Talk:Revolutionary Organization 17 November

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Revolutionary Organization 17 November, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
??? This article has not yet been prioritized.

Contents

[edit] Flying Dolphin

...Following a failed bombing attempt on the Flying Dolphin company in Piraeus...


flying dolphin is a tourist nickname for the generic hydrofoil form of transport (its kinda what they look like) rather than a company name.

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Alternative proposal

I'd prefer a move to Revolutionary Organization 17 November, seeing as that is the full name of the group according to the article. violet/riga (t) 18:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support. Using this full name would seem to be more NPOV. Jonathunder 18:51, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)

*Oppose. That makes them sound like a "freedom fighter" group. It is officially registered as a terrorist organisation. -- Cat chi? 09:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Support Very well, but must be kept as a terrorist organization as it is/was/will be. -- Cat chi? 16:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. We're talking about the title of the article, not the contents. It's more encyclopedic to use the self-described name for titles. --A D Monroe III 10:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. they would have been a "freedom" organisation, had they not started robbing banks. basically, they are people that came out the generation of the Polytechnic Uprising, but, they took a wrong turn somewhere, when they started robbing banks to fund their stuff. but yah, the article should be named whatever the organisation chose to call themselves.
  • Support. This nicely solves the problem of disambiguation while avoiding the intractable problem of what to put in the brackets without departing from NPOV. — Trilobite (Talk) 10:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Using an unambiguous name here is better than trying to categorise the group in the title. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 10:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Decision

The alernative proposal, moving the article to Revolutionary Organization 17 November was accepted and the article has now been moved. violet/riga (t) 22:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist

Granted, Terrorist is a strong word, howvere they are a terrorist organisation as far as NATO/INTERPOL/EU/US is concerned. Aproporatley mentioning that should work.

Not to mention that they were actually convicted by the Greek courts. --Delirium 07:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

i changed the article to an older version cause this one was too much biased. One example (among many): Noting that some people believed that N17 was supported by politicians of PASOK is as valid a statement as believing (as many actually did believe) that 17N was a CIA-backed group. The latter opinion is not mentioned... Taking into account that the date that the article was modified (December 05) coincides with the appeals' court trial of the members of N17, one should think that there is propably an intenional effort to misrepresent the whole issue... since this is my first ever edit, the text may still have some problems (i copypasted an older version). more experienced editors should give a hand. panos

[edit] Klenathis Grivas's article

The reason for deleting the Kleanthis Grivas tract is this : in the alleged US documents he presents there is no mention of Greece, Welch, 17th November, or anything pertaining to the matter at hand. All of it is LaRouche-type speculation on his part, which amounts to "if the United States government sent such papers, wouldn't they also be capable of ordering the killing of Welch?". And it doesn't stick. Smear campaigns based on guilt-by-association have no place in wikipedia, even less so when afformentioned papers are debunked Soviet forgeries that were used as a propaganda tool in the cold war (also see: State Department answer). As for the other changes I reverted, they're reeking with -pov- and, thus, do not belong here. I mean, seriously, you have to be a real imbecile to enter a "do you really believe what the government says?" type of statement into an article and expect to find it standing there after more knowledgeable editors have taken a look. Porfyrios 17:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. The US State Dept considered that this article warranted a denial, both have to be inserted. This is fact. Whatever you think about Grivas or about the US State Dept, both are relevants here. Tazmaniacs 18:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your own speculation about Gladio, sheepskin and what-have-you does not belong there. And you misrepresented the State Department's response the first time around. Porfyrios 18:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please find other formulation then instead of deleting sources. This may be considered as vandalism. Tazmaniacs 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This is rather ironic since you state that you are against censorship on Wikipedia on your user page... Tazmaniacs 18:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

While going off on unrelated tangents about Italy, isn't vandalism? Porfyrios 18:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC) And, no, it is not ironic at all, because deleting erroneous information and unsubstantiated claims is not censorship. It is following Wikipedia rules. Was the deletion of the imaginary Seigenthaler-JFK murder link "censorship" too? In any case, in the interest of achieving a middle-ground I have reinserted the Grivas article (and the American response to it, which you had erased), and left out all the wildly unrelated speculation. Porfyrios 18:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems Grivas uses a negative to prove a positive. Was there any factual evidence in his article? Intangible 19:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] N17 capture and the olympics

There is plenty of gossip circulating Greece about the timing of the arrests of the N17 participants and the upcoming(then) olympic games. America had made suggestions that the games should not go ahead in Athens due to the security risks of a N17 attack. By 'amazing coincidence' just before the games an organisation that had elluded capture for so many years was suddenly captured in its entirity. Granted this is hearsay and speculation so has no place on the main wiki page but is definately food for discussion here.--unsigned

Two years before the Olympic Games is your definition of "just before"? This "gossip", mainly the product of unreconstructed groupies of the 17th November terrorists, seems to conveniently forget that the apprehensions started because a freaking bomb exploded in the hands of one of the terrorists. 212.251.124.214 11:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

However, many more were convicted on, let's say "dubious", evidence, and that could be an indication of such speculations. Anyhow, we cannot include such info on the article unless we can cite that, eg "political commentator X said that...". --Michalis Famelis (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My comments are not concerned with the arrested parties. They address a certain attitude towards terrorism in Greece. There had been other incidents and accidents but no one was arrested, or even questioned. The international pressure on PASOK in the build up to the arrests was huge; many international media were pointing the finger at the party, especiallys since it appeared to have coluded in covering up terrorism. Also, sections of the Athenian media (especially Eleftherotypia) showed great understanding and empathy with the terrorist manifestos. Under that climate - fostererd during PASOK administrations, no one dare show any sympathy with the victims. Such a situation needs to be investigated, if only to dispell any misunderstanding. It is also necessary, for the sake of democracy,to analyze the impact of Greek media on native Greek terrorism. Why is this not happening? One reason could be that Greeks still do not feel safe to investigate certain aspects of PASOK and some of the media. I hope I am wrong. Politis 11:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I believe that the image had no copyright. Perhaps the person you placed it in the first place can give us details. Politis 12:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Premature conclusions

"N17 is currently implicated in a rocket attack against the US Embassy in Athens occuring 12 January, 2007." What on Earth is that? 2 hours after the hit, and someone already reached a conclusion? When nobody nowhere even implied something like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.205.108.52 (talk • contribs)

We should make it clear to our readers that the Greek authorities are calling Revolutionary Struggle an N17 "spinoff", and not imply anything further. Jkelly 18:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] removing tag, copyedits

I copyedited the article and removed the tag. I also corrected the Turkish names. Put a stub sign on the formation section but I dunno if it's the correct one. --Suleyman Habeeb 16:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:November 17.jpg

Image:November 17.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)