Courage
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
- M:Foundation issues
- Wikipedia:Tutorial
- Wikipedia:Cleanup resources
- Wikipedia:Help desk
- Wikipedia:Five pillars
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
- Hey hey, Be aware, the would-be Zionist Cabal has it's eyes on you [1].--Irishpunktom\talk
Since been moved to Here! --Irishpunktom\talk 08:44, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Please stop unilaterally moving Nazi occupation of Norway article
editThere is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/German_military_occupation_of_Norway_during_World_War_II#Occupation_of_Norway_by_Nazi_Germany regarding where the article should reside. Please stop making multiple unilateral moves of the article until consensus is reached. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Unilateral moves
editCourage, I don't know if you've noticed, but the title of the article has been under debate at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/German military occupation of Norway during World War II. Your unilateral moves are pre-empting the outcome of a vote there, and that is simply against wikipedia policy, no matter how much we disagree on the issue.
As for the Nazi vs. German occupation, I have never claimed that Germany had no role in this - I am simply claiming that the occupation was a distinctly Nazi - or as you put it "National Socialist" - event. And I also believe there is broad consensus, within Germany and everywhere else, that the Hitler regime was not the legal government of Germany when this happened. To imply that it was a legitimate sovereign act is more of a POV than stating - quite accurately - that it was the Nazi regime that did it.
Neither am I arguing that it wasn't a military occupation - I am arguing that it was a military occupation and more. You're creating a false dilemma in both cases, what is known as a rhetorical fallacy. --Leifern 20:32, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
The debate is taking place at the discussion page of the article. Your further contributions there are welcomed. The VfD page is not really relevant anymore. Courage 20:34, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, cite your sources for the claim that there is a "broad consensus in Germany" that the German goverment was not "the legal government" (which was, then?). In fact, it is quite the other way round. It is nothing but POV to claim it was not, and such claims have nothing in Wikipedia to do. Courage 20:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Current German authorities, international courts, and the countries that were invaded have declared that the Nazi regime was illegal and lacked any legitimacy. It's a very simple matter of the fact that after the war, all legislative actions undertaken by the Nazis were rendered null and void. --Leifern 23:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- You haven't cited any source for this, and as far as I'm concerned, they do not. It is bullshit that all legislative actions undertaken by the National Socialists were rendered null and void. In fact, much legislation from the 30s and 40s are still in effect. For instance, there was some debate last year of whether the convictions of German soldiers for deserting the Army during the last war should be repealed or not, with the military and the conservatives being sceptical. Courage 04:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- That's another false dilemma fallacy: I am not claiming that all law in effect during the Nazi era are null and void; at a minimum, laws in effect before the Gleichschaltung measures. Hence, the London Charter, inter alia, did not seek to convict German military or civilians who had followed those laws. But all the key actions of the Nazi regime to seek legitimacy through the Gleichschaltung process were not accepted as legal grounds for any of the actions of those charged in Nuremberg or anywhere else. Also, revoked citizenships were automatically reinstated; convictions were automatically reversed, etc. You may believe that the Hitler regime was the legitimate government of Germany during the war years; most legal experts, historians, etc., would beg to differ. There is no question that the Hitler regime ruled Germany as a matter of fact; but the argument that it was a legal government would be tough to make. If you want to make it, I would suggest doing so in the article on Nazi Germany. --Leifern 12:16, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- You haven't cited any source for this, and as far as I'm concerned, they do not. It is bullshit that all legislative actions undertaken by the National Socialists were rendered null and void. In fact, much legislation from the 30s and 40s are still in effect. For instance, there was some debate last year of whether the convictions of German soldiers for deserting the Army during the last war should be repealed or not, with the military and the conservatives being sceptical. Courage 04:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Current German authorities, international courts, and the countries that were invaded have declared that the Nazi regime was illegal and lacked any legitimacy. It's a very simple matter of the fact that after the war, all legislative actions undertaken by the Nazis were rendered null and void. --Leifern 23:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- A number of people who continue to vote on the new proposal beg to differ. It's not up to you. --Leifern 20:36, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- I may certainly ignore pages which has nothing with the article to do. The VfD page is a page for discussion of whether the duplication article German military occupation of Norway during WWII should be deleted, which it also was. If someone wants to voice their opinion on the title, they should do so on the discussion page. Courage 20:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Re:
editSee my reply. Cheers, Sam Spade 20:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)