Talk:Neo-Nazism

Militant Neo Nazi in Frankonia.

A militant neo nazi in frankonia. ITS ALL IT IS. Sorry if you dont want neo nazi's in frankonia but their just is. So stop slandering my work or I will request that wikipedia deletd the image as I dont know how it even became on here! [[[User:Usurpsynapse|Usurpsynapse]] 18:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)]

Why would we care exactly where the person is? Why would we refer to the area by the name used on the Middle Ages? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Frankonia is always Frankonia to me as a rose is a rose ANYWHERE you go in the world. Middle Ages? Hmm... Come here... Alot of signs that say "Franken"! Why do we have our own dialect? You sir are as bad as Stalin. Usurpsynapse 22:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

So a nazi took a photo of himself and uploaded it to wikipedia? ROFL. --P4k 04:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you have evidence of that? If so we should remove it. If not we should remove that silly caption. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well User:Usurpsynapse claims that the person in the photo is his friend here but I guess we don't have to believe him. The image page was created by Usurpsynapse but doesn't contain any more information about where the picture came from.--P4k 00:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw if you want an image of a Nazi (well, a National Bolshevik Party member) which claims to be a self-portrait there's one here. Part of my reason for suspecting that this is a self-portrait or a picture of one of the photographer's friends is just that that seems to often be the case with Wikipedia pictures of non-famous people in private environments (eg this one and this one). If the subject or one of his friends didn't take the picture, who did? --P4k 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If I took and posted a picture of a building, maybe claiming it to be a historical landmark, would other editors seek to rename it, "A building some Wikipedia editor took a picture of"? Yes, that would be an accurate caption, but it doesn't help the reader understand the reason for the photograph. I suppose if we doubt that the guy really is a neo-Nazi in Germany we could say something like "Purported neo-Nazi posing with rifle". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering we don't know anything about its provenance, I'm not certain there is a reason for the photograph. I mean it's really arresting but it doesn't actually tell the reader anything. FWIW the original Wikimedia commons page doesn't say anything about the guy's nationality (or anything else). The caption I wrote was obviously obnoxious but it's a moot point now. --P4k 01:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The text now reads:

• A militant neo-Nazi holding a rifle.

Which is harmless. Isn't "militant" redundant with "neo-Nazi"? Are there non-militant neo-Nazis? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Croatia - latest changes

As to the anonymous contribution - it depicts the latest events in Croatia and it is fully referenced. However, I removed

a) blockquotes from the English language references due to the fact that those references are short and online accessible;

b) blockquotes from the Croatian references (the original texts and their translations) - due to the fact that the same references are online accessible and the other foreign language references here, are not quoted then translated - so, what I did - is for the sake of the section coherency and readability.

--NovaNova 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why did you reverse those improvements and re-add block quotes and unnecessary extra text in footnotes? And why did you re-introduce grammar and spelling mistakes to the section? Substandard English grammar makes the article look unprofessional. And why do you keep making edit notes that don't actually represent the changes you have made? It's very frustrating to see necessary language and formatting corrections be repeatedly destroyed, and to see edit notes that don't even come close to accurately describing what has been done.Spylab 22:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, be civilised - support your 'grammar' alteration by quoting the English grammar rules, avoid selling the text mutilations as grammar corrections. Also, do not edit the text referenced in the language (Serbo-Croatian) you cannot read and understand. Acquire a valid and sufficient knowledge of the subject you are trying to discuss!--NovaNova 01:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's very obvious that neither you, nor the anonymous IP editor care about proper grammar, spelling, formatting or neutrality, so I added tags to point out that fact instead of causing an edit war with destructive and counterproductive editors who don't understand Wikipedia guidelines. As it stands, the Croatia section is very unprofessional and doesn't come near to meeting encyclopedic standards. Spylab 11:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to demonstrate an effective knowledge of the subject - in order to support your claims. As advised - be civil and avoid tutoring others about profesionalism (this is an amateurs encyclopaedia), standards, and rules. Profesionalism requires a valid and verifiable knowledge which you obviously lack.--72.75.18.173 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

List of mistakes/weaknesses in Croatia section

1. There should be a link to a Wikipedia article explaining what the term the West refers to, for unfamiliar readers.- At the end of World War II, many of Pavelić's Ustaše members fled to the West, where they found sanctuary and continued their political and terrorist activities (which were tolerated because of Cold War hostilities).

• Use any good dictionary of the contemporary English.--Giorgio Orsini 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but "the West" could also mean "the Western part of a certain country" as in, say, Western Italy if we're talking about an Italy-related article. For example, "In Italy, there are more Croatian communities in the East, whereas French communities dot the West." I know you mean "the West" to mean "the Western World, commonly used to refer to Western Europe and North America," but I'm just giving an example of how the term might be confusing for some readers. - Pandacomics 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes - that is the reason for all educated men to have a good modern English dictionary at hand. The word 'West' is used here in the proper and clear semantic context - so nothing is confusing. As you might not know, any living language grammar is not a context free grammar.--Modelsides 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Spelling of a particular word should be the same throughout the article; in this case Ustaše, Ustashe or Ustasha. Only one spelling must be used here.

• Nonsense! Adopted spelling is Ustaše in this section. The quoted text cannot be fixed your way - this is against basic rules of the English grammar.--Giorgio Orsini 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He means "if you're going to use a particular spelling, stick with it." It wouldn't make sense to call you Giogrio in one sentence, and George the next. If the real spelling is Ustaše, then by all means, change all variations to Ustaše. - Pandacomics 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point. Please, read very carefuly Giorgio's concern - it is not possible i.e it is meaningless to fix the spelling the way it was proposed. You are not allowed to alter the quoted text! All otside the quoted text uses exclusively Ustaše. And - what is your reason for this 'explanation'???--Modelsides 12:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Footnotes always go at ends of sentences, and are not prefaced by phrases such as "as per" -To many of their modern supporters, the Ustaše are considered merely victims of the (historically questionable, as per [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] ) Bleiburg massacre, and the late president Franjo Tuđman even proposed to rebury them together with victims of the Jasenovac concentration camp, as a sign of national reconciliation.

• Which grammar rule you are going to refer in order to support the claim above?--Giorgio Orsini 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If you put "as per" at the end of a sentence, it looks unprofessional. If you're going to submit a university paper, for example, you don't tell the instructor, "This is what proteins synthesize under exposure to glow-in-the-dark x-rays, as shown in references number 13, 14, 15, and 16." It ruins the flow of the essay, and almost tells the reader, "you HAVE to look at the references when I want you to!" By putting footnotes at the end of sentences, Spylab means putting a number at the end (e.g. "He said that he would return Monday[1].") That way, the reader can 1) see that the statement is not baseless, 2) find the original source whenever he/she finds it convenient. - Pandacomics 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you, please, avoid throwing meaningless phrases and statements as above? That way you are underminind serious discussion.--Modelsides 12:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Sentences should be actual sentences, and not just side notes like "see this footnote". - (See also [21]).

• This is a full and a valid sentence according to the grammar.--Giorgio Orsini 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a valid sentence, yes, but what Spylab means is that this type of sentence is inappropriate in an encyclopedia. If you look in Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, you're not going to see "Paris is the capital of France" followed by "See this book, but you will need to buy it first through Amazon because it is currently out of print." The article is about Paris, and yet...it's advertising a book that's sourced? You can see how absurd that would be. In this article, you can always just insert a footnote by putting a link like this: [2]. That way, readers can click there to see if the original author really said such a thing. - Pandacomics 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This still is not a reason to remove, paraphrase, or alter the already written sentence.--Modelsides 12:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Footnotes always go at the ends of sentences, and the year of the event should be included, not just the month. Also, it is unnecessary to use the word "official" in front of "criminal investigation" because all criminal investigations are official. - As per [20], "the Austrian authorities had launched an official criminal investigation into the widespread display of fascist Ustasha symbols at the May 12 gathering of Croatian nationalists in Bleiburg, Austria."

• Which grammar rule you are going to refer in order to support the claim above? unnecessary to use the word "official"??? Do not you see that the 'unnecessary' word is a part of the quoted text??? Which grammar rule demands fixing the quoted text???--Giorgio Orsini 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He means that it is redundant to use the word "official" because all criminal investigations, by definition, are official as long as they're reported in the news. Similarly, it would be unnecessary to say "free" in the phrase "free gift," because all gifts are free (gift, by definition, is something given to someone for free). Instead, you can just say "gift" and we'd know that the item was free.

No matter what he means - he must know that a quoted text shall not be altered.--Modelsides 12:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. A plain-English explanation of the uncommon phrase "law authenticity interpretation" should be added. - In 2005, the Croatian government made a move toward the Nazi-era law interpretation and practice, by granting exclusive rights to the Croatian parliament for the law authenticity interpretation.

• Which grammar rule you are going to refer in order to support the claim above?--Giorgio Orsini 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is a matter of "a phrase that's unclear for the general public." Not everyone is as familiar with the topic of Neo-Nazism in Croatia as you are. Perhaps it's a process in the Croatian government that pertains with Neo-Nazism in some way? I don't know. That's why it would ideally be clarified. - Pandacomics 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Familiarity with the topic is not an issue here. Whoever wants to be familiarized - shall read the article and the references. What a general public might think - it is not known here.--Modelsides 12:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. This whole terribly-written run-on sentence should be split into two and re-written by someone who understands correct English grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax. Also, the English-language reference does not support the claim that the actions were taken "en masse" (the correct spelling of the term, by the way).- His concert, held on May 17. 2007 in Zagreb, attended by 60 000 people, who were wearing Ustaše uniforms en-mass, saluted the Ustaše way, and shouted the Ustaše salute "Za dom spremni" (For home(land) ready)- which prompted the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Jerusalem, to publicly address a protest to the Croatian President Mesić.

• What are you talking about??? Did you read the reference at all??? In one of them you can read: "outrage and disgust in the wake of a massive show of fascist salutes, symbols and uniforms at a rock concert by popular ultra-nationalist Croatian singer Thompson,"--Giorgio Orsini 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The "rule" (there aren't fixed rules, English grammar is based on what arrangement of words would form the most articulate meaning) is that run-on sentences are messy. They're messy because phrases keep getting added on, and on, and on, and on, and on. In this sentence, there is simply way too much information, as noted by the numerous commas. It would not be unreasonable to split up the sentence so that some information is in one sentence, and the remaining information is in another sentence. - Pandacomics 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The incriminted sentence is already 'remodelled' - as you might see. So, it was already out of the scope.--Modelsides 12:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Footnotes aren't supposed to look like this. -

Homeland Calling: exile patriotism and the Balkan wars by Paul Hockenos, Cornell University Press 2003 Page 28

"Bleiburg" became a charge symbol for the alleged Serbo-Communist campaign to exterminate the Croat nation

Power and Persuasion: Ideology and Rhetoric in Communist Yugoslavia, 1944-1953 by Carol S. Lilly

Westview Press 2001 Page 109

The first books about the alleged Bleibirg massacre appeared after 1990 - based only on memoirs

Video, War and the Diasporic Imagination by Dona Kolar-Panov, Routledge 1997 Page 116

The story of Bleiburg was to fill the newspapers and to get considerable media attention in Croatia, and some of the media campaign reached Australia, but most of the members of the audience were not sure about 'what really happened' mainly because the 'after war death camps' and their victims inhabitated the blurry space between myth and reality

The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-old Dream by Alex J. Bellamy, Manchester University Press 2003 Page 71

The crisis was resolved when Tudjman 'discovered' that among the bones already at Jasenovac were some returned from Bleiburg after the war, so no bodies neded to be exhumed and moved

Hopefully someone will correct these blatant errors because every time I do so, the corrections are unjustifiably destroyed and I am falsely accused of vandalism by people who clearly do not understand proper grammar and formatting. Spylab 16:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Before claiming something like 'by someone who understands correct English grammar, spelling, punctuation and syntax' - you have to verify the validity of your claims by reading and then referring a contemporary English grammar rules/book. Generic disqualifications like this are un-clivil and offensive. Also, your understanding how an article shall be written is not a rule for other editors.--72.75.18.173 14:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with Spylab on this one. This isn't a matter of "this is stated in rule 348923 of the official English grammar book." This is a matter of using proper English. Publications usually appear at the end of an article in its own appendix, frequently labelled as "Works Cited." That way, if readers are interested to see if the author isn't making up information, they can look up the publications. - Pandacomics 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

'This is a matter of using proper English' can be regarded only if the knowledge of proper English is demonstrated. Apparently, the proper English does not require 'fixing' the quoted text according someone's perception that it was not gramatically (semantically) correct. Yes, state which grammar book supports your knowledge i.e. give us the book title, author(s) names, publisher, and year. Refer to a chapter, a paragraph, and a page - in order to support a claim that something in the article text shall be corrected this or that way. Sidelining with someone (Spylab) must be explained by valid reasons. Also, the publications are given at the end of this article, as you might see any time - under See Also, Footnotes, Bibliography, and External Links.--Modelsides 12:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note that Modelsides has been permanently banned for being a confirmed sock puppet of Giorgio Orsini, and that Giorgio Orsini has been blocked for 72 hours for sock puppetry. Spylab 13:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "law authenticity interpretation"?

There is still no definition of the obscure phrase "law authenticity interpretation" in the Croatia section of this article. The only reference for that sentence is an article that's not in English, and the only results that come up in a Google search of that uncommon term are websites that duplicate this Wikipedia article.[3] English-language Wikipedia articles should not be using terms that nobody understands.Spylab 13:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Common phrase used in the law. Google is not a tool for getting answers to this type of 'questions'.

An example: RJ Banks, “Matthew's Understanding of the Law: Authenticity and Interpretation in Matthew 5:17-20,” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974):

--NovaNova 17:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also never heard the phrase. Even if this is some specialised legal term, an encyclopedia shouldn't use terms only comprehensible to specialists, at least not without explaining them. NovaNova, I'm guessing the source you mention here is a joke, right? Or do you want me to explain gramatically why this is not an example of the expression "law authenticity interpretation"?

So can you (or anyone) please explain what "law authenticity interpretation" is supposed to mean here? Then maybe we can help you replace it with a clearer form of words. Thank you. SociableLiberal 21:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. One 'and' is missing in the phrase above. So, the correct phrase and its rendering shall be:

• the law('s) authenticity and interpretation = authenticity of the law + interpertation of the law

• authenticity of the law = authenticity of the form, content, signatures, seals, version, ... of the document containing the law
• interpertation of the law = who shall interpret the law or its part - if and when required, how shall it be done, recorded, delivered ...

The 'source' above is not a joke - it's a suggestion how to render this phrase using a common sense logic. Also, please, do not explain why the phrase is grammatically incorrect - the grammar does not deal with the correctness of this, or any other, phrase.

--NovaNova 04:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NovaNova, you really don't see anything wrong with your example, do you? God, this is ridiculous. Spylab, SociableLiberal, you can't seriously discuss the nuances of English with a guy who obviously has a limited understanding of the language. And then he goes and says: please do not explain why the phrase is grammatically incorrect. Hilarious! --Zmaj 10:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment is very 'hilarious'. Use a good dictionary to get the meaning of this word (phrase). About my understanding of English - your comment is limited in civility and good manners.--NovaNova 11:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• We're still waiting for an real explanation of what the phrase actually means in the context of the sentence "In 2005, the Croatian government made a move toward the Nazi-era law interpretation and practice, by granting exclusive rights to the Croatian parliament for the law authenticity and interpretation." Even with the allegedly misssing "and" inserted, it doesn't seem to make much sense, and doesn't demonstrate how it is specifically related to the Nazi era. Also, NovaNova stop destroying genuine corrections to grammar and formatting, since you obviously don't know what you're doing.Spylab 13:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Zmaj, I can see you're annoyed with NovaNova, but I have to tell you he's right: you're being uncivil and I don't think it's helpful here. Hopefully we can avoid an actual discussion of grammar. ;-) Spylab, I agree, that sentence needs some work. The reference to the Nazi era must be deleted unless a notable source for the comparison can be found.

NovaNova, as far as I understand what you said above, the end of the sentence should then apparently read "...granted the exclusive right to the parliament to interpret and authenticate the law". (Trust me, I'm an English teacher. ;-) ) However, I wonder whether you mean authentication here (checking the document is genuine). Is it possible that you're talking about checking the constitutionality of the law (whether it's consistent with the constitution)? In which case we would get something like: "In 2005, the Croatian government gave to the parliament the exclusive right to interpret the law and the constitution." Is that what you mean to say? If yes, I have further questions about exactly what this means, how, sources, etc., but maybe I've just misunderstood.

I'm sure with patience and civility we can get this content (or as much as can be verified) into clear English. Thanks NovaNova for trying... SociableLiberal 22:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

SociableLiberal, I see you're a reasonable person. If you say I was uncivil, you must be right. I do lose my patience now and then. I apologize to NovaNova for the tone of my last comment. --Zmaj 23:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have removed the sentence until someone can properly explain what it means. Wikipedia articles should not include confusing text that nobody (including the person who added it) understands.Spylab 19:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Law's authenticity and interpretation explanation understanding test

Tested the NovaNova's explanation of this phrase among four primary school sixth graders - no one had any problem to understand this phrase. Also, the phrase is in the widespread use as law's authenticity and law's interpretation. A nice usage and explanation of the authenticity of the law can be found in

European Journal of Political Theory, Vol. 4, No. 1, 89-107 (2005) © 2005 SAGE Publications The Rule of Law in the Modern European State Oakeshott and the Enlargement of Europe by David Boucher Cardiff University <quote> ...ment of the authenticity of their source. The rule of law, then, ... It is not enough that the law has authenticity by emanating from recognized ... </quote>

Politics and Process: New Essays in Democratic Thought by H. Geoffrey Brennan, Loren E. Lomasky - Political Science - 1989 - Page 226 <quote> In other words, form, not content, determines a law's authenticity and the obligation to abide by it. Much of the confusion about the character of law ... </quote>

The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations by Thomas Martin Franck, Oxford University Press 1990 - Page 91 <quote> The assent of the Queen to an act of the British Parliament is an example of a cue symbolically validating the new law's authenticity. ... </quote>

--Giorgio Orsini 17:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)