Jump to content

Talk:Neo-Nazism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Effoex (talk | contribs) at 05:42, 9 October 2007 (→Latest revert of the Croatia section: Comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  1. Sentences should be actual sentences, and not just side notes like "see this footnote". - (See also [21]).
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)[reply]
This still is not a reason to remove, paraphrase, or alter the already written sentence.--Modelsides 12:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Giorgio for the citations. You've helped to clarify the exact meaning of authenticity/authenticate in a legal context for us, and I'm happy to take it from you that this is what is meant in this sentence. In this case I think we need the form of words I suggested above: "...granted the exclusive right to the parliament to interpret and authenticate the law".
As for your test, I'm not sure whether you mean to suggest someone is deliberately making difficulties or stupid. Either way I'd be grateful if you could be as reasonable as I'm trying to be.
Further questions:
- Is there an English language source for this information? I couldn't find one. If no English-language medium considered it fit to report, is this fact notable?
- Is there a (preferably English language, but at least notable) source for the interpretation of this change as a return to Nazi-era practice? If not, see WP:SYNTH.
Thanks for caring about the content of Wikipedia. I hope you understand that the rest of us do too. SociableLiberal 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to replace the exiting phrase (which is, as to me, quite ok here) by you own words - go ahead. The tone you used when responding to NovaNova looks to me exactly as you said above - '...you mean to suggest someone is...' Maybe, it was not your intention but, please - do not try to mock or ridicule something you do not like or you do not understand. Also, forgive me for being outright this way.--Giorgio Orsini 00:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finally explaining the meaning of the term and giving an English-language reference (although it would help to be able to actually read the relevant text in the reference instead of just the title of the publication). Now that you seem to understand the necessity of having clear English writing in an English-language encyclopedia, I hope you will refrain from reverting necessary grammar and formatting correction in this, and other Wikipedia articles. Spylab 11:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at tidying NovaNova's version of the Croatia section (which various people seem to have been editwarring over). My hope is that this might help to ultimately resolve the dispute; your feedback is welcome. In summary, I have:
  • added citation needed tags for information which appears to be unverified, or WP:SYNTH
  • fixed some minor grammar errors etc.
  • changed the phrasing slightly in a few places to be more NPOV - note especially the opening sentence, which now reads "Neo-Nazis in Croatia base their ideology on the writings of..." (verifiable) rather than the previous "has roots in" which is an (unverifiable) interpretation. As such I've left Starcevic in, as I don't suppose anyone would dispute this sentence now - and never mind whether "Starcevic was a fascist" or not, which isn't really relevant here.
  • removed a few references which were broken links, and one reference to a 1939 document regarding an event in 2005. I haven't checked all the references in the section.
I haven't changed the order of the paragraphs; on balance I prefer the chronological approach for most of the material here, but I don't suppose it's the most contentious issue anyway.
Giorgio, sure, thanks for your feedback. I didn't intend to mock NN, but I see how it could have been perceived that way. In fact I genuinely did think he might be joking; I don't think imperfect English implies stupidity, but I very rarely have inexpert users of English arguing with me about what's correct (even in my line of work). :-)
Spylab, I hope you'll take this opportunity to go through the revised text in detail rather than continuing this pointless editwar with the others. Which is not to say that they were right or that you were wrong, I'm just looking for a constructive approach here...
SociableLiberal 15:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...and by the time I'd finished writing this, GiorgioO reverts all my edits to the article wholesale as "vandalism" - as if that was all there was to say about it! I am honestly astonished. GiorgioO, I am waiting for your explanation here of why my edits were rejected. (But am happy to assume you were simply joking or mistaken about the vandalism, unless you really want to call it that as well.)SociableLiberal 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read references before removing them. Please, read all references before passing any judgement about their validity, possible need for new references, and do not re-phrase the existing text if it is not needed. We have to respect efforts of other editors.--Giorgio Orsini 15:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The diacritica (and any other) references I removed (apart from the 1939 one) were links which, at least on my connection, appear to be dead. Is is possible that some of these pages are only accessible from certain places? Anyway I'd be grateful for references which I can actually verify with an internet connection. Meanwhile, how can a book dated 1939 be a source for a statement about something that happened in 2005? Surely this can only be WP:SYNTH.
I consider all of my rephrasings to be necessary for either correctness, style or NPOV; please comment in detail on your objections. If any of the "fact" templates were wrongly added feel free to explain why. Please accept my assurances that I am editing in good faith with the intention of improving this article, without any disrespect to anyone else. And please don't bite me. Thanks. SociableLiberal 15:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giorgio, thanks for your support in preserving valuable information in this section. 'diacritica' link is replace by another one. As to The Nazi conception of law (Oxford pamphlets on world affairs) - this is a necessary (contextual) reference highlighting idea of the Nazi era law and practice.--NovaNova 15:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to SociableLiberal

Yours: Neo-Nazis in Croatia base their ideology on the writings of Ante Starčević and Ante Pavelić

Previous: The roots of neo-Nazism in Croatia are in the ideology developed by Ante Starčević and his later follower Ante Pavelić

I reverted this because I do not see any improvement you claimed.

Yours: Starcevic's ideas were later advocated by Ante Pavelic and the Ustashi

Previous: It is interesting to note that Starcevic's ideas were later advocated by Ante Pavelic and the Ustashi

Here, my friend, you mutilated the quoted text which is illegal (=vandalism).

You put 7 [citation needed] even though that the information - you claimed that is not supported by references - is already heavily referenced. Just a sign that you did not read the references at all. When placing such a tag you must say (not to ask me why I do not like your [citation needed]s), for example, 'I cannot see this in any of the references given in order to support this sentence/paragraph'. This is definitely a bad faith edit no matter what shall be assumed according to the Wikipedia rules.

One example of your [citation needed]

Thompson, a popular Croatian singer, has sung Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara in his concerts. This is a song which glorifies the Ustaše and their genocide of the Serbs.[citation needed]

May I ask you - how it is possible that you do not see that Jasenovac i Gradiška Stara is a Wikipedia entry stating exactly what shall be 'fact-ed'???

--Giorgio Orsini 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest revert of the Croatia section

- given both by Giorgio Orsini and, by the common sense, both users are warned that it is not possible to 'fix' the quoted text by removing of some of its parts!!!. The removed words are in bold

Original text: Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations by Kurt Jonassohn, Karin Solveig Bjцrnson Transaction Publishers 1998, page 279
To further legitimize the claim that Croats constituted a distinct nation, entitled to their own state, Starcevic revived archaic usages and invented new words to artificially separate a Croatian literary language from the common Serbo-Croatian linguistic stock. It is interesting to note that Starcevic's ideas were later advocated by Ante Pavelic and the Ustashi

Changed text: Genocide and Gross Human Rights Violations by Kurt Jonassohn, Karin Solveig Bjцrnson Transaction Publishers 1998, page 279
To legitimize the claim that Croats constituted a distinct nation, entitled to their own state, Starcevic revived archaic usages and invented new words to artificially separate a Croatian literary language from the common Serbo-Croatian linguistic stock. Starcevic's ideas were later advocated by Ante Pavelic and the Ustashi

  • This orignal editor's text was re-worded under pretext that reference must always come at the end of sentence. This 'rule' is invented by Spylab - which (s)he tries to sell under a Wikipedia rule. This attempt of selling a 'rule' is incivil and illegal. If reference is about the first part of sentence - it is meanongless to remove it to the end sentence - as Spylab does. Application of this 'rule' here only harms the sentence readability.

To many of their modern supporters, the Ustase are considered merely victims of the (historically questionable - as per [1]

  • Original text:

The resurgence of the Ustaљe movement in post-war Croatia is partly due to the financial support of Ustaљe members, who emigrated after the WWII, to the Croatian Democratic Union during the 1990s.

The 'fixed' text:

The resurgence of the Ustase movement in post-war Croatia is partly due to the financial support of Ustaљe members who emigrated to the Croatian Democratic Union during the 1990s.

It was not possible to remove the bold text due to the fact that the 'fixed' sentence claims that Ustase members who emigrated to the Croatian Democratic Union during the 1990s - which is utter nonsense and a proof that editor did not understand the originally written sentence.

The fact that the editor did not understand the original sentence should signal to you that the original sentence did not make sense.
I can only suppose that what was meant was, "The resurgence of the Ustase movement in post-war Croatia is partly due to significant financial support of the Croatian Democratic Union by Ustase emigrants."
Perhaps you should work with other editors to ensure this article is both easily readable and factually accurate, rather than fighting all attempts at improvement.
--Effoex 05:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baseless insertion of the [citation needed] tag. In both cases the given references are confirming the statements tagged by [citation needed]. The fact is that the editor (Spylab) cannot read the references written in Croatian. If (s)he could - then (s)he would see that there was no

need for this tag.

In 1999, Zagreb's Square of the Victims of Fascism was renamed The Square of The Great Men of Croatia, provoking widespread criticism of Croatia's attitude toward the Holocaust.[2] Many streets in Croatia were renamed after the prominent Ustaљe figure Mile Budak, which provoked outrage amongst the Serbian minority.[citation needed] Since 2002, there has been a reversal of this development, and streets with the name of Mile Budak or other persons connected with the Ustase movement are few or non-existent. [3] A plaque in Slunj with the inscription "Croatian Knight Jure Francetic" was erected to commemorate Francetic, the notorious Ustaљe leader of the Black Legion.[citation needed] The plaque remained there for four years, until it was removed by the authorities. [4][5][6]

Post-war support for Ustase is also visible in the form of graffiti. The most common is the serif letter U, representing Ustaљe (sometimes embellished with a cross, and/or the letters NDH). There have also been instances of more explicit hate speech, such as the phrase Srbe na vrbe! (meaning "hang Serbs on the willow trees!").[citation needed] An Orthodox church was spray-painted with pro-Ustaљe graffiti in 2004. [7][8]

  • Giorgio Orsini inserted this reference into this seciton as a contextual reference directing a reader to much needed and sufficient knowledge of the Nazi conception of law. I explained why this reference is necessary here - at the end of this section [6]

The Nazi conception of law (Oxford pamphlets on world affairs) by J. Walter Jones, Clarendon (1939)

  • Insertion of the [citation needed] tag here is completely baseless - as it was explained at the end of this section [7]

'Thompson, a popular Croatian singer, has sung "Jasenovac i Gradiљka Stara" in his concerts. That song glorifies the Ustaљe and their genocide of the Serbs.[citation needed]

  • Original text:

Many of them were wearing Ustase uniforms, saluted the Ustaљe way, and shouted the Ustaљe salute "Za dom spremni" (For home(land) ready) - en-masse.

Changed text - the bold text contradicts the references - both English and Croatian: His May 17, 2007 concert in Zagreb was attended by 60000 people, many of them wearing Ustaљe uniforms. Some gave Ustase salutes, and shouted the Ustaљe slogan "Za dom spremni" (For home[land] ready) en-masse.

Croatian: Osim toga, veliki broj sudionika nosio je ustaљke uniforme i simbole", stoji u Zuroffovu pismo. (from Jutarnji list)
English: The Los Angeles-based organisation expressed "outrage and disgust in the wake of a massive show of fascist salutes, symbols and uniforms at a rock concert ... (from the Sunday Times)

Footnotes

  1. ^ Homeland Calling: exile patriotism and the Balkan wars by Paul Hockenos, Cornell University Press 2003 Page 28
    own state, Starcevic revived archaic usages and invented new words to artificially separate a Croatian literary language from the common Serbo-Croatian linguistic stock. It is interesting to note that Starcevic's ideas were later advocated by Ante Pavelic and the Ustashi
  2. ^ http://www.iwpr.net/?p=bcr&s=f&o=246286&apc_state=henibcr1999
  3. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3605236.stm
  4. ^ http://www.ex-yupress.com/nacional/nacional7.html
  5. ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3605236.stm
  6. ^ http://see.oneworld.net/article/view/92811/1/
  7. ^ http://www.index.hr/clanak.aspx?id=279919
  8. ^ http://www.spc.org.yu/Vesti-2004/04/28-4-04-e01.html#usta

--NovaNova 00:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT Project

Hi! The {{LGBTProject}} banner was removed with the edit summary "this has nothing to do with Nazism". The contrary viewpoint is that the article is in the Category:Homophobia, and several of the sections refer to attacks on homosexuals. I'm re-adding the banner, but welcome comments on the subject. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fascism reborn in Russia

I just saw wideo, where russian nazi killed two kid, one from Russia's Dagestan and other from Tadjikistan. That was so awfull:((((((((((((((((((((((((((( They cuted head of and played with it:(((( They are totaly mad. It looks like Russia is becoming ruSSia. Some russians say, that Russian Federation is Veimar Republic. In this article must be mentioned, that the strongest in numbers and the most active nazi are in ruSSia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.148.71.250 (talk) 10:39, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Rammstein

Is Rammstein really a neo-nazi band? I don't think so.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.77.71 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Bleiburg paragraph in the Croatia chapter

I will remove the paragraph dealing with the Bleiburg massacre from the chapter on Neo-Nazism in Croatia. This is the paragraph including references:

To many of their modern supporters, the Ustaše are considered victims of the historically disputed [[Bleiburg massacre]], and the late president [[Franjo Tuđman]] even proposed to rebury Ustaše members together with victims of the [[Jasenovac concentration camp]], as a sign of national reconciliation.<ref>Homeland Calling: exile patriotism and the Balkan wars by Paul Hockenos, Cornell University Press 2003 Page 28 <br>"Bleiburg" became a charge symbol for the alleged 'Serbo-Communist' campaign to exterminate the Croat nation</ref> <ref>Power and Persuasion: Ideology and Rhetoric in Communist Yugoslavia, 1944-1953 by Carol S. Lilly Westview Press 2001 Page 109 <br>The first books about the alleged Bleibirg massacre appeared after 1990 - based only on memoirs</ref> <ref>Video, War and the Diasporic Imagination by Dona Kolar-Panov, Routledge 1997 Page 116 <br> 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 </ref> <ref>The Formation of Croatian National Identity: A Centuries-old Dream by Alex J. Bellamy, Manchester University Press 2003 Page 71 <blockquote> 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</blockquote></ref> <ref>http://www.ex-yupress.com/novi/novilist29.html</ref> <ref>http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/27/news/croatia.php</ref> Croatian Serbs felt insulted by that proposal.

When one reads this paragraph, two things are obvious:

(1) the handling of the Bleiburg massacre is certainly a sensitive issue, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Neo-Nazism;
(2) the comments included in the references promote the denial of the Bleiburg massacre, and are therefore very offensive for the relatives of the victims. I wonder how they got accepted in the first place.

Therefore, I'll delete the entire paragraph. If anyone wishes to return it, they should explain what relevance it has for Neo-Nazism. --Zmaj 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it does a lot with neo-nazism. Bleiburg is a place of public demonstration of the Ustashe sentiment. Even Austria has prompted to take measures against some Bleiburg 'pilgrims' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.83.230 (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bleiburg is a mass grave of the victims of a massacre. If you don't feel any respect for the people buried there or their living relatives, I have nothing but contempt for you. Since you provided no concrete reason for keeping the paragraph, I'll delete it again. --Zmaj 07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bleiburg is not a mass grave nor ever was. There is only six or seven Ustashe graves on the local cemetery. Also, there is not any documentation coming from the British Army archives, nor from the world media about the (non-existent) massacre. Not a single villager of the Bleiburg village saw anything like massacre. There are only tel-tales of some Ustashe's fans or relatives - which is already correctly spotted by historians.

Is it me, or this link is dead? It's used as a reference, thus more important. Please check if I'm wrong. iNkubusse? 18:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neo-Nazism&oldid=163265752"