues not touched upon in the article. Hula Hup (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

We cannot use their website to document their ideology and stances because it is a primary source, it requires synthesis and violates neutrality, in other words all three of the main policies. Also, the consensus of opinion about them in academic sources and mainstream media is not "subjective", but a factual description. We explain the classification of all political parties - Communist, liberal, christian democratic, etc., and there is no reason to make an exception here. Readers of course are free to follow the links to the party website. TFD (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

And you violate common sense. This is a political party seeking election. Just like any politician seeking election, the words and views of that politician are of merit. That you are actually stating that the public positions of this party itself are not relevant to an educational article about this party are just absurd. I find it pretty deplorable how so many people on this site like to source all kinds of wikipedia rules and regulations to not do something that is simply common sense. What are this groups views regarding capitalism? How in the world can you justify, via your semantical nonsense terms "synthesis", "primary source", "neutrality" that this information is not relevant? You are using Wikipedia rules to create justification for some kind of bias you have against a flat common sense source of information worthy of inclusion in this article. Rejection of using this groups own publicly stated positions as a source of information on the positions of this group is complete nonsense. What you have just done is devaule Wikipedia with that kind of response. (i.e. "We can't let Barack Obama's publicly stated position from his own mouth show up in his article about how he feels about a position because that violates neutrality! Only an academic is allowed to state the public position of a politician!") Can Wikipedia start gaining some credibility here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.74.74.128 (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles must be based on what how their subjects are treated in academic writing and mainstream journalism - that is policy. Can you provide an example of an academic or newspaper article about the party that provides the emphasis you think this article should? If not, then rather than question my motives or common sense, you should question their's. If you do not like that approach, then you should endeavor to change policy rather than insult editors who follow it faithfully. Incidentally, the article on Obama is based on mainstream secondary sources, not what he himself has written or said. Even when he is quoted, his words are taken from secondary sources that provide context. Also, whether or not the party is "right wing", it comes under the category of "far right", which is how it is described. It has the core far right attributes of xenophobia and mistrust of corrupt elites. It also places itself in the tradition of Metaxism and draws support from many of the same sources, such as police and soldiers. TFD (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The criteria to judge an ideology/individual/party as neo-fascist or neo-Nazi are much more subjective and specific than the ones used to deem them as generally far-right. The fact that the ideology/individual/party labelled as adopting these political movements shares certain ideas with these movements (which is the case here as Golden Dawn is, for example, anti-Zionist, anti-homosexual, anti-communist, anti-Masonic, and probably anti-Semitic too) is not solid proof that they belong to these movements, but just mere probable indications; the academic sources and mainstream media's classification of Golden Dawn as neo-fascist and neo-Nazi is not a factual description but a personal description, for this exact reason (it goes without saying that my proposal of incorporating the party's ideology in a corresponding section, exactly as documented in their website, includes underlining that it is their own version of events, which should also be the case for the community's opinion; this means equality for all opinions). Also, according to WP:ABOUTSELF, self-published sources can be used to support claims about themselves. Hula Hup (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we should consider the works of academic sources "personal opinions". This completely disregards that published academic works are subject to peer review or similar vetting in order to specifically eliminate the kind of biases you're implying. You also seem to also be adopting a very similar position to that Creationists take when when trying to advance their claims; they claim "Evolution is an opinion". I have little time for such arguments, personally.

In addition, much as I'm sympathetic to the idea of including more details on their platform, I'd have to concur with TFD in their insistence that such additions are backed by secondary sources. XA are politicians and, to be honest, politicians of all stripes hardly have a reputation for sterling honesty and forthrightness, do they? Dolescum (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Are there any objections regarding the proposed structure? Content aside. Hula Hup (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The party's official website explicitly states that it embraces anti-communism, anti-liberalism, anti-cosmopolitanism, anti-internationalism, and supports "racial inequality". I've also found this interview where leader Michaloliakos, responding to the interviewer's question if "there exists a special fury against homosexuals", says: "Homosexuals are a part of Greek society that I do not consider normal." He also states that one cannot at the same time be openly homosexual and a member of the party. Should we include all these beliefs in the infobox and proposed section? Hula Hup (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That's all primary sourced material. See above for a start. Second, those are all standard neo-nazi positions, aren't they? Is there some need to expand on the note of neo-nazi in the infobox? Dolescum (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the above discussion, I participated in it. Following the latest news that Greek police published pictures of Nazi paraphernalia they discovered in the house of the party's secondary leader, I'll have to urgently retract my statement that the party's neo-Nazi substance should be presented in the article as just a probability. Hula Hup (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

If anyone still cares about writing a section on what their policies and beliefs are, I ran the Greek version of the article through google translate and it looks like there's some material worth lifting on the matter. Dolescum (talk) 04:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Far-right or extreme right-wing?

We have sources using either term and some using both so I'm wondering which one we should use. Extreme right-wing, while true, seems a bit POVish and has undertones of condemnation in Wikipedia's voice. Generally, the word extreme seems like a word that should be used with caution and since we have an acceptable alternative, we should change it. Note that our article is Far-right politics. 2.102.187.114 (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree but only because "far right" is generally more commonly used in Wikipedia, so it is solely a matter of consistency with other articles, as both terms share the same meaning. Hula Hup (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

a political party openly engaged in physically assaulting members of various minority groups? relative to how the majority of political parties in Europe generally conduct themselves, this is extreme behavior, there is nothing POV about it, it's a statement of fact. 188.223.12.6 (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

"Far right" is the term most commonly used in academic writing to describe the most extreme right-wing parties, while "extreme right" generally means anything to the right of the traditional parties. (So both the Greek Independents would be extreme right, while only Golden Dawn is far right.) However, both terms can be used interchangeably and the newspapers prefer "far right." I would use "far right" which is consistent with usage throughout Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Who defines what is "extreme". It seems if we don't like a Party or an individual, throwing that word (Extreme) is all that is needed to distort the facts.

Are people not forgetting that the Golden Dawn is a legit political Party in Greece that represents a significant amount of its' citizens? In a democracy we MUST respect that. What wikipedia here, is doing, is showing in an exemplary fashion how media propagates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.186.130.4 (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It is based on general perception as well as the perception of Golden Dawn and the other parties. The perception is that they are more right-wing than the other parties, in particular the conservative New Democracy. They have also expressed more hostility to the left-wing parties than any other party. One Golden Dawn member for example threw water at a socialist deputy and slapped a Communist deputy on television. TFD (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Golden Dawn largest party in Greece according to opinion polls

(gr) http://www.zougla.gr/politiki/article/ta-apotelesmata-ton-dio-diadiktiakon-psifoforion (en) http://xaameriki.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/zougla-gr-poll-listing-golden-dawn-now-1st-place/

Should be added to the article. 83.250.74.46 (talk) 10:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

None of the serious polls listed here have XA at the first place. In fact, its popularity is on the decrease now. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, define what stands as a "serious poll". By my own experience, I know that in Spain most pollsters stopped being serious long ago, yet they are still regarded as just that. I don't know what is the situation in Greece regarding pollsters' accuracy, but if they are having the same problems than those their Spanish counterparts have, it may actually have reached a point where society is so upset with their political system and are so ashamed to recognize they voted for or are going to vote for one of the two main parties (especially the one in government) that no poll can be considered as the serious one, due to the disparity of their results. These "zougla" polls show the survey's technical data, such as the fieldwork date and the sample size, and show plenty of other data as well, such as PM preferences and other interesting questions. In Spain, these ones would be considered as one of the most serious polls, since that's something many Spanish pollsters don't show. So, in the end, what qualifies as a "serious poll" and what not? Impru20 (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the state of Spanish opinion polls, but Zougla is simply not an opinion poll at all. For one, all Greek pollsters have to file publicly released polls with the government, which Zougla doesn't (because they're not a real poll.) Real opinion polls do demographic weighting, to make sure the sample is reflective of the general population.

Zougla is a Greek TV show and their "polls" are "polls" of their viewers, with no demographic weighting. And even if they did start doing that, they don't have a random sample, and can never control for the one major factor (whether people watch Zougla!) Its simply not a poll at all. --4idaho (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I do understand it now. No wonder why I found it strange that Zougla polls were disregarded: in Spain there's not such a regulation for opinion polls (outside election campaign periods), and one has to trust in the pollster's "impartiality" when it comes to calculate the vote estimation (which is obtained from the weighted survey data using some kind of mathematical methods which are usually not made public) in order to believe (or not) a poll. It looks like in Greece there are more strict controls to prevent these things from happening. Impru20 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A poll conducted last month had them at 8.8%.[2] It is unlikely that would put them in first place. TFD (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

>>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

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

@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

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 agree, asking for outside opinion - whatever that opinion will be after they have read the debate, can be seen as an attempt to canvas by a sensitive editor. I will start an arbitration to bring this article back to reality. Reaper7 (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Article for background info

Here's a very good article where a journalist infiltrated the party, lots of good references on its background. [3]--60.242.159.224 (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

MP Count

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)

Two of Golden Dawn's MPs have left the party but retained their seats as Independents. These are Chrysovalantis Alexopoulos [fr] (Alexopoulos is independent from now on) and Efstathios Boukouras [fr] (Boukouras left Golden Dawn). Hansi667 (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Issues

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.

If I think of more points I will write them. Ideas/proposals welcome. Hula Hup (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

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. ^[1] It would be better to refer to them as an "extremist" party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.26.237 (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 172.242.121.108 (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 70.69.154.153 (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.

80.6.70.42 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

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 80.6.70.42 (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)

Fine then, we are a democracy after all. No evidence of it existing at all, whatever, this website says it does so it must do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.70.42 (talk) 00:55, 7 September 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 108.92.36.114 (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)

IP, only fringe sources make that claim. TFD (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Eh, that's the most stupid thing I could every read!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.17.238 (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbles wrote in his diary "When we defeat those Russians, we'll show them how to do real socialism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.79.7.57 (talk) 01:33, 28 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.137.79.7.57 (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. 137.79.7.57 (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.

50.79.48.1 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Coming into the debate a little late, but I completely agree. How can you seriously have both 'Fascist' and 'Far-right' for the same political party? Its like the editors want to look like idiots on purpose. EEEEEE1 (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Literature Section Removal

Why is there a section listing particular literature, when:

such sections do not exist in the pages of other political parties, and thus there is an inconsistency across such articles,
the literature listed seems to bear a non-right-wing bias and thus is not neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view), and
any relevant literature to the article would be cited and thus appear in the references?

I propose that the literature section be removed, and if they are relevant to the article, should be cited where relevant. Otherwise, should contain literature that restores the neutrality of the article.

Answer:

Some political parties' articles do have a literature section and some don't. This is not the only one. About some parties a lot of literature is published and about some none.
You merely claim that these texts were biased. What makes you think so? To me they look reputable.
Right. The section should rather be called "further reading", because the references contain literature, too. --RJFF (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ideology misdescribed

Wikipedia current described Golden Dawn as "Ultranationalism, Neo-Nazism, Fascism and Metaxism". These cannot all be right - if only because they are mutually exclusive. The label ultranationalism is certainly correct, and possibly Metaxism. But it is neither neo-Nazi nor Fascist: Its ideology is neither Nazi nor Fascist, and it denies those labels. Those labels are apparently therefore being used in a purely pejorative sense, and not because of the party's policies. Wikipedia should not be used for left wing attacks on parties which they disagree with - this is the equivalent of calling all socialist parties communist.Royalcourtier (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

But that's how the sources available in the article characterize this party. In Greek wiki, the ideology is also marked as Neo-Nazi and Fascist. And just a cursory look at their flag tells where their loyalties lie. --Dorpater (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the best description is "far right", which is the political family to which all these ideologies belong. Far right parties typically do not have ideological consistency. TFD (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Golden Dawn (political party). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Golden Dawn (political party). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Golden Dawn (political party). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Ideology

This is getting ridiculous. The ideology section changes every day. I think an admin who is uninvolved with the article needs to mediate. --Donenne (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Euroscepticism in infobox

@Sideshow Bob:, Euroscepticism is not a political ideology, it is political doctrine. The fact information is sourced is of no consequence if the information is irrelevant as in this case. Please stop reverting this into the infobox. Thanks. 86.147.16.15 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree. TFD (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Eurosceptisicm is a political position. It is noted as ideology (ideological element) to all parties of European countries that oppose European Union. Golden Dawn is also a political party who opposing European Union. So, it must been noticed as element of its ideology to the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.242.96.177 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 March 2016

An ideology "is a collection of doctrines or beliefs." [My emphasis.] Single elements are not collections. TFD (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with IP 86... and TFD. Moreover, far-right ultranationalist parties are by definition always Eurosceptic and anti-globalist, so this is redundant. The doctrines of being against European integration and globalisation are part of and necessarily implied by their nationalistic ideology. --RJFF (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

RJFF, you may assume as "redundant" the tags about euroscepticism and anti-globalism at Golden Dawn's ideology's infobox, but you cannot reject them from it. At all eurosceptic and anti-globalist parties of Europe (from all political positions) euroscepticism and anti-globalism are tagged to their ideology's wiki infobox. So, it cannot been exception for Golden Dawn. Golden Dawn is also a eurosceptic and anti-globalist party and these tags must been permited to it's ideology's infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspirduser (talk • contribs) 11:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This is an "other stuff exists" argument. What happens on other pages is no reason to do anything on this page. 87.113.192.113 (talk) 02:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Often when there are single issue parties without ideologies, such as the Marijuana Party, most writers will describe them by that one policy, especially if the party has members from across the political spectrum. Some parties were created as broad coalitions to oppose EU membership, so "Eurosceptic" would have been appropriate for them. But Golden Dawn does not invite Communists and other Eurosceptics not on the left to join in a common purpose of leaving the EU. TFD (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

87.113.192.113, this is not something that happens "generally". Euroscepticism and Anti-Globalism are putted to all eurosceptic and anti-globalist parties respectively, to their ideology's infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspirduser (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, I believe that your thought is wrong. It has not to do only with big tend eurosceptic parties, or with parties/coallitions based on multipolitical positions EU-opposed, anti-EU fronts (or generally anti-EU front's logic) etc. Euroscepticism or Anti-globalism are also putted at totally right-wing, left-wing, centrist, far-right or far-left etc parties which are eurosceptics or anti-globalist parties (either national parties or european parties, in Greece, Europe and all over the world) and that they are not believe at a multipolitical front on the same purpose.

It is exactly, the same thing like the cases of pro-Europeanism, alter-globalization etc. Pro-Europeanism or alter-globalization for example, are also putted at poltical parties' ideology's infobox when they support them. Either at national parties, european parties, international parties etc, either at big-tend parties or totally right-wing parties, left-wing parties, centre-right parties, centre-left parties etc, either in Greece or in other countries.

So, it cannot been exception for Golden Dawn because it is exactly the same case with other eurosceptic or anti-globalist parties (also tottaly far-right or left-wing etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspirduser (talk • contribs) 14:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sir. I tell you again that euroscepticism or anti-globalism are part's of idelogies of eurosceptic or anti-globalist parties. Please stop trying to expel them from ideology's infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspirduser (talk • contribs) 15:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

All your arguments are just restating claims that have already been addressed by other editors above. Please accept that there is no consensus to include this material and desist from repeatedly adding it to the article. 87.113.192.113 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not they are parts of ideologies, they are not ideologies themselves. I imagine that Golden Dawn have other policies in their platform and the info-box is not the place to list all of them. TFD (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

87.113.192.113, I have read only personal views about rejection of euroscepticim and anti-globalism, but not actually a proved reason. I stand again at your claim about " "other stuff exists" arguement", and i tell you that it has not to do about "what happend to other pages", but about you it cannot been rejected an ideology from a political party wich beleive in that.

It has not to do with a vote, to speak about..."consensus". It has to do with the reality and about what it is valid.

Now, I will response also to TFD and to anyone other who assumes euroscepticim and anti-globalism as "redundant" at GD ideology's infobox. Eurosceptisim or anti-globalism are not political platforms, they are also ideologies. Idelogies are not only the "current" - "classical" mainly known ideologies. Ideologies are also collections of doctrines or beliefs based on views about global or local political or social subjects. About that reason, ideologies are ont only ideologies like nationalism or communism or libralism. Ideologies are also pro-europeanism, pro-globalism, alter-globalization, anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, anti-communism, anti-fascism, third position, anti-immigration, pro-immigration, pro-LGBT rights, anti-prohibitionism, green politics (not only enviromentalism), religions' interrrest categories and of course euroscepticism and anti-globalism. If ideologies were only the "current" - "classical" mainly known ideologies, neo-nazism should not applied as ideology.

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

No reliable sources agree with you. There are Labour and Conservatives campaigning to get the UK out of Europe while their party colleagues are campaigning to keep the UK in. Does it make sense to you that the first group have the same ideology as Golden Dawn? However, their respective ideologies provides a reason for their views. As extreme nationalists, Golden Dawn object to foreigners telling them what to do and letting in racially undesirable people. To left-wing opponents of the EU, it is seen as an instrument of capitalism, to libertarians it is seen as providing needless bureacracy. TFD (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The cases you refer about politicians during UK vote, are individual views of polticians into their parties but not their parties. There can be a eurosceptic politician into a non eurosceptic party, as exactly it can be a nationalist, a commounist, a far-right or a far-left into a centrist political party.

Yes, Golden Dawn or a far left party can be eurosceptic as exactly a centrist politician. As it can be anti-capitalist a communist party, a national-socialist party or a right-wing populist politician. You are wrong about euroscepticism between extreme nationalist and extreme left. Of course for nationalists/ultranalionalists euroscepticism is also a reason about migrant politics, bat for many nationalists/ultranantionalists it is also a reason about other EU politicies into their countries (politics of austerity as example), about foreign policy of EU, and many other reasons that they are in common between different cases. Inspirduser (talk 14:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There are left-wing parties in Greece that oppose the EU. You are correct that Golden Dawn opposes the EU for ethnic nationalist reasons while left eurosceptics oppose it for economic reasons. In other words, both groups adopt the same policy but base it on different ideologies. TFD (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Dear friends, there is something new at euroscepticism's wiki-page, based on source:

The term euroscepticism can also refer to the ideology of eurosceptic movements.

I think that euroscepticism could be puted at ideology's infobox. Inspirduser (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

After not disagreements, euroscepticism has putted in infobox, based on euroscepticism's wiki-page about ideology. Inspirduser (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

can someone fix my edit on ideogolgy infobox metaxist

help? 192.44.242.19 (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Golden Dawn (political party). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Golden Dawn's symbol

I know this has already been discussed but the phrase comparing Golden Dawn's meander and the NSDAP's swastika is often modified/"vandalized". Looking at it objectively,

it should be evident that the meander itself is a symbol used in Greek art, from the ancient times up until now where it can even be found in the Greek parliament, however,
it should also be evident that the colors used (red background, black meander, surrounded by a white line) are the same as those used in the German flag during the Third Reich (red background, black swastika, surrounded by a white circle).

Therefore we should reformulate the concerned sentence in this way: "Likewise, the Golden Dawn's meander symbol, while a symbol drawn from Greek art (which the party sees as representing bravery and eternal struggle)[22][136] uses the same colors as Hitler's NSDAP flag: a red background, a black meander (respectively swastika) and a white surrounding."

What say you? Orgyn (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please Admins, protect this page!

This is getting ridiculous! Every few days this page is (in a bias way) modified by both the left and right and bots and people need to swoop in and reverse it. Can the admins please protect this page or at least semi-protect because this page is turning into a battleground. We as the Wikipedia community must present facts in a non-bias way and things like this hurt the wiki community and Wikipedia itself! Kappa 16 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Golden Dawn (political party). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-19/world/greece.explosion.neo.nazi_1_neo-nazi-greek-police-explosion?_s=PM%3AWORLD
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002204407/http://www.ethniko.net/ironyouth/michaloliakos.htm to http://www.ethniko.net/ironyouth/michaloliakos.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://e-thessalia.gr/newsfeed.asp/?Fv1=2&Fv2=18%2F6%2F2006&Fv3=2006&Fv4=105946
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114182825/http://wwk.kathimerini.gr/kath/edition/1999/23-10-1999.pdf to http://wwk.kathimerini.gr/kath/edition/1999/23-10-1999.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.enet.gr/online/online_text/c%3D112%2Cid%3D95908980
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.enet.gr/online/online_text/c%3D112%2Cid%3D84914692
Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.enet.gr/online/online_text/c%3D112%2Cid%3D72703688%2C94637512%2C80585800%2C7746952%2C15637256%2C90684776
Corrected formatting/usage for http://xryshaygh.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/%CF%80%CE%BB%CE%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF-%CF%84%CE%BF-%CE%AD%CE%B3%CE%B3%CF%81%CE%B1%CF%86%CE%BF-%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-%CE%BA%CF%85%CF%80-%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CE%B5%CF%80%CE%AF%CF%83/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-19/world/greece.explosion.neo.nazi_1_neo-nazi-greek-police-explosion?_s=PM%3AWORLD

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden Dawn (political party). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Golden Dawn (political party). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden Dawn (political party). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930035650/http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_ell_786829_27/04/2004_101892 to http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_ell_786829_27/04/2004_101892

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox wrong?

The infobox says they have 15 MPs. However at the last election they had 18. Has anyone a reason for this? Did three leave? Irishpolitical (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC) Irishpolitical (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

yeap. Konstantinos Barbarousis (in a parliamentary speech, he called for a military coup- note: he was expelled from the Golden Dawn parliamentary group, but not expelled from the Party), Dimitris Koukoustis and Nikos Michos Τζερόνυμο (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

My revert got reverted and I am following BRD

It’s hard to follow BRD sometimes, but an ip came along and re-removed a large number of references and sources. I had previously reverted an editor who did the same thing. I don’t like to revert twice so I’m opening a discussion, which I hope will be a formality, on the talk page per BRD policy.

Should the material deleted in the previous edit be restored? Pending consensus. If the answer is yes I suggest semi protection to dissuade further ip drive by reverts with no summaries. Edaham (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The IP and later SalterinoKripperino gave no reasons for removal of the sourced content. It looks like its wp:idontlikeit. If they continue they can be reported for edit warring.Resnjari (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I second that. Cinadon36 (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

my thoughts also. Semi-protection requested. Edaham (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Metaxism?

In what way is this party Metaxist, it's not even Monarchist? Have they claimed to be Metaxist, as far as I know they only claimed to admire Metexas as a figure and aspects of his movement this doesn't translate into Metaxism being an ideological focus for them. It's like calling Syriza Lenisist because many of its members have spoken well of lenin.. admiration and emulation are two different things SJCAmerican (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

"Party materials make ample references to fashists such as Greece's Ioannis Metaxas and Spain's Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera and Francisco Franco (Golden Dawn 20/11/2013b). The ideal regime for Greece, according to the Golden Dawn, is the August 4th Regime, led by Ioannis Metaxas between 1936 and 1941." Check: S. Vasilopoulou, D. Halikiopoulou, The Golden Dawn’s ‘Nationalist Solution’: Explaining the Rise of the Far Right in Greece, Reform and Transition in the Mediterranean, Springer, 2015, ISBN 1137535911, here please. Jingiby (talk) 08:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to call them Metaxists, but rather to explain that they admire Metaxas and his dictatorship. The comment on Syriza and Lenin is a poor analogy and whataboutism. Also, supporters of Metaxas are not necessarily Monarchists, the opposite is more often the truth.Greece666 (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

According to academic sources?

Which are they, how credible are they and what do they claim exactly? Shouldn't there be a citation needed? LightningLighting (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate references

If anybody cares to merge them, there appear to be a lot of duplicated references; duplicates (which may include a few that are not real duplicates) are listed below. I suggest that after merging any duplicates the list should be edited to delete them, rather than appending a new comment, so that the list is always current until all are resolved. I have made quite a few edits to the article, but have run out of time.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-19/world/greece.explosion.neo.nazi_1_neo-nazi-greek-police-explosion?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.ethnos.gr/article.asp?catid=22767&subid=2&pubid=63638177
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/neo-nazi-golden-dawn-says-istanbul-will-be-greek-22118
http://www.iospress.gr/ios1998/ios19980927c.htm
http://www.tovima.gr/politics/article/?aid=452491
http://www.tovima.gr/politics/article/?aid=452491
http://www.xrisiavgi.com/
http://xrisiavgi.com/en/
https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143686910
https://doi.org/10.1080%2F13604813.2012.720760
https://gr.boell.org/en/2017/08/01/antisemitism-greece-today-executive-summary
https://research.vu.nl/ws/files/58586936/Beyond_Spontaneity_Crisis_Violence_and_C.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20120308080449/http://articles.cnn.com/2010-03-19/world/greece.explosion.neo.nazi_1_neo-nazi-greek-police-explosion?_s=PM%3AWORLD
https://www.dailysabah.com/europe/2015/01/22/greek-far-right-party-golden-dawn-rally-targets-islam
https://www.enikos.gr/politics/660319/michaloliakos-i-cha-den-teleiose-epistrefoume-ekei-pou-giname-dyn
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/how-anti-semitic-is-greece-really-1.5248999
https://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1580879/rise-greek-anti-gay-attacks-blamed-golden-dawn-party

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Golden Dawn Illegal

The greek courts have made a rulling on the 7th of october to make Golden Dawn a illegal political organization, we need to sugest change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nixrero 2 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: There is consensus to not move Golden Dawn (political party) → Golden Dawn (criminal organization), mainly due to neutral point of view concerns, however there is a clear consensus that the disambiguator in the title Golden Dawn (political party) neglects to note Golden Dawn's activities undertaken not as a political party. There is therefore a broad consensus to move to an alternative option which maintains a neutral point of view yet takes into consideration the updated status of the group. The most commonly proposed alternative was Golden Dawn (political party) → Golden Dawn (Greece), for which there is consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Golden Dawn (political party) → Golden Dawn (criminal organization) – "A Greek court has delivered an overwhelming conviction against Golden Dawn, finding the neo-fascist party guilty of operating a criminal gang that brutally targeted opponents under the guise of being a political group... Golden Dawn’s entire leadership, including former MPs, were among 68 defendants accused of murder, weapons possession and operating a criminal gang while also masquerading as a political group."[4] François Robere (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Support as nom. François Robere (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- @François Robere: You cannot vote as the nominator, as nominating for merge already counts as a support.~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  - François Robere (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Support By all respects they don't appear to be a political force any longer. While I'd normally say this is WP:RECENTISM the article says that any political presence by them was dissolved and doesn't seem to be coming back._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. It is universally known as a Greek political party, and that's what made them notable in the first place. A court finding them responsible of criminal activies does not affect this in any way (plus, it'd be absurd for Wikipedia to set such a precedent for banned parties, or parties declared as criminal organizations and/or engaged in criminal activities; see Batasuna or all parties within Category:Banned political parties). Also note that the proposed title goes against WP:CONCISE over the current title as well. And yes, this move right now (coupled with a number of recent edits, including a previous and already reverted unilateral change of the infobox template) is clearly in breach of WP:RECENTISM. We should not be acting so hotly on such a recent issue. Impru20^talk 16:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- As a side note, I wouldn't oppose the page being moved back to Golden Dawn (Greece) instead. After digging into the talk page's archives, it looks like that was the original title until it was moved in September 2013 without any consensus, despite a previous RM in July 2013 explicitly resulting in a consensus against moving it from that title. Would be a much more appropiate title than either the current or the proposed ones, considering WP:NCPP and that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for any such organisation in Greece. Impru20^talk 16:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
- I would generally agree, but in this case we're talking about a group of violent neo-fascists with marginal political presence (at present), who've been convicted in fair trial. I'm okay with a deferred move for the sake of WP:RECENTISM (eg. in two weeks' time, unless something changes), but the broader political issue doesn't concern me any more than it does with Hamas, which in a similar situation we'd probably term "militant organization". Further reading: [5][6] François Robere (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
  - I don't think this is the only "group of violent neo-fascists with marginal political presence" in the world (I'd point out the WP:NPOV issue of intending to base the move on such a justification), yet it's not frequent for these articles to be titled in Wikipedia as "criminal organizations" (see other parties at Category:Neo-fascist terrorism, which has been added to this page). This specific organization became notable because of its electoral (and non-marginal) results in 2012 and 2015, and wasn't dubbed a criminal organization until 2020, so limiting its scope to the criminal aspect of it is against Wikipedia's policies on article titling (also note possible issues with WP:LABEL).

On the example you bring, Hamas is currently named "Hamas" and I don't see how it requires further disambiguation, so I won't hypothesize on such a "what-if"; if anything, it's an example against this proposal (and in line of what is done in WP for banned political parties, as shown in my previous comment), not in favour of it. Further, not even WP articles on actual criminal organizations tend to have the "criminal organization" label in their titles, unless that's their only activity and is explicitly required for disambiguation (which is not the case here). Impru20^talk 18:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Because we rarely have such organizations (Hamas included) that share their names with others. When we do, then we can ask how should we title them, and I think a judgement call heavily backed by sources (eg. "militant organization" or "criminal organization") is fine. We do have FEAR (terrorist group) and The Order (white supremacist group) in that category, as well as multiple so-and-so (terrorist) and so-and-so (white supremacist). I'm okay with Golden Dawn (organization) (cf. Grey Wolves (organization)), but it's not necessarily the best solution. François Robere (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You point to examples of organizations which are known only because of those activities. This is not the case here. I've literally pointed you to categories full of articles on parties that are/were concurrently known because of their criminal/neo-fascist activities or that were banned at some point, and that do not bear such a label in their wiki titles. This organization's political component was even more notable than its criminal one. On your suggested alternative for a title (Golden Dawn (organization)) I think that's quite ambiguous (see other uses at Golden Dawn). Instead, I suggest Golden Dawn (Greece), as the original article title (moved without consensus), and one that most people would widely recognize. Impru20^talk 18:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Again, because most of their names do not recur with other articles, so they don't require this sort of disambiguation, while this does. If you account for that then the sample is much smaller - only articles that have a note in parentheses. And again I argue that we can make that judgement if sources support that assertion, and they do in this case. Is it a minority of articles? Yes, but it's not something we haven't done before (see eg. Al-Shabaab (militant group)), nor shouldn't do in the future. As for "what the group is known for" - yes, for us it's known as a neo-fascist, neo-nazi party, but Greeks presumably know its history better: Golden Dawn first drew attention in the early 1990s... It found fertile ground in the anti-immigrant sentiment that spread through Greece... As thousands [of immigrants] struggled to survive beside impoverished Greeks in neighbourhoods shattered by the economic crisis, Golden Dawn vigilantes began to "clear" Athenian squares with fists and clubs and knives; to storm unofficial mosques; to sell protection to shopkeepers; to escort old ladies to the supermarket. In 2009 the party polled a mere 0.29% in the national election. In 2010, Michaloliakos was elected to the Athens city council; he celebrated his arrival with a fascist salute.[7] François Robere (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Al-Shabaab (militant group) (the example you point out) is yet another example of a single-purpose, non-political party organization that uses one such label. This is getting somewhat circular, because you keep bringing non-related examples while ignoring the similar ones I bring out. You are not explaining why this article does require "this sort of disambiguation". I am not saying that the title should necessarily remain at "Golden Dawn (political party)", but "Golden Dawn (Greece)" would be a much more perfectly valid disambiguator, in line with other articles in Wikipedia, and perfectly in line with Wikipedia's policies on article titles and with the naming conventions of application. The proposed one doesn't conform to them, per the aforementioned policy-based reasons, which have not been contested.

Golden Daw may be a neo-fascist, neo-nazi or whatever organization, cool, but that's not a policy-based reason to move the page to the proposed title. Nazi Party does not use "(criminal organization)" as a disambiguator, even considering the Nuremberg trials and that there are lots of "nazi parties" around the world. Batasuna does not use "(terrorist organization)" even after being banned because of such reason and because of its ties to ETA (separatist group). There are lots and lots of similar examples. Political parties have their own naming convention. Golden Dawn is/was a political party, even if it engaged in criminal activities during its existence. Thus the aforementioned guidelines apply. Impru20^talk 23:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Re: policy - WP:PRECISION and WP:CONCISE apply to either alternative, the difference being that merely using eg. (Greece) relays very little information to the reader ("What is 'Golden Dawn'? It's something in Greece" vs. "it's a neo-fascist organization" or even "organization"). Mind many of your examples are not that relevant, as they're either sufficiently descriptive ("the so-and-so party") or unique, and so do not require disambiguation (eg. Batasuna, or most of the articles in the categories you cited).

Al-Shabaab began as the armed wing of the Islamic Courts Union, which was a legal and political organisation which was formed to address lawlessness (from the respective articles) - so it was started as a supposedly legitimate organization.

You are not explaining why this article does require this sort of disambiguation - I actually have: I think a judgement call heavily backed by sources (eg. "militant organization" or "criminal organization") is fine. It other words - call it what it is, and use a descriptor that actually tells the reader something about it (see above). Again, I'm okay with "neo-fascist organization" or "movement", but less okay with "political party" (which it no longer is) or just a geographic designator, which doesn't say much.

Golden Dawn is/was a political party, even if it engaged in criminal activities during its existence. "Golden Dawn" started as a popular neo-fascist and neo-nazi movement founded by a convicted criminal, veered into activities like extortion and assault of minorities, then for <10 years of its 35 year existence had normalized as political party, before being thrown out of parliament and declared illegal.[8] If anything, Golden Dawn is a violent movement that attempted conventional politics, not a political party that fell into criminal activity. François Robere (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

PRECISION does not apply to your alternative because it's too precise (it hints at the 2020 ruling, but leaves out the period encompassing the whole of the party's history, when it was not legally considered as a criminal organization). Also, as pointed out by Pincrete below, it looks like the ruling settled that Golden Down "operated as a criminal organization", not "is a criminal organization". The difference is subtle but important: a political party engaged in criminal activities (even from its inception) is still a political party, whatever criminal offences that it may have committed. On the other hand, "(political party)" is shorter than "(criminal organization)", so CONCISE favours the former over the latter as well.

Again, Al-Shabaab is not a political party. I don't understand your insistence to point out articles on non-political party criminal organizations over the lots and lots of criminally-condemned political parties in Wikipedia that disprove your own arguments. And again, you don't explain why this article requires this sort of disambiguation. You say use a descriptor that actually tells the reader something about it. It's a political party and has been for over 30 years, and it's the fact that made them notable in the first place, so the current descriptor "tells the reader something about it". It's banned? Ok, then it's a banned political party, like the many dozens of examples of articles on banned political parties that there are on Wikipedia. So, the "(criminal organization)" label is not justified solely on those grounds.

Again, the Nazi Party, Batasuna or Hamas could also fall under your criteria for dubbing a party as a "militant/criminal/terrorist" group, yet they aren't labeled so in their titles. It doesn't matter if the party engaged in criminal activities, or was a far-left/far-right or any other kind of extremist group, it still operated as a political party and was notable because of that. WP:NCPP still applies.

If anything, Golden Dawn is a violent popular movement that attempted conventional politics, not a political party that fell into criminal activity. For some reason, you seem to imply that labeling Golden Dawn as "political party" in the title diminishes the scope of their criminal activities in some form. It doesn't. Political parties can be criminal. But Wikipedia should not be used to right great wrongs or to re-write history as we see fit. Golden Dawn operated as a political party (thus NCPP applies), nothwithstanding the fact that it concurrently engaged in criminal activities (that, nonetheless, were derived from, and subservient to, their own political stance), but was still a political party that became notable worldwide because of its electoral results in the early 2010s.

Nonetheless, this conflict shows why the reckless 2013 move from "Golden Dawn (Greece)" to "Golden Dawn (political party)" was wrong. The article should be moved to its original location to avoid any such conflict and to fully comply with WP:AT and WP:NCPP. Impru20^talk 12:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Re "before being thrown out of parliament and declared illegal" - Another subtle distinction, but GD has not been declared illegal (ie banned). I believe the Gk constitution has no provision for declaring it thus. What supporters fail to produce are RS that actually refer to GD as a "criminal organisation". Even allowing for recentism, that should not be hard to do if they were most commonly referred to as such (as opposed to a political party that engaged in very nasty and illegal activities in pursuit of its political aims).

Neutral either way's fine. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for now per Impru20. Sources still describe them as a political party which also ran a criminal organization. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Please choose Golden Dawn (Greece) or Golden Dawn (organization) (both parties and criminal organizations are organizations): they are more neutral than both the current name and the proposed one. Remember that Wikipedia offers an external and neutral point of view. What Greece or any country thinks of somebody does not touch what Wikipedia writes, we deal about history not with the worldview according to somebody specific.--Nickanc (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Please choose Golden Dawn (Greece) or Golden Dawn (organization) - I was going to post something very similar, but Nickanc has already done it. I would also have suggested Golden Dawn (Greek organization) - Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn is also an organisation. Pol098 (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Support, they are by definition a criminal organisation. Whether they became widely known as a political party or not is irrelevant. And to be fair, they were known in Greece way before being voted as a political party. Harry Stanimerakis (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Support, they were stripped of every political influence they had and rightfully so. As of 7/10/2020, they were deemed a criminal organization by the Greek Criminal Justice Court — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwu.thicc1312 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Impru20 and Thjarkur, but would support Golden Dawn (political party) → Golden Dawn (Greek organization) per Pol098. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Support, They were deemed as a criminal organization according to the outcome of the trials https://www.kathimerini.gr/society/561107125/enochos-o-roypakias-gia-ti-dolofonia-fyssa/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:859:29:D800:10D1:6DE5:B78B:9C32 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Impru20. The group has for most of its history been considered a political party, especially considering it has been in four different parliaments (see #Election history), it being the third biggest party in the January 2015 Greek legislative election. I belive it to be a political party before anything else. Orcaguy (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Support, as I don't see their future as a genuine political party surviving after this ruling. Maybe implement Nickanc and Pol098's ideas instead, but I don't think their labeling as a mere party should stay the same. 64.43.140.139 (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: many opinions attach significance to GD ceasing to be a political party. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper; plenty of no-longer-existing parties have articles, rightly so. The GD article is full of election results, seats in a legislature, etc. So it was definitely a party. And it may now cease to exist, rather than continuing as a criminal entity - crystal ball territory. So I don't see "political party" as a problem - it definitely was. But Golden Dawn (Greek organization) is also unobjectionable. Pol098 (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: The Golden Dawn is long known for being a political party, as pointed out by Impru20, I also think that the proposed title is very POV, and I don't think Wikipedia should start outright calling political organizations criminal just because a government declared them to be so, unless there is an actual good reason for this. 179.183.231.78 (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Impru20. Mahuset (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I despise golden dawn and the far right with the strongest hatred (I am far-left) - but I think this also sets a bad precedent for other perfectly fine, normal political parties, yknow, that aren't evil nutjobs like Golden Dawn, banned in totalitarian states to also have "criminal organization" in their titles, simply because they have been deemed such. For example, any political party in Saudi Arabia. Lfax-nimbus (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Impru20, but I would Support for move to Golden Dawn (Greece) as long as the article remains WP: PRIMARYTOPIC. Having "criminal" in the title doesn't make sense to have it a criminal organization because it is still the political party as entity. 36.68.186.156 (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. The parenthetical disambiguator is meant to aid readers in knowing they reached the article they are looking for. Golden Dawn has been known as a political party for over 30 years, and has just recently been ruled a criminal organization. Readers are much more likely to recognize it as a political party, so that's what the disambiguator should be. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Mild support On the one hand it is a criminal organization, Golden Dawn is horrid but that's like the Al-qeada article being entitled "Al-Qaeda (terrorist)", instead there should be "Golden dawn is a former political party and criminal organization by". With that in mind it absolutely must remove the "political party". I think this is a good start but I think this article should just be named "Golden dawn". Vallee01 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: I don't mind either way but I do wish to point out for the purpose of this debate that other former political parties that have since been declared to be criminal organisations, such as the Soviet Communist Party and the Nazi Party, are not titled as criminal organisations on their entries. Outlawed political parties are generally still listed as parties, usually with an item in the infobox showing that they have been banned or dissolved. Skymann102 (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: they are indeed a criminal organization, although also a political party. I think Golden Dawn (Greece) would be a more appropriate name, however. -Xbony2 (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Support, I also do not see their future as a genuine political party after the ruling. They really are a criminal group anyway. Dyaluk08 (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Suggestion: Golden Dawn has been many things since its creation. It is active as a political party only 1/3rd of the time of its existence and that is, 20 years after its first appearance as an entity. The titles Golden Dawn or Golden Dawn (Organization) or Golden Dawn (Greek Organization) are far more appropriate and less missleading. Since this article is about the general history of this entity called golden dawn and because its status as a politcal party is only a fraction of this, is inherently wrong to characterize it as such. On the other hand, people above point out that we cannot change dissambiguation based on goverments, which is utterly correct. The above suggestions encompass both of these points.Basilislab (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- @Basilislab: "Movement" instead of "organization"? François Robere (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Impru20, Lfax-nimbus and WP:COMMONNAME, no one refers to this as a criminal organisation (which happens to dabble in Gk politics) - it is an org with political ambition, prepared to use criminal means to achieve those ambitions, which the court ruling endorses. Even if it is 'dead' as a political org - it will forever be known for its political beliefs AT LEAST AS MUCH as the preparedness to use threats and violence to achieve them. The most famous fascist group of all time, was equally willing to use illegal means, we still refer to it as a party, not a violent gang of thugs. Pincrete (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment the Gk court did not actually say that GD was a criminal org] - what it ruled is that "the far-right Golden Dawn party was operating as a criminal organization". There is a subtle, but real difference between "being" and "operating as", only the headline of the AP source uses "is". Pincrete (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- That's a distinction without a difference. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

It's a huge difference, a 'criminal organisation' exists to break the law - usually for financial reasons. An organisation "operating as" exists for some other purpose, but has been prepared to break the law in pursuit of that purpose. Apart from anything else (such as sources do not refer to this as a 'criminal organisation'), the 'crim org' description is less informative - did GD exist to smuggle narcotics? Launder money? Sell dodgy goods? No it existed to bring about a very nasty kind of nationalist politics, and like so many of that kind, was prepared to use violence to enforce its will. The faith in a single judgement by a court is touching if misplaced. I have spent a lot of time on WP pointing out that the CIA or US govt saying this or that person is a dangerous terrorist is not the same as THEY ARE. I'm not going to change that simply because GD happens to be a repulsive group. There is a distinct whiff of triumphalism among some votes here because editors here tend to agree with the court, even if changing the description ignores WEIGHT, RECENTISM, COMMONNAME, SYNTH and NPOV. Some renaming might be apt, but this is not. Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Support or alternately change to "Golden Dawn (organization)" per Nickanc, Pol098 & Basilislab. Their status as a "Political Organization" was a mask for their criminal activities, as found by the courts & multiple reliable sources. Arguments about defunct political parties are not relevant, as GD was a criminal organization to begin with. Other cited groups (Soviet Communist Party and the Nazi Party) were political organizations from the beginning; while they participated in crimes against humanity (in addition to general crimes), they were still political organizations from the outset. Golden Dawn was a neo-Nazi criminal organization which only pivoted to politics to give itself a veneer of credibility — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Support move to Golden Dawn (Greece). It's a neo-Nazi group, a political party, and a criminal organization but rather than attempting to squeeze all that into the page title, let's just give the country where it operates. Neutrality^talk 17:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: per Pincrete -Gouleg🛋️ (Talk • Contribs) 20:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Support: Golden Dawn was always operated under principles that glorified Nazism. They were pro-violence and anti-democracy. The recent court ruling found core members of the party as guilty for participating in a criminal organization. So while the party might continue to exist (under Greek law, convicts can vote and get elected), it doesn't take away from the fact that the organization of the party was characterized as a criminal organization. 2A02:587:C412:E00:485A:8257:FA0C:2B89 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A far-right, ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic, political party that glorifies Nazism and violence - is still a political party! No one ever said that only nice liberal people were allowed to form parties! Pincrete (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Support: The Court has declared it to be a criminal organisation, and there's thus no need for the article title to feature the 'political party' label. LeoC12 (talk) 04:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The court did not declare that (only headlines say that), but even if it had, why is this one judgement to take precedence over the hundreds of sources over 35 years and COMMONNAME? There is an article about GD because it has been actively participating in Gk politics for many years, the law has now caught up with their 'ugly side' - or even uglier than we thought - but nonetheless they are known as a political org.Pincrete (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. There was not any judgment about the party because the Greek criminal law does not provide that a legal entity (be it a company or party etc) can be a "criminal organization". The court decision refers to about 17 persons, members of the party. Those particular persons are the criminal organization. Soon we'll know the sentences and things will be more clear.--Skylax30 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, I think it total there are 68 people charged, but I can only find — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpbrenna (talk • contribs) 00:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. Golden Dawn is a far-right political party which has been found by a Greek court to have been operating as a criminal organisation. It is not a purely criminal organisation in the sense that the Mafia, Triad or Yakuza is. To label it as purely a criminal organisation in the title (or the first sentence of the lead) is misleading. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: another source for your perusal: In the end, the leader of a party whose supporters threatened “civil war” and to turn the skins of immigrants into lampshades could not even bring himself to face judgment in person... Golden Dawn... [which] is responsible for a years-long campaign of violence and intimidation against immigrants, LGBTQ communities and political opponents, was found to be a criminal organisation. [...] Why... was Golden Dawn allowed to operate unhindered for so long? The party is associated with a string of serious assaults going back to the 1990s, yet for years Greece’s political class seemed reluctant to enforce the law... [...] Racism, discrimination and far-right nationalism have not disappeared from Greece [after the verdict was handed]... but a movement that sought to organise these into the most appalling violence has been shattered. [9] François Robere (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, the leader of a party...The party is associated with a string of serious assaults. The Guardian calls it a party. so should Wikipedia. Scolaire (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  - Yes, and also was found to be a criminal organisation, with a history of criminal activity going back to the 1990s. François Robere (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    - And all that can go in the article. But it doesn't say is a criminal organisation. Why should we? Scolaire (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
    - "Was found ..." by whom? There is not such a verdict. Don't confuse the Law with journalism.--Skylax30 (talk) 12:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
      - It was a finding of the court. There was such a verdict, under Article 187 of the Greek Penal Code. The question we are voting on is not was this was in fact the court's finding, or whether the article should state this finding, but does that information justify moving the Wikipedia page to a new article namespace? It is clear the the first is true, and it is equally clear to me that the article should state this, but it is not at all clear that the namespace should be based solely on this fact and not on other facts, like the fact that Golden Dawn was also a fully-functioning political party. Jpbrenna (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
      - Actually, I should clarify that it was a verdict that 68 individuals were guilty of acting as a criminal organization, in varying capacities. Nothing said that the party itself was a criminal organization. But there was in fact a verdict. The majority of the party's leadership were found guilty of acting as a criminal organization, and I have no objections to putting that in the lede. But I think it is false to state that the party itself has been found to be a criminal organization, even though that is currently what the Greek Wikipedia states. I cannot find a source that says that it was what the court actually said. The CNN Greek article headline reads "Golden Dawn Judgement: Guilty of Criminal Organization [Are] Michaloliakos and Public Officials". The article goes on to list the names of the officials and the findings of the court based on different specifications, but nothing in it says the entire party has been found guilty of being a criminal organization.Jpbrenna (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Pincrete. Nuke (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Support move to Golden Dawn (Greece) for reasons stated by Neutrality, plus the fact that there is now a Golden Dawn political party in Italy. Jpbrenna (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, Golden Dawn (Greece) is the only move I would support at this time. I would Oppose the current proposal.

In response to some of the suggestions I have read above: yes, it has been more of an organization or movement (one-man, at it's beginning) than a political party, but that can be said of many other movements that became political parties. And the criminal factor began before the movement was founded, as Michaloliakos was convicted of crimes before he started Golden Dawn. We might follow the example of the Revolutionary Organization 17 November article and call Golden Dawn a "right-wing urban guerrilla organization", but even that is incomplete, as to my knowledge 17N never published a magazine nor got one of its members elected to parliament, nor did Golden Dawn ever successfully detonate a bomb, even though Michaloliakos was convicted of stealing explosives. Golden Dawn openly practiced street beatings of opponents, 17N secretly used explosives. I think you could both call these "urban guerilla" tactics in furtherance of their political aims, but Golden Dawn went beyond those tactics and had some success in getting its members into parliament. The criminal, organizational, media, and political elements should all be mentioned in the lede, but I think it is insufficient and non-neutral to pick any one of those as part of the article's namespace. Golden Dawn (Greece) is the simplest, most neutral descriptor. People can use that to find the article, and then read about everything else in the body of the article.Jpbrenna (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. The group was until recently registered as a political party with members in the Greek parliament. The Nazis were also a political party. IMO, this proposal is using disambiguation to express disapproval of the group. That's not what disambiguation is for. The proper purpose of a disambiguator is to steer the reader the most likely desired destination. 3K008P9 (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC) !vote by sock of community-banned user struck per WP:BMB. Favonian (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: It was party and acted as a party, but is now banned as criminal organization. Jingiby (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not banned.--Skylax30 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose It was a parliamentary party for several years. Its criminal activities can not erase that. Dimadick (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Move to Golden Dawn (Greece) This offers an accurate and uncontroversial resolution. Given the unusual nature/operation of Golden Dawn, neither (criminal organization) nor (political party) sufficiently describe it, and it would be better to leave the discussion of how best to define Golden Dawn to the article itself. I will add that I believe the current article name, while not optimal, is more appropriate than (criminal organization); a court ruling cannot be treated as objective fact, and as User:Scolaire mentioned, conjures images of Street Gangs and Crime Syndicates totally unlike Golden Dawn. Thereppy (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Pincrete. It was predominantly a political party whose members committed illegal acts, not predominantly a criminal organization. Talrolande (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Support as it is for a criminal organization, see WP:NCRIME. --The Houndsworth (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

NCRIME relates to notability (i.e. whether a crime-related topic should merit an article on Wikipedia) not to article naming. It is not a naming convention or guideline. Golden Dawn was notable on its own way before the ruling; thus, NCRIME doesn't apply here. Impru20^talk 05:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It is now a criminal organization as well as far-right political party as part of WP:RECENTISM. --The Houndsworth (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not, as per the arguments exposed throughout the discussion by multiple users (including myself). And that still wouldn't turn NCRIME into a naming convention, which you applied wrongly. Impru20^talk 05:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Neo-Nazi"?

You must provide reliable sources before we can say this in the article. Also, please start a new section if you want to discuss this, rather than posting to a thread from nearly a year ago. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The source says that because of their salute and their red, white & black flag they are neo-nazis? By following that logic one could argue that because of the eagle & nazi colours the egyptian flag is also proof that the government of egypt is neo-nazi. It just seems like a very non credible source and is a bit defaming. 98.128.247.161 (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Golden Dawn deliberately copied their flag and salute from Nazi Germany. In any case, we report the conclusions reached by experts. TFD (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Their political ideas are well known and it is clearly neo-nazi their leaders and members have many videos that sayibg ther are nazis and quoting their leader in o e of the party members assembly "we are the remnants of the defeated of 1945" imolying the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945. Skrtel1 (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

^ http://www.occupylv.org/sites/default/files/political_compass.jpg

[1] ttp://www.occupylv.org/sites/default/files/political_compass.jpg

[1]