The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section should be expanded to include the responses by the political parties, the parliament, the government and other actors. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 03:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you refer it in this page? first... 6 -- Katcheic ( talk) 05:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Katcheic ( talk) 05:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Insufficient coverage and inadequate notability. Dloh cierekim 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As I mentionned in another section of this discussion page, I think that this article should be merged, as proposed by Dlohcierekim with article Terrorism in Greece... Seems to me like a "hit of the moment" (even if I'm sure this expression isn't very appropriate for this situation...)... Now it's a talk of the town in Greece, when after 2-3 months it would be mostly forgotten (except from the corncerned political party itself...)...-- Glorious 93 ( talk) 01:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyone that remember someone guy named Fyssas as an evidence of death? Come on... We will see after 1 month if it still in our minds but Kapelonis and Foudoulis are still and will be... -- Entrancepi ( talk) 12:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Silly me, I've completely forgotten to add it... -- Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! talk 02:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
User Entrancepi r,emoved the template ar 17:37, 3 December 2013 , summarising "This article not necessarily has to do with terrorism". -- C messier ( talk) 10:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
In favor: :This is a terrorist attack. The content of the article should be moved to Terrorism in Greece. For the record, another member was injured but did not die, and another managed to escape. The attack was blind; targeting whoever was there at the moment. Based on the proclamation it was a counter attack towards Golden Dawn for Fyssas' murder and other murders and violent attacks attributed to the party, and was not targeted to specific individuals within the party. There have been more significant political murders by terrorist organizations. Look at the case of Pavlos Bakoyannis, a murder which shook Greece at the time and has affected politics heavily in the following years. He is included in Revolutionary Organization 17 November, but no special article is attributed to the event. Why should a murder that has less effects and its victims are not noticeable have its own page? Also, the attack is also mentioned in Golden Dawn (political party).-- Tco03displays ( talk) 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Most editors here have raised a positive opinion in regards to the merge. Have we reached consensus or are more people interested in further discussing this issue? -- Tco03displays ( talk) 08:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The article was moved to the title "Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office" and the justification was "that's NOT ths point of this article. Dont you ever change it". I disagree. The fact/point are the shootings. Whoever went there didn't target specifically Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis but everyone there (outside the office), just happened to be there (and Alexandros Gerontas, who was severly woonded). -- C messier ( talk) 10:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Title has been changed. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 09:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
What are we going to do with the constant change of the page name? I thought that "1st of November Golden Dawn Office Attack" would suffice for a clear identification of the article. But the original editor keeps changing it, currently as "Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office". Really? Murder attack sniffs of some kind of syntax error, its either Murders of.. or Murderous Attack (which sounds pretty bad for a title). And the bit about "on members of the Golden Dawn Office" is badly chosen too. What Golden Dawn office, first of all, secondly the attack was blind and the members of that office were not target per se, but any members that could had been around. The whole title does not sound very good. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 09:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The whole section of the "Background of the victims" with the exception of the last sentence is not verified by the sources added. There isno information concerning the background of the victims in this source. The section on "Worldwide reactions" is based on primary sources (Golden Dawn's website) for the reactions in other countries and by football clubs. The sources are not to be used based on Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources.-- Tco03displays ( talk) 04:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Article has been cleaned from unreliable primary sources, original research and information that does not correspond to the sources. The tone of the article has been changed to become more academic and encyclopedic, vague words such as "etc" and "large crowds" have been removed.-- Tco03displays ( talk) 07:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Katcheic please read. The content is full of original research, primary sources that are unreliable and information that is not included in the sources cited. This content should not be included in Wikipedia and must be removed. Please discuss defend them here, in order to avoid an edit war. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The pictures are the proof no-matter by the page provides them, but if you 're interested for constribute why do not put some secondary sources by yourself here some... 1, 2, paneuropian solidarity e.t.c. p.s. Was it a criminal offensee? -- Katcheic ( talk) 23:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
— Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
Your use of words and phrases such as "Many people", "worldwide", " paneuropian solidarity" " many supporters of many Football teams worldwide" indicate clear interpretation of primary sources. In addition, I do not see any large crowds either. Just a handful of people in minor protests. Which indicates misrepresentation of the source. Further on, there was clearly no "wordwide" reactions. Occupy Movement emerging from Occupy Wall Street was a world wide reaction. Well documented as well. On a final note one of the sources you've given me is a secondary source, indicating that a handful of Latsio's fans are connected to the far-right, to fascism and to nazism. Since you found the source, why don't you add it?-- Tco03displays ( talk) 23:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Moved from user's Tco03displays talkpage:
Ο yes, really? You can get them (even here-by wiki) and sea how much far-right they are if you want. Personally, thank God they are not unillegal "terroristic-tromocracy" / far-left teams -- Katcheic ( talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Being a big football fan myself, I have to say also that the original author of this article is hidding the truth... Actually when he mentions the "many supporters of many Football teams worldwide", it's completely false as the examples he's giving ( Hellas Verona F.C., Lazio and Atlético Madrid) are well-known teams for being linked with far-right movements, not to say Neonazis, especially in the cases of Lazio an d Hellas Verona... For Atletico I'm not as sure as for the two mentionned before teams... So, it's pretty clear that these three teams cannot represent "many Football teams worldwide"...-- Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! talk 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
And now as for the sources...
SS Lazio:
Hellas Verona:
Because you type Hellas Verona Nazi, but if you normally type Hellas Verona, yoy take this, so simply -- Katcheic ( talk) 23:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
After the Far East Movement, now the... Far Right Movement... -- Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! talk 00:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I've fully protected the article for three days due to the continuing edit warring. For any edits to be made to the article there will need to be a discussion on this talk page, if you believe that a consensus has been achieved for a particular change you should use {{tl|editprotected}] to request that an administrator make the change according to that consensus. If after the protection expires any editor continues the edit war they will be blocked. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
On the 16th of November Zougla announced that an unknown person contacted the station informing them the area where an envelope which contained a USB stick was placed; and that the digital proclamation was stored on it. Zougla uploaded the proclamation online, in which a newly found organization, The Fighting People's Revolutionary Powers, claimed the responsibility for the attack. [1] The proclamation stated that the attack was a response to the murder of Pavlos Fyssas; which was seen by the group as the "drop that overflowed the glass" [2]. The anti-terrorist branch of the Greek police announced that it considered the digital proclamation as authentic and is investigating the case [3]. Following the proclamation, Golden Dawn stated that "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left" [4].
Other commentators took a skeptical stand towards the proclamation. Journalist Anta Psara questioned the authenticity and ideological honesty of the proclamation by stating that previous far left armed groups sent their proclamations to the least politically biased mass media or to online anti-authoritarian sites, while in this case the proclamation was sent to a site with right-wing sympathies [5]. She further questioned the proclamation by stating that the material included was copied from online sources and past newspapers, and that throughout the declaration the organization fails to provide information on itself or information in relation to the planning of the attack; which would prove its relation to it [5]. Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis made similar observations, commenting that the proclamation is structured very similarly to a journalist article, that ideological analysis is missing, that it is historically rare for an anti-regime organization to treat mildly the political parties of the left; and that the proclamation provides no evidence that its authors were the same people who executed the attack [6].-- Tco03displays ( talk) 09:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 26 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. So I have to remove some personal opinions of individuals -- Katcheic ( talk) 23:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It has already been noted above. Do not edit again important aspects of the article without prior discussion. My edit was discussed, and you did not engage in the discussion. You only returned after your ban expired to delete what you did not like and compromise the neutrality of the article again. We both agreed that this is not qualified as a Terrorist attack, that it is disputed. You then moved on to remove any aspect that refers to one side of the dispute and left only Golden Dawn's statement that this was a leftist organization. Then you moved on to add more information under the Other Reactions heading without discussion (I will not remove it, it is finally expressed in an appropriate way). Had you actually cared to discuss, I would had made these clear to you. Stop vandalizing and stop edit warring. I could go on doing this forever, and if you continue you will eventually get banned by an admin. Read the rules, stop trying to bend them to suit your interests, and if you actually care for proper editing, visit pages such as Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Talk:Creation–evolution controversy and Talk:Muhammad to get a clearer idea of how things are handled on Wikipedia. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 13:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I can no longer deal with this user. For almost 2 weeks he constantly deletes my edits, and reverts my work. He does not engage in discussion. It has been stated by User:Callanecc that all changes in the article must be previously discussed due to edit wars. The user has received handful of warnings and 2 bans so far. After being unbanned he came right back to the page and removed material that stated opinions of known journalists, (well-referenced and used to achieve a NPOV, it had been discussed in the talkpage) and added new material with no discussion. This user ha been warned for weeks, he is the only editor causing trouble in the page, he clearly tries to promote a specific point of view (look at the discussion in the article talkpage as well as the warnings on his talkpage) and has also vandalized the page Murder of Pavlos Fyssas in the past to reduce the information in regards to the anti-Golden Dawn protests that took place after the murder, while he added biased and misrepresenting information based on unreliable sources on the reactions to the murders of the 2 Golden Dawn members; exaggerating the public response. The two events are interlinked in Greek politics. At the moment Golden Dawn is being prosecuted as a criminal organization in Greece, and what the user is doing is to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool to affect the views of non-Greek speaking readers on Golden Dawn. It is also interesting to note that we had agreed that the murders cannot be considered a terrorist attack, that the information on the executioners is disputed and controversial; and thus the article should not be merged with Terrorism in Greece, but the moment I added skeptical statements by known journalists in Greece in regards to the organization that claimed the attack, to balance the scale with the opinions of Golden Dawn (that the murderers were leftists) the user decided that it should be deleted without notice. I've been trying hard to reach a neutral point of view on this article and it is not difficult, if I did not have this editor constantly trying to propagate.
All of the editors and the admins have been very tolerant with this user and tried to find common ground. But there is no ground left. I follow Greek politics closely and I was very suspect of this article popping up because I was afraid pro-Golden Dawn people would pop up to attack Pavlos Fyssas' article, turn Wikipedia onto a political boxing arena and propagate against the Greek left and in favor of the far right. In my opinion there was enough toleration, too much to be honest. Wikipedia has no space for the slightest propaganda and intended misinformation,
Its not up to me to deal with this from now on, but I will suggest an indefinite ban on the user and semi-protection on the article from IPs and very new users. Do as you see fit.-- Tco03displays ( talk) 10:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
You are the only one seems to not understand the wiki-policies, except your propaganda.-- Katcheic ( talk) 23:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. User:Tco03displays uses the wikipedia as political podium evening to move toward specific political direction Violating the Rules of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. I have already informed the ensuing debate in. -- Katcheic ( talk) 15:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Υou edit warring I explained you the legality about the wiki policies for the neutral point, what is not understandable? We don't not make political propaganda. Is it what you want, Wikipedia is not a podium of opinions. -- Katcheic ( talk) 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:Notability-pedium -- Katcheic ( talk) 18:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
On the 16th of November Zougla announced that an unknown person contacted the station informing them the area where an envelope which contained a USB stick was placed; and that the digital proclamation was stored on it. Zougla uploaded the proclamation online, in which a newly found organization, The Fighting People's Revolutionary Powers, claimed the responsibility for the attack. [1] The anti-terrorist branch of the Greek police announced that it considered the digital proclamation as authentic and is investigating the case. [2] Following the proclamation, Golden Dawn stated that "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left". [3]
Other commentators took a skeptical stand towards the proclamation. Journalist Anta Psara questioned the authenticity and ideological honesty of the proclamation by stating that previous far left armed groups sent their proclamations to the least politically biased mass media or to online anti-authoritarian sites, while in this case the proclamation was sent to a site with right-wing sympathies [4]. She further questioned the proclamation by stating that the material included was copied from online sources and past newspapers, and that throughout the declaration the organization fails to provide information on itself or information in relation to the planning of the attack; which would prove its relation to it [4]. Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis made similar observations, commenting that the proclamation is structured very similarly to a journalist article, that ideological analysis is missing, that it is historically rare for an anti-regime organization to treat mildly the political parties of the left; and that the proclamation provides no evidence that its authors were the same people who executed the attack [5].-- Tco03displays( talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Be gentle with policy. Wiki as an opinion-podium is irrelevant. WP:Opinion podium -- Katcheic ( talk) 19:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
To sum up. The controversy is the following, in Katcheic's words, taken straight out of the talkpage of the article in regards to the murderers: "Since nobody is not sure about this murder how are we going to characterize it as a terrorist attack? So we can not merge it at this. anywhere - not many users agreed --Katcheic (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)". When it came to actually describing this controversy, I added multiple notable opinions by name, which expressed contradictory views, in accordance with NPOV policy. Katcheic stated above that only one opinion is to be allowed on the article, and that is of Golden Dawn - all other opinions contradicting it were removed by Katcheic. Not only this is a violation of NPOV, it is also a clear and conscious attempt to make the article biased and censor views that do not attack the far left. This is Golden Dawn's statement, an opinion: "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left". It is clearly subjective, attacks Greek leftist politics and the International left, but that is ok, it is perfectly fine according to Katcheic, as long as no other views are expressed; which might actually challenge it. All this, on a subject deemed by the very same editor as controversial. The editor has accused other editors as leftists, including me, only because we followed the referencing and the NPOV rules, and has expressed favor of right-wing politics, especially in the talkpage of the article. I am thus more than justified in saying that Katcheic is knowingly trying to compromise the article's neutrality, turning it into a pro-Golden Dawn article by censoring other relevant views, and wants the article to semi-conclude that the murderers were far leftist terrorists, even though he himself acknowledged that this is indeed very controversial. The editor is violating fundamental rules again and again (NPOV), from the begging of the article's creation (as indicated above and in the article's talkpage) to promote a specific point of view, wasting everyone's time in the process, compromising Wikipedia's reliably, and thus knowingly affecting the reader's access to information outside of his own preferred point of view. I indicate this clearly: I could care less of Katcheic's political views. If he had added material on the page according to rules (something that took us a long time to convince him to do so, including warinings, removal of material and bans), we could have had some aspects of the article's subject added, while we filled in the rest. But Katcheic removes, censors and has now reported users who do not add material that fit his point of view. I rest my case. This is the only editor that holds the article back and acts against the rules. Please, someone sort this mess out. --
Tco03displays (
talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Αs we know some opinions of what you set, are from far leftists or caracterized by politically propaganda and could be used for recruitment or defense of any kind, commercial, political, religious or other. Although details about the personal lives and thoughts can occasionally provide important or relevant to the topic, most often the authors include it as shocking or amusing sentences, or why personally find the most interesting gossip from the real object of the article. We will not break the rules. -- Katcheic ( talk) 20:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Jornalism/Jornalists incorporate-encloses in defending or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious or other advertising beyond the objectivity of the article, through the pedestal of the wikipedia. So the common conclusion is that it is arbitrary the reference on their ideas and beliefs. -- Katcheic ( talk) 23:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Katcheic. We got both rejected on the report page. I copied the whole discussion here for reference. Please answer some questions clearly so we can get to the bottom of this and sort out what we disagree with. Do you agree with me that the executioners' motives and identity are disputed (that's what you agreed with me on the merge discussion)? If yes, do you agree with me that many points of view should be offered to reach NPOV? If yes, is the problem the specific 2 journalists (not the points themselves, or the individuals, or a political orientation) as references because you strongly disagree with adding journalists' views in the page? For the record, adding different views does not make any of them true or false, this is precisely the point. We may have to file a dispute for other editors/admins to help us sort it, but we should not report each other again, because that procedure is the wrong way to deal with a dispute and will only get us rejected again and get the admins irritated at us. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 08:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office →
2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting – not married to title, but going for more wikilike and less sensationalist.
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk) 13:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I do not read Greek, so the three refs to the following lede-placed (lead?) sentence do me no good:
In December 2014, the murderers of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis, along with three other terrorists, were outlawed for 1 million euros from the government of Greece.
There is no explanatory text in the body of the article, making the entire sentence misplaced in the lede (the lede is for summarizing the body). If the outlawing cannot be fleshed out (who did it, to whom was it done, when was it done, and why) under the "Political reactions" sub-section, then the whole sentence in the lede should be deleted. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 04:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to match article title decided by #Requested move above. DrKiernan ( talk) 16:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office terrorist attack → Talk:2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting – This talkpage should be moved to the articles name. So it is not linked to a redirect...( t) Josve05a ( c) 09:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) ( t) Josve05a ( c) 09:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following lede-placed sentence has no body text to support it, and makes no sense itself, as explained above. Please remove it.
In December 2014, the murderers of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis, along with three other terrorists, were outlawed for 1 million euros from the government of Greece.
71.234.215.133 ( talk) 09:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
So, what is exactly the disagreement?-- Katcheic ( talk) 10:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I think I have improved this article a little. I will continue to work on it and currently would like to bump it up from Start-Class to C-Class. Is there any objections or things that glare out from the page currently? Regards. SP00KY talk 23:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This section should be expanded to include the responses by the political parties, the parliament, the government and other actors. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 03:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you refer it in this page? first... 6 -- Katcheic ( talk) 05:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Katcheic ( talk) 05:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Insufficient coverage and inadequate notability. Dloh cierekim 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As I mentionned in another section of this discussion page, I think that this article should be merged, as proposed by Dlohcierekim with article Terrorism in Greece... Seems to me like a "hit of the moment" (even if I'm sure this expression isn't very appropriate for this situation...)... Now it's a talk of the town in Greece, when after 2-3 months it would be mostly forgotten (except from the corncerned political party itself...)...-- Glorious 93 ( talk) 01:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Is there anyone that remember someone guy named Fyssas as an evidence of death? Come on... We will see after 1 month if it still in our minds but Kapelonis and Foudoulis are still and will be... -- Entrancepi ( talk) 12:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Silly me, I've completely forgotten to add it... -- Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! talk 02:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
User Entrancepi r,emoved the template ar 17:37, 3 December 2013 , summarising "This article not necessarily has to do with terrorism". -- C messier ( talk) 10:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
In favor: :This is a terrorist attack. The content of the article should be moved to Terrorism in Greece. For the record, another member was injured but did not die, and another managed to escape. The attack was blind; targeting whoever was there at the moment. Based on the proclamation it was a counter attack towards Golden Dawn for Fyssas' murder and other murders and violent attacks attributed to the party, and was not targeted to specific individuals within the party. There have been more significant political murders by terrorist organizations. Look at the case of Pavlos Bakoyannis, a murder which shook Greece at the time and has affected politics heavily in the following years. He is included in Revolutionary Organization 17 November, but no special article is attributed to the event. Why should a murder that has less effects and its victims are not noticeable have its own page? Also, the attack is also mentioned in Golden Dawn (political party).-- Tco03displays ( talk) 15:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Most editors here have raised a positive opinion in regards to the merge. Have we reached consensus or are more people interested in further discussing this issue? -- Tco03displays ( talk) 08:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The article was moved to the title "Murder of Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis to Neo Iraklio Golden Down office" and the justification was "that's NOT ths point of this article. Dont you ever change it". I disagree. The fact/point are the shootings. Whoever went there didn't target specifically Manolis Fountoulis and Giorgos Kapelonis but everyone there (outside the office), just happened to be there (and Alexandros Gerontas, who was severly woonded). -- C messier ( talk) 10:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Title has been changed. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 09:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
What are we going to do with the constant change of the page name? I thought that "1st of November Golden Dawn Office Attack" would suffice for a clear identification of the article. But the original editor keeps changing it, currently as "Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office". Really? Murder attack sniffs of some kind of syntax error, its either Murders of.. or Murderous Attack (which sounds pretty bad for a title). And the bit about "on members of the Golden Dawn Office" is badly chosen too. What Golden Dawn office, first of all, secondly the attack was blind and the members of that office were not target per se, but any members that could had been around. The whole title does not sound very good. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 09:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The whole section of the "Background of the victims" with the exception of the last sentence is not verified by the sources added. There isno information concerning the background of the victims in this source. The section on "Worldwide reactions" is based on primary sources (Golden Dawn's website) for the reactions in other countries and by football clubs. The sources are not to be used based on Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources and Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources.-- Tco03displays ( talk) 04:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Article has been cleaned from unreliable primary sources, original research and information that does not correspond to the sources. The tone of the article has been changed to become more academic and encyclopedic, vague words such as "etc" and "large crowds" have been removed.-- Tco03displays ( talk) 07:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Katcheic please read. The content is full of original research, primary sources that are unreliable and information that is not included in the sources cited. This content should not be included in Wikipedia and must be removed. Please discuss defend them here, in order to avoid an edit war. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 20:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The pictures are the proof no-matter by the page provides them, but if you 're interested for constribute why do not put some secondary sources by yourself here some... 1, 2, paneuropian solidarity e.t.c. p.s. Was it a criminal offensee? -- Katcheic ( talk) 23:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
— Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources
Your use of words and phrases such as "Many people", "worldwide", " paneuropian solidarity" " many supporters of many Football teams worldwide" indicate clear interpretation of primary sources. In addition, I do not see any large crowds either. Just a handful of people in minor protests. Which indicates misrepresentation of the source. Further on, there was clearly no "wordwide" reactions. Occupy Movement emerging from Occupy Wall Street was a world wide reaction. Well documented as well. On a final note one of the sources you've given me is a secondary source, indicating that a handful of Latsio's fans are connected to the far-right, to fascism and to nazism. Since you found the source, why don't you add it?-- Tco03displays ( talk) 23:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Moved from user's Tco03displays talkpage:
Ο yes, really? You can get them (even here-by wiki) and sea how much far-right they are if you want. Personally, thank God they are not unillegal "terroristic-tromocracy" / far-left teams -- Katcheic ( talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Being a big football fan myself, I have to say also that the original author of this article is hidding the truth... Actually when he mentions the "many supporters of many Football teams worldwide", it's completely false as the examples he's giving ( Hellas Verona F.C., Lazio and Atlético Madrid) are well-known teams for being linked with far-right movements, not to say Neonazis, especially in the cases of Lazio an d Hellas Verona... For Atletico I'm not as sure as for the two mentionned before teams... So, it's pretty clear that these three teams cannot represent "many Football teams worldwide"...-- Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! talk 22:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
And now as for the sources...
SS Lazio:
Hellas Verona:
Because you type Hellas Verona Nazi, but if you normally type Hellas Verona, yoy take this, so simply -- Katcheic ( talk) 23:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
After the Far East Movement, now the... Far Right Movement... -- Montjoie-Saint-Denis !!! talk 00:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I've fully protected the article for three days due to the continuing edit warring. For any edits to be made to the article there will need to be a discussion on this talk page, if you believe that a consensus has been achieved for a particular change you should use {{tl|editprotected}] to request that an administrator make the change according to that consensus. If after the protection expires any editor continues the edit war they will be blocked. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
On the 16th of November Zougla announced that an unknown person contacted the station informing them the area where an envelope which contained a USB stick was placed; and that the digital proclamation was stored on it. Zougla uploaded the proclamation online, in which a newly found organization, The Fighting People's Revolutionary Powers, claimed the responsibility for the attack. [1] The proclamation stated that the attack was a response to the murder of Pavlos Fyssas; which was seen by the group as the "drop that overflowed the glass" [2]. The anti-terrorist branch of the Greek police announced that it considered the digital proclamation as authentic and is investigating the case [3]. Following the proclamation, Golden Dawn stated that "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left" [4].
Other commentators took a skeptical stand towards the proclamation. Journalist Anta Psara questioned the authenticity and ideological honesty of the proclamation by stating that previous far left armed groups sent their proclamations to the least politically biased mass media or to online anti-authoritarian sites, while in this case the proclamation was sent to a site with right-wing sympathies [5]. She further questioned the proclamation by stating that the material included was copied from online sources and past newspapers, and that throughout the declaration the organization fails to provide information on itself or information in relation to the planning of the attack; which would prove its relation to it [5]. Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis made similar observations, commenting that the proclamation is structured very similarly to a journalist article, that ideological analysis is missing, that it is historically rare for an anti-regime organization to treat mildly the political parties of the left; and that the proclamation provides no evidence that its authors were the same people who executed the attack [6].-- Tco03displays ( talk) 09:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); line feed character in |title=
at position 26 (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. So I have to remove some personal opinions of individuals -- Katcheic ( talk) 23:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It has already been noted above. Do not edit again important aspects of the article without prior discussion. My edit was discussed, and you did not engage in the discussion. You only returned after your ban expired to delete what you did not like and compromise the neutrality of the article again. We both agreed that this is not qualified as a Terrorist attack, that it is disputed. You then moved on to remove any aspect that refers to one side of the dispute and left only Golden Dawn's statement that this was a leftist organization. Then you moved on to add more information under the Other Reactions heading without discussion (I will not remove it, it is finally expressed in an appropriate way). Had you actually cared to discuss, I would had made these clear to you. Stop vandalizing and stop edit warring. I could go on doing this forever, and if you continue you will eventually get banned by an admin. Read the rules, stop trying to bend them to suit your interests, and if you actually care for proper editing, visit pages such as Talk:Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Talk:Creation–evolution controversy and Talk:Muhammad to get a clearer idea of how things are handled on Wikipedia. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 13:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I can no longer deal with this user. For almost 2 weeks he constantly deletes my edits, and reverts my work. He does not engage in discussion. It has been stated by User:Callanecc that all changes in the article must be previously discussed due to edit wars. The user has received handful of warnings and 2 bans so far. After being unbanned he came right back to the page and removed material that stated opinions of known journalists, (well-referenced and used to achieve a NPOV, it had been discussed in the talkpage) and added new material with no discussion. This user ha been warned for weeks, he is the only editor causing trouble in the page, he clearly tries to promote a specific point of view (look at the discussion in the article talkpage as well as the warnings on his talkpage) and has also vandalized the page Murder of Pavlos Fyssas in the past to reduce the information in regards to the anti-Golden Dawn protests that took place after the murder, while he added biased and misrepresenting information based on unreliable sources on the reactions to the murders of the 2 Golden Dawn members; exaggerating the public response. The two events are interlinked in Greek politics. At the moment Golden Dawn is being prosecuted as a criminal organization in Greece, and what the user is doing is to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool to affect the views of non-Greek speaking readers on Golden Dawn. It is also interesting to note that we had agreed that the murders cannot be considered a terrorist attack, that the information on the executioners is disputed and controversial; and thus the article should not be merged with Terrorism in Greece, but the moment I added skeptical statements by known journalists in Greece in regards to the organization that claimed the attack, to balance the scale with the opinions of Golden Dawn (that the murderers were leftists) the user decided that it should be deleted without notice. I've been trying hard to reach a neutral point of view on this article and it is not difficult, if I did not have this editor constantly trying to propagate.
All of the editors and the admins have been very tolerant with this user and tried to find common ground. But there is no ground left. I follow Greek politics closely and I was very suspect of this article popping up because I was afraid pro-Golden Dawn people would pop up to attack Pavlos Fyssas' article, turn Wikipedia onto a political boxing arena and propagate against the Greek left and in favor of the far right. In my opinion there was enough toleration, too much to be honest. Wikipedia has no space for the slightest propaganda and intended misinformation,
Its not up to me to deal with this from now on, but I will suggest an indefinite ban on the user and semi-protection on the article from IPs and very new users. Do as you see fit.-- Tco03displays ( talk) 10:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
You are the only one seems to not understand the wiki-policies, except your propaganda.-- Katcheic ( talk) 23:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. User:Tco03displays uses the wikipedia as political podium evening to move toward specific political direction Violating the Rules of wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for:Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. I have already informed the ensuing debate in. -- Katcheic ( talk) 15:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Υou edit warring I explained you the legality about the wiki policies for the neutral point, what is not understandable? We don't not make political propaganda. Is it what you want, Wikipedia is not a podium of opinions. -- Katcheic ( talk) 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
WP:Notability-pedium -- Katcheic ( talk) 18:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
On the 16th of November Zougla announced that an unknown person contacted the station informing them the area where an envelope which contained a USB stick was placed; and that the digital proclamation was stored on it. Zougla uploaded the proclamation online, in which a newly found organization, The Fighting People's Revolutionary Powers, claimed the responsibility for the attack. [1] The anti-terrorist branch of the Greek police announced that it considered the digital proclamation as authentic and is investigating the case. [2] Following the proclamation, Golden Dawn stated that "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left". [3]
Other commentators took a skeptical stand towards the proclamation. Journalist Anta Psara questioned the authenticity and ideological honesty of the proclamation by stating that previous far left armed groups sent their proclamations to the least politically biased mass media or to online anti-authoritarian sites, while in this case the proclamation was sent to a site with right-wing sympathies [4]. She further questioned the proclamation by stating that the material included was copied from online sources and past newspapers, and that throughout the declaration the organization fails to provide information on itself or information in relation to the planning of the attack; which would prove its relation to it [4]. Journalist Kostas Vaxevanis made similar observations, commenting that the proclamation is structured very similarly to a journalist article, that ideological analysis is missing, that it is historically rare for an anti-regime organization to treat mildly the political parties of the left; and that the proclamation provides no evidence that its authors were the same people who executed the attack [5].-- Tco03displays( talk) 19:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
Be gentle with policy. Wiki as an opinion-podium is irrelevant. WP:Opinion podium -- Katcheic ( talk) 19:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
To sum up. The controversy is the following, in Katcheic's words, taken straight out of the talkpage of the article in regards to the murderers: "Since nobody is not sure about this murder how are we going to characterize it as a terrorist attack? So we can not merge it at this. anywhere - not many users agreed --Katcheic (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)". When it came to actually describing this controversy, I added multiple notable opinions by name, which expressed contradictory views, in accordance with NPOV policy. Katcheic stated above that only one opinion is to be allowed on the article, and that is of Golden Dawn - all other opinions contradicting it were removed by Katcheic. Not only this is a violation of NPOV, it is also a clear and conscious attempt to make the article biased and censor views that do not attack the far left. This is Golden Dawn's statement, an opinion: "the miserable and stupid manifesto of the cowardly murderers proves that they belong to the criminal ideological womb of the far left". It is clearly subjective, attacks Greek leftist politics and the International left, but that is ok, it is perfectly fine according to Katcheic, as long as no other views are expressed; which might actually challenge it. All this, on a subject deemed by the very same editor as controversial. The editor has accused other editors as leftists, including me, only because we followed the referencing and the NPOV rules, and has expressed favor of right-wing politics, especially in the talkpage of the article. I am thus more than justified in saying that Katcheic is knowingly trying to compromise the article's neutrality, turning it into a pro-Golden Dawn article by censoring other relevant views, and wants the article to semi-conclude that the murderers were far leftist terrorists, even though he himself acknowledged that this is indeed very controversial. The editor is violating fundamental rules again and again (NPOV), from the begging of the article's creation (as indicated above and in the article's talkpage) to promote a specific point of view, wasting everyone's time in the process, compromising Wikipedia's reliably, and thus knowingly affecting the reader's access to information outside of his own preferred point of view. I indicate this clearly: I could care less of Katcheic's political views. If he had added material on the page according to rules (something that took us a long time to convince him to do so, including warinings, removal of material and bans), we could have had some aspects of the article's subject added, while we filled in the rest. But Katcheic removes, censors and has now reported users who do not add material that fit his point of view. I rest my case. This is the only editor that holds the article back and acts against the rules. Please, someone sort this mess out. --
Tco03displays (
talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Αs we know some opinions of what you set, are from far leftists or caracterized by politically propaganda and could be used for recruitment or defense of any kind, commercial, political, religious or other. Although details about the personal lives and thoughts can occasionally provide important or relevant to the topic, most often the authors include it as shocking or amusing sentences, or why personally find the most interesting gossip from the real object of the article. We will not break the rules. -- Katcheic ( talk) 20:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Jornalism/Jornalists incorporate-encloses in defending or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious or other advertising beyond the objectivity of the article, through the pedestal of the wikipedia. So the common conclusion is that it is arbitrary the reference on their ideas and beliefs. -- Katcheic ( talk) 23:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Katcheic. We got both rejected on the report page. I copied the whole discussion here for reference. Please answer some questions clearly so we can get to the bottom of this and sort out what we disagree with. Do you agree with me that the executioners' motives and identity are disputed (that's what you agreed with me on the merge discussion)? If yes, do you agree with me that many points of view should be offered to reach NPOV? If yes, is the problem the specific 2 journalists (not the points themselves, or the individuals, or a political orientation) as references because you strongly disagree with adding journalists' views in the page? For the record, adding different views does not make any of them true or false, this is precisely the point. We may have to file a dispute for other editors/admins to help us sort it, but we should not report each other again, because that procedure is the wrong way to deal with a dispute and will only get us rejected again and get the admins irritated at us. -- Tco03displays ( talk) 08:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Murder attack on members of the Golden Dawn Office →
2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting – not married to title, but going for more wikilike and less sensationalist.
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk) 13:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I do not read Greek, so the three refs to the following lede-placed (lead?) sentence do me no good:
In December 2014, the murderers of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis, along with three other terrorists, were outlawed for 1 million euros from the government of Greece.
There is no explanatory text in the body of the article, making the entire sentence misplaced in the lede (the lede is for summarizing the body). If the outlawing cannot be fleshed out (who did it, to whom was it done, when was it done, and why) under the "Political reactions" sub-section, then the whole sentence in the lede should be deleted. 71.234.215.133 ( talk) 04:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved to match article title decided by #Requested move above. DrKiernan ( talk) 16:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office terrorist attack → Talk:2013 Neo Irakleio Golden Dawn office shooting – This talkpage should be moved to the articles name. So it is not linked to a redirect...( t) Josve05a ( c) 09:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC) ( t) Josve05a ( c) 09:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The following lede-placed sentence has no body text to support it, and makes no sense itself, as explained above. Please remove it.
In December 2014, the murderers of Manolis Kapelonis and Giorgos Fountoulis, along with three other terrorists, were outlawed for 1 million euros from the government of Greece.
71.234.215.133 ( talk) 09:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
So, what is exactly the disagreement?-- Katcheic ( talk) 10:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I think I have improved this article a little. I will continue to work on it and currently would like to bump it up from Start-Class to C-Class. Is there any objections or things that glare out from the page currently? Regards. SP00KY talk 23:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)