Talk:Creation (political party)

Comment

Free market capitalism is hardly centrist... --Oddeivind (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

agreed. Party is center right for Greece.WashingtonMatia (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Immigration

I added some material from one of their position papers. 01:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)WashingtonMatia (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, but I had to delete the whole paragraph again for the following reason: "Deleted passus on immigration, because immigration is just 1 of 19 topics of their programme. Featuring here just only 1 of 19 must be regarded as a unwanted bias. So we either need to mention all 19 or none.". But so that your work is not lost in the depth of the document history, i paste it here, so if someone should add the missing 18 topics, he can reuse your work for the topic of immigration: " == Position on immigration == The party has a strong position opposed to the extremely high level of illegal immigration into Greece. Positions indicate support for revisiting EU treaties on ease of political asylum, and possible creation of dedicated work and residence zones for illegal migrants to reduce downward wage pressure. Dimiourgia Xana also recommends reducing social services - especially health services - to illegal migrants, the possible creation of voluntary militias on Greek islands to work with authorities in deterring illegal immigration, and possible fencing of borders areas not able to be directly monitored." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.107.70 (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

please learn a bit about wikipedia and refrain from deleting sourced material.71.252.92.159 (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Ideology

It seems that user QuaestorGaius is changing the ideological identity of the party. That part is properly cited and from what I see, he has been blocked on Greek Wikipedia for the exact same reason. Can someone perhaps step in and take care of this? (unsigned comment by Mightberightorwrong, 15:53, 27 June 2021)

It seems that the user above has already started the discussion with an ad hominem attack and he has also distorted questionable sources to interpolate his POV in the article QuaestorGaius (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I don't know what to say. In all the articles I provided the name 'Recreate Greece' is highlighted clearly along with the leader of the party Thanos Tzimeros. He even called the Brill journal pages as 'paywall' - look at pages 52 and 58 where Tzimeros and Recreate Greece are mentioned. The user has reverted the article more than five times, so am not sure what else I can do here. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wow, in the Amadeu-Antonio Stiftung source the name of the party is not mentioned anywhere, yet he uses it here. So he has clearly distorted the sources as is evident in the pages concerning Greece, The fact that he only specifically mentions one source proves the point entirely. Could you provide us with the quotations to judge for ourselves instead of making vague claims? Btw you have also reverted the article even more right now, even if you have been specifically instructed not to do so.QuaestorGaius (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Page 85... Mightberightorwrong (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Since this conversation is not leading anywhere and academic sources have been removed repeatedly, I am not going to respond again; instead, I will let admins have the final say. I was accused of lies and proved that QuaestorGaius is vandalising the article - all sources provided are reliable for sure. First it was the "NGOs" (?), then the page numbers, which have been provided and now the "left-wing" bias. Even a Brill Publishers's article was removed. They keep finding excuses to revert cited content. Mightberightorwrong (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This is is just a board on social media influence. No direct correlation to the bold and extreme claims you've added to the article and certainly not a valid reference. Also the source is a completely biased as I mentioned before. You haven't proven a thing as is already mentioned in the other discussion and therefore your last revert was clearly against WP policy. You have heavily distorted biased sources and then absolutely ignored article neutrality to fit your own POVQuaestorGaius (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Reset

Polite discussion with no ad hominem attacks goes below. The article is fully protected. Acroterion (talk) 17:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I have added several sources, including academic journals that discuss Recreate Greece and its leader as 'far-right'. Apart from the evident association with islamophobic and anti-communist views, the whole party appears to be associated primarily with one man: Thanos Tzimeros, who is the only active politician of Recreate Greece and is widely mentioned as its leader. --Mightberightorwrong (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Ideology of the party

I believe it is time that we opened again the topic of the ideology as I see that it is still mentioned that this is a far right party which I believe is false.

First of all, some of the sources are from well known left wing sites of Greece that would throw away the word far right anytime they got the change. These include TPP and Protagon.

Moreover two of the sources that are actually good ones don't even include a mention about the party. As I think I read, they are just sited as sources of how parties like this one would function but in reality there is no connection of this party to those articles.

The sources I am referring to that don't make a mention to this party are those of ESOH and the BRILL article. They literally make no mention of this party anywhere inside them or in their lists.

The source of newpost that maks a claim about "economic slaves" is very sketchy as well, as it is talking about a radio show that happened ten years ago which doesn't exist anywhere on the web. They could very well have been fabricated or at the very least inaccurate.

Some of the sources about the claims of islamophobia seem sketchy as well but overall I think that what I have presented until now on its own shows just how much the sources that would make the "far right" connection are absolutely terrible when it comes to that.

I also don't see how anti immigration and anti communism on their own make a party far right nor that they should be in the first paragraph of any party like this one. I frankly have rarley seen this kind of format even if there are such claims to be made about a political party.

Furthermore the article "tzimerodexia" is absolutely horrendous and should never have been used as a source to begin with. Overall these kind of sources and the way they are used here just screams POV pushing and in no way matches wiki standards.

The same ofcourse is to be said about the sources in the Greek article which are used in a similar manner. I believe this oughts to be addressed so that we can make any changes needed.

In my opinion the best way forward is to change the label to right wing as most of the normal sources point towards a pretty much standard right wing party. Lmagoutas (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Re-opening this thread and the labeling of the party as "far-right". The party's positions are pro-democracy, limited government, and pro-capitalist. This is *antithetical* to the very concept of extreme politics. Current sources used by user @NikolaosFanaris are strongly partisan (he is even using a self-described Communist website as a source) and cannot be used as independent sources.

Proposing to either use descriptors such as "conservative liberal" or simply "right wing", as supported both by the ideological positions of the party itself, as well as other, non-partisan sources. CarpathianAlien (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources are partisan in any way - CarpathianAlien has been citing old newspaper articles from 2012 when the vagueness of the party resulted in confusion. Since then a lot has changed and the party's ideology is highlighted as far-right by mainstream and reputable sources. The website he refers as 'communist' (lol) is an article published by Greek political theorist Professor Vassiliki Georgiadou and thus, his claims are wrong. If in any way you have sources that can back your theories about the party's ideology, feel free to list them here. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Your sources are NGOs which have been repeatedly accused of partisanship, and the article you are linking to is *literally* hosted on a self-described Communist website. This is not my perception, it is what the site *ITSELF* says.

On the other hand, the sources I am citing are Kathimerini, DW, and LSE.

In any case, the burden of proof to accuse a party as "far-right" (which may have deep repercussions to the people involved) should be much, MUCH higher, than using partisan and Communist sources like @NikolaosFanaris is doing.

As Wikipedia contributors, we *must* do better. CarpathianAlien (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll bite. Show me exactly (with diffs and links) which of the sources are partisan or "NGOs", as you call them, and bring forward the reliable (and fresh) sources that can be used to back your claims about the ideology. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah sorry, just noticed that you have been blocked indefinitely from WP 🤭 ciao! NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to discussions but it just says a lot that a conversation that I opened mentioning a whole lot of arguments about a party not being far right, ended up not addressing a single one of my points and the person who argues about the opposite being happy that another that supports my views are banned from the site. The irony here is subtle but truly beautiful. Lmagoutas (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)