Talk:Niki (Greek political party)

Edit war

GreekNikoss you appear to be engaged in an edit war. Please seek a consensus with other editors here before removing any cited content from the page or making any more contentious changes to this page. Thank you. Helper201 (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not engage in an edit war.A spanish editor acting like he knows better the political scene of Greece from the Greek editors. @PlatonasGR also agrees GreekNikoss (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Patriotism is not an ideology and should not be included since its obviously not neutral Braganza (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Braganza in regards to patriotism. Helper201 (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Helper201

@Helper201 you currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Victory (Greek political party). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GreekNikoss (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@89.242.81.250

@89.242.81.250 you currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Victory (Greek political party). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Points to note: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. AvramidisHellas (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies

@Drmies Wow you just chose a version created from one specific IP instead of a version supported from all the other editors which also is the version which used in the Greek page of this party.( All the Greek editors agreed on this). AvramidisHellas (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

• Well, it happens; you can discuss that on this talk page. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  From its creation since 4 july the page had a certain version.On 4 july the IP changes completely this version to a version he thinks it's right.

  The version he destroyed its not 'mine' version its the official version which the greek editors ( after hundreds of edits and talks) agreed on.

  You are 16 years on wiki you know what i am saying.Check it.Thanks. AvramidisHellas (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  Your perspective on the Greek article is misleading and dishonest, lacking any logical coherence. You, along with other users, have persistently pushed your biased point of view by insisting that the party's sources should be included on Wikipedia and manipulating references to associate it with the right-wing label, despite the fact that the party is widely recognized as a far-right entity. Allow me to enlighten you: Wikipedia does not entertain such baseless arguments and, more importantly, does not provide a platform for strongly partisan views. If you wish to express such opinions, I suggest you start your own blog or utilize platforms like Twitter, which seem to be your preferred mediums for sharing your distorted viewpoints. In this edit, his actions involve the systematic removal of reputable sources such as Al Jazeera, NBC News, and Vice, with the sole purpose of concealing the far-right position on the ideological spectrum, despite lacking any valid justification. This distortion extends to a well-supported section that provides references to highlight the party's homophobia, anti-abortion views, and extreme religious sentiments. The Greek sources he introduces, such as Proto Thema, are notoriously unreliable tabloids. Furthermore, it is important to note his consistent efforts to eliminate sources that openly discuss the party's stance during the Covid-19 pandemic and expose the propaganda propagated by its leader. Last but not least, none of the claims regarding the Greek version of the article are truthful, as the article appears to have been protected for the exact same reason. The user's approach is far from clear, relying solely on the good ol' "trust me bro" as a supposed source. I implore you to take every measure necessary to safeguard the integrity of the article. By the way, it is highly likely that @AvramidisHellas is the same individual as the globally banned @GreekNikoss. 89.242.81.250 (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Claimed Russophilia

Please add source for claimed russophilia. The opposition to arms shipments from the Greek army to Ukrain (the only thing I could find) is NOT sufficient to claim russophilia. Lassner (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Christian right

User:Helper201 First of all only ONE page and that not necessarily credible (it's just a list) makes reference to the Christian right.

All the others simply mention the ultra-orthodox nature of the party. "...Professor Georgiadou explains that the party has a much more pronounced religious character than other conservative groups. "Apparently, Niki maintains relations with monastic communities and religiously motivated organizations, even outside the official Orthodox Church," she says." https://www.dw.com/en/greece-far-right-makes-resurgence/a-66085348

"the ultra-religious Niki party which has a base of support on the fringes of the Greek Orthodox Church https://apnews.com/article/greece-elections-far-right-kasidiaris-politics-3df35659fb5834777e3826650d97b19f

"Niki, a religious party that’s known for opposing Covid-19 vaccine efforts" https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/6/26/23774334/greek-elections-new-democracy-spartans

So, it is best to go by the sources and remove any "label" from the information box. D.S. Lioness (talk) 18:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the source for Christian right is "not necessarily credible"? It being a list does not make it unreliable. I'm not a hard advocate that it remains though, I just had a big problem with another editor changing this to "Christian democracy", as that's not what the source stated. I'm not sure of the relevance of listing those other sources. Just because other sources don't label the party in a certain way doesn't discredit those that do label them as something else. Helper201 (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

lists are not ideal sources because they do not analyse their subject matter; besides, there is only one that puts this label on it - and from the fact that it describes this party as the Christian right, it seems to be irrelevant to Greek and European political reality. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

There is zero requirement for sources to "analyse their subject matter" to be used as citations. If it’s a reliable source and it specifically states what's being claimed, then it can be used. The source is not listed on WP:RSP as unreliable. Your claim of it being "irrelevant to Greek and European political reality" is simply your view, unless you can provide a reliable source that counters what this source claims. Though I do take your point it is only one source and therefore should be treated with some caution so as to avoid undue weight. Helper201 (talk) 10:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Edit war

79.107.42.248 "You are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be", how is that not exactly what you are doing? What have you got against all the multiple reliable sources that explicitly call the party ultraconservative plus all the other cited content you are wiping constantly? Helper201 (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

You created your own version. Sources that criticize the party had already been added. By using only such sources the article loses its objectivity. 79.107.42.248 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

''The political neutrality of this article is disputed'' is excaclty what im saying 79.107.42.248 (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

"You created your own version". What are you on about? And you've somehow not been doing anything like this by mass removing content cited by several sources? I added information that is explicitly stated by multiple sources. I also added far-right to the lead. A position cited in the infobox by no less than six sources. Adding that the party is ultraconservative is not meant as a criticism. I'm not trying to implement a view but add to the article what multiple reliable sources state. You don't have the right to remove what multiple sources say because you personally disagree with them or think they are criticism. You don't own or get to remove information that's backed up by multiple sources. You aren't even allowing a template on the article when clearly its justified. The article is full of WP:EDITORIALISING like "due to evident corruption among these groups", "Its president places special care on the subject of education, stating that Greece needs children and education", "It states its opposition to mandatory medical procedures" (there's no such thing as "mandatory medical procedures"). And clearly removing very well cited information like ultraconservatism and far-right because you disagree with them is not being neutral either. It is you who is not providing neutrality, otherwise you wouldn't be removing what several reliable sources say. Helper201 (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I repeat that you blaming me not being neutral when i do the excact same thing you do. Finding a source and making a point i want out of it.I disagree with that. 79.107.42.248 (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I removed information backed up by a single source because it was undue weight. You are removing what several sources say without giving any justifiable reason that pertains to Wikipedia's guidelines. Helper201 (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no undue weight between Right/Far-right. The lines are not always clear in these two. Howerver i can suggest a solution.We can leave the infobox as it is now.And add some of the ''characteristics'' your sources mention in the ideology section as info for the reader who wants to knows all the views. 79.107.42.248 (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Having one single source that calls the party right-wing as opposed to six that call the party far-right (and I could provide many more that call the party far-right on top of those) is very, very much undue weight. It’s very clear what the party is when the overwhelming number of sources describe the party as one over the other. You have also wiped out multiple other sourced pieces of information I added with multiple sources, like the party being "ultra-Orthodox" and "ultra-religious". Far-right should be in the lead based off of the overwhelming number of sources it has and right (which is also incorrectly formatted as it is now, along with grammatical errors you've been adding) should not be there. The other information you wiped like ultra-conservatism should also be restored. You’ve also provided no answer to the editorialised wording that is consistent throughout the article. Nor have you given proper justification for removing the neutrality template. Helper201 (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The article exists for more than a year.Nowone ever tried to put the things you mention.And thats for a reason. You are using a term 10 times with different words.(ultra religious,nationalist religious,orthodox believes, Ultra orthodox, christian right).That sounds like provocation.Like you want to empasize in one point.The things you trying to add already exist at the page in a neutral tone.The mention about the religion is enough.Its a Greek political party not a church.And about the Right wing source since there is one it has to be mentioned alongside the Far right ones.Of course the reader can read their Ideology and make his own conclusions but you cant hide a side that you dont agree with. 79.107.42.248 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)