Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-18 Hitler

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Adolf Hitler
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Xanon
Parties involved	User:Str1977, User:Paul Barlow, User:MarkThomas, User:Golbez
Mediator(s)	User:Somitho
Kommentar	asking to close

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|Adolf Hitler]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Adolf Hitler]]

Mediation Case: 2006-12-18 Hitler

Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

Request made by: Xanon 19:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

In the Adolf Hitler article's talk page, Talk:Adolf Hitler.

Who's involved?

Str, Paul B, MarkThomas, Golbez, and several others, who occasionally drop by to say something insulting. Virtually, it's I against everyone else; however, probably only the three users I named continually participate.

What's going on?

We have reached a stalemate and my opponents are simply ignoring me.

What would you like to change about that?

My opponents seem to believe that it's self-evident that their opinion is the right one. I would like them to at least try to prove their side is correct, as I've provided a lot of arguments for mine.

Maybe if they understand my arguments, I can convince them.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

No, it doesn't matter to me if this is discreet or not. You can reach me by [email protected] or, if there is a way to send messages to a wikipedia account, I would be notified when I got one.

Mediator response

Accepting the case, ready to hear discussion from all parties. Somitho 22:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this dispute still active? Do you need another mediator? --Ideogram 00:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I had stuff which come up during the holidays. I am back and will be reviewing the case. Somitho 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I will hear rants/raves/arguments/suggestions on ##wikipedia-medcab on Freenode this is slightly different compared to #wikipedia-medcab please reference your username and relation to the case. I will be logging all conversation there, and will update to the talk page here. Hopefully we will come to some sort of agreement through this, while maintaining civility and crucial points of the article. Somitho 00:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this case still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 10:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Closing. --Ideogram 18:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

Somitho, thank you very much for agreeing to help me out. The main, general issue is in the way Hitler is portrayed - my opponents continue to insist he was evil, while I think he was no more than a radical ultranationalist. I pretty much gave up on trying to convince them, but from the practical perspective, the article still shouldn't fail to reflect my views. I quote: "One of Wikipedia's core policies is that articles must be written from a "neutral point of view", presenting all note-worthy perspectives on an issue along with the evidence supporting them. The project also forbids the use of original research. Wikipedia articles do not attempt to determine an objective truth on their subjects, but rather to describe them impartially from all significant viewpoints." Therefore, what they are doing by reverting my edits goes against Wikipedia's policies.

To be more specific, we are currently debating the intro. There the source of disagreement is the exact moment WWII began. You see, there wasn't a voice belonging to a supernatural omniscient being that announced "World War Two has begun at this precise time!" No, the time WWII began is decided upon by historians and there isn't a general consensus; a fact which my opponents are trying hard to ignore in order to present only the version that suits their beliefs. Like any fight, WWII began as a process.

This is what http://americanhistory.about.com/od/worldwarii/a/wwiioverview.htm had to say about it: "The Road to War The actual war in Europe itself began with a series of events: Germany took Austria (1938) and the Sudtenland (1938) The Munich Pact was created (1938) with England and France agreeing to allow Hitler to keep the Sudtenland as long as no further expansion occurred. Hitler and Mussolini created the Rome-Berlin Axis military alliance to last 10 years (1939) Japan entered an alliance with Germany and Italy (1939) The Moscow-Berlin Pact occurred promising nonaggression between the two powers (1939) Hitler invaded Poland (1939) England and France declared war on Germany (September 30, 1939)."

This is my version of a part of the intro. It presents a compromise between my opinion and theirs. Please read it and try to determine if it's biased or flawed in any way. "With the establishment of a restructured economy, a rearmed military, and a totalitarian fascist dictatorship, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"). After he ordered the invasion Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany. This conflict became known as World War II."

Now this is what my opponents want to remain in place. "With the establishment of a restructured economy, a rearmed military, and a totalitarian or fascist dictatorship, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"), which triggered World War II when Germany invaded Poland." Please note the "Hitler... aggressive... triggered World War Two" implicit blame distribution.

P.S. I don't know what else there is to be said about the parties involved. Some people just posted one short sentence and left the discussion be. I think I have listed everyone whose contribution was significant. Xanon 03:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's a very fair characterisation to add my name to the list of people who "drop by to say something insulting" as stated; I have tried I think quite hard to (a) elucidate what it is exactly that Xanon thinks should be changed in the article and (b) engage in an intelligent debate about it. I think it is very difficult in the case of a figure like Hitler, who many would argue the article is insufficiently critical of as it stands, to be NPOV and objective. Personally I think that many articles in Wikipedia about "great dictators", wars and war leaders are not very comprehensive and lack clarity about causes. However, I don't think the specific sentence you quote above Xanon is very controversial. It does make me wonder about your POV and that is why people got exasperated with you on the main talk page, because here, as on that page, you don't really say what you want to change. When you do actually go into the article and make changes, they seem to be points which very few who study Nazism, the second world war and Adolf Hitler would actually agree with. When this is pointed out to you, you have responded with long arguments which seem unrelated to the point in question. It is difficult, because I think you have a view that the article is "anti-Hitler" and want to correct that, so from your point of view it would probably need quite a substantial re-write by many people rather than peripheral corrections. Can you summarise here what key points in the article you would want changing or even write the proposed lead paragraphs you would want to see? Then we would have something we can get to grips with. Thanks. MarkThomas 09:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Xanon is fighting a strawhead when he claims that any other editor wanted the article to say that Hitler was evil. That would violate NPOV. WP narrates facts and analysis and leaves the judgment to the reader. But not saying "he is evil" is not the same as hiding facts that could make a reader say "that guy is evil".

Xanon also spend quite some time banging the drum of "the allies have committed crimes as well". However, even if all his claims would have been accurate (which they were not) this has no bearing in an article on Hitler.

Finally, to address his proposed rewording: "which triggered World War II when Germany invaded Poland." does not even, as Xanon supposes, distribute blame. It just states that the war began or was triggered (a compromise since some held the inaccurate view that the war began only when Britian and France declared it) by that invasion. It does not say whether Hitler had any good reasons to do so. Xanon's version totally omits the war-like nature of the invasion, as if little Poland did not matter.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all let me say that I appreciate you guys coming here to try to resolve this dispute. Secondly, MarkThomas, nobody intentionally added you to the list of people who dropped by to say something insulting; it's just that the list of other parties in the box got expanded, and the Who's involved? list didn't. I will post my actual answer presently, just let me organize it so it makes sense to someone other than myself. Xanon 05:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, arranging facts in a sequence the only logical conclusion of which is that Hitler was evil, skillfully downplaying the importance of some policies, while highlighting others cannot be considered NPOV. Yes, the article doesn't explicitly state Hitler was evil. Instead, the article lists all of the reasons people think he was evil and informs that by nearly universal consensus he is considered evil. Forgive me if I fail to see this as "non-biased".

• Also, would you be so kind as to inform me which of my claims are false? This does matter, as people usually want to get the full picture of the event (WWII) and that means finding out who was right and who was wrong. Since the article about the Allies won't mention it...
• You know well that people usually think that if you triggered or caused something then it is your fault. Using that is cheap. My version only states the facts, so why can't you accept it instead?
• The word "invasion" sounds very violent and war-like to me. I think you may be imagining things. However, if that's the issue, I don't mind if we change "ordered the invasion of" to "ordered the conquest of". You aren't going to argue that "conquest" isn't a war-like word, hopefully. Would that be satisfactory?

Mark Thomas, I think the article downplays the fact that Hitler's domestic policies made Germany a better place to live (if you weren't a non-Aryan or a bolshevik, of course). When it comes to the restructuring of economy, the article begins operating with very abstract ideas, which conceal the fact that prior to Hitler's policies the German economy was in shambles and the quality of living stunk. It also goes to great lengths to point out all the downsides of the economic growth. On the other hand, when it comes to the Holocaust, the language become colorful and three-dimensional. Genocide, massacre, systematic killing, crude and brutal, gassing to death, Holocaust, victims. It also uses the 11 million victims figure, probably because it's one of the largest ones of the dozens out there. You'd think the Holocaust was ordered purely out of sadism and not because the Nazi's considered Jews to be a threat. I'm not suggesting we remove those words; however, if this article is to be so passionate about the Holocaust, why should it be so sceptical about the positive impact of domestic policies? As far as "the woman's place is in the home" goes, which was apparently inserted to make the Nazi's look like misogynist-freaks, the article once again fails to mention that in the US, for instance, it wasn't any different. There are also several subtle things: how the article presents the fact that Hitler practiced his speeches (not something other politicians do, of course) as evidence of his being a malicious mind-manipulator, how Hitler "gained power... by appealing to economic need", which once again portrays him as doing something under-handed... Finally, the way the intro mentions the "restructured economy" only as a tool for conquest. All right, let's see what you gentlemen think about my complaints thus far. Xanon 02:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved third party, I'm going to explain a few different theories as to how Hitler and the Holocaust are related. Firstly, everything that Hitler did was legal. Doesn't matter if it was wrong, etc. Hitler made sure to follow the letter of the law. The fact that he was the one writing the law was just... convenience. Theory #1: Working Towards the Führer. People under Hitler wanted to show off, and they did so by formulating increasingly Antisemetic laws and policies. It is clear that Hitler wasn't friendly towards the Jews; in Mein Kampf he blames Jews for a number of things. So, if you were some politician and wanted to get a promotion, you might capitalize on that and show Hitler that you were forcing the Jews into ghettos to work. Some other politician would then one-up you by building gas chambers. That's Theory #1. Theory #2 is Intentionalist. Basically, Hitler knew that as soon as he got power, the Jews would end up dead. Theory #3, Functionalist, is similar. Hitler didn't know that he was going to kill all the Jews, but as he gained power and after he became a dictator opportunities presented themselves to him. Theory #4: Hitlercentric. Sort of a cloak-and-dagger, puppet-master theory. Hitler set everything in motion on purpose, then just sat back and watched. Similar to Intentionalist, but with a bit more paranoia added. Now, personally, I think that there should be a bit of separation between the Hitler article and the Holocaust article. Hitler did far more than the Holocaust during his reign, and the Holocaust involved far more people than just Hitler. Although both were major factors in one another, they weren't the only ones. Just my loose change. --Mechcozmo 21:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don’t see your problem with the arrangement of facts and how it violated NPOV. The intro is talking about what Hitler is most famous for- gaining military power and using it. You complain about how the restructured economy is spoken about as a tool for conquest. That part of the article is talking about how Hitler gained and pursued military power so it is listed as a contributing factor. That does not in any way imply that was the only thing it was good for. You seem to have already formed your opinion and you are seeing things that do not in any way support it as reinforcement. For example, I don’t see how the word invasion is more violent then the word conquest. To me the word conquest seems more violent. In any case, war is violent and it does not violate NPOV to use violent words to describe it. Hlf23 21:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Str1977 and MarkThomas, are you guys still participating in this discussion? Mechcozmo, so who exactly passed the laws for the Holocaust? Xanon 03:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, don't hassle please - you won't get this resolved overnight and other people are busy! This area is much debated. The holocaust principally took place not in "Germany" but in occupied territories, particularly Poland. This allowed the Nazi government to apply racial laws in mythical countries of it's own creation like the General Government which were ruled by arbitrary dictat, edicts issued by Adolf Hitler and Hans Frank. It isn't quite true in my opinion to say that Hitler always acted within German law by the way. He frequently expressed contempt for the rule of law, for example in the Table Talk and I believe he often acted outside it, for example in the Night of the Long Knives - murder was illegal even in Nazi Germany. Also the list of possible theories about Hitler given by Mechcozmo above is interesting but not comprehensive; for example there are other views which sort of combine some of them. I think Hitler was an opportunist and often said he was, but he also clearly had a sort of "master-plan" about eliminating "bolshevik jewry" which existed in his mind and in the minds of his followers from Mein Kampf onwards.

I'm not sure any of this gets us very far though. This discussion is not an abstract about Hitler - it's for you Xanon to say what changes you want and for us to review them. Can you say concretely what you want? Snappy little comments like the one you make above are not going to do it - you need to put some work in and say how you would change the article. Thanks. MarkThomas 09:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Arghhh, you aren't really gonna make me do all the work? Nobody is hassling you; I just wanted to know you guys were still here. For now, could you at least tell me where you think I might have a point and where you completely disagree? That will make my job easier. Thanks.Xanon 08:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you requested the mediation Xanon and need to explain clearly what it is you want to do and then we will comment. At the moment anyway I for one am not clear enough about what your point is to constructively comment. Thanks. MarkThomas 09:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

When reading through the discussion above, it seemed that at least the following five issues have been identified by Xanon: 1) The phrase in the introduction concerning the invasion of Poland and the start of WWII. 2) The phrasing of the Legacy section 3) Lack of discussion of positive impact of Hitler's domestic policies 4) The discussion of the women's place in the home 5) The 11 million figure for the number of people systematically killed by the SS. I think there are a couple more issues buried in there as well.

1 - My biggest issue that I think the article as is as well as Xanon's proposal both should be clarified to state that the invasion triggered (caused/resulted in/etc.) the european theatre of the war (as opposed to world war ii - this just ignores the role played by japan). I have no problem with Xanon's proposal, though I don't think the current statement is particularly biased (other than being euro-centric). 2 - The first paragraph of the legacy section uses much stronger language than the Consequences of German Nazism and Neo-Nazism articles. I do think that this language (though I agree with it) is somewhat biased and should probably be modified/removed. 3 - I saw the Economics and Culture section as presenting a neutral to positive view of Hitler's domestic policies. "The unemployment rate was cut substantially, mostly through arms production and sending women home so that men could take their jobs. Given this, claims that the German economy achieved near full employment are at least partly artifacts of propaganda from the era." The preceding quote cites no references and is not mentioned in the Nazi Germany article. I think the second statement should probably be removed unless some support can be provided. 4 - The text seems neutral to me as is (but references would be nice). 5 - The Wikipedia holocaust page says that most estimates for the number of victims falls into the range of 9-11 million victims. The text should probably reflect that as opposed to choosing the high end of that range. Red52 01:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Red52, I like your separation of the issues. I'd like to throw in my two cents (having not been involved in this dispute before).

1) Phrasing of when WWII started -- Can the parties offer an example of a historian who "times" the start of WWII at the events suggested (when Europe started fighting back or when Poland was invaded)? I don't know enough about history, but this issue seems like one which could be resolved by looking at what some WWII historians say.

2) Phrasing of the Legacy Section -- This section seems mostly accurate and neutral, in that it talks about how others view Hitler, which are factual claims. I'm not sure about this though: "Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are, by virtually universal consensus, condemnatory." Some portrayals are comic or supposed to make another satirical point (e.g. "The Producers"). While there is near-universal consensus that Hitler himself should be comdemned, I'm not sure if almost all actual portrayals of him are condemnatory (because, as I said, some just seem humorous). Maybe this is just splitting hairs, but it might be more accurate to say "Most historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the West are condemnatory."?

3) Given that the issue is a lack of discussion, maybe Xanon is in the best position to suggest a revision, as this is his concern.

4) As above in 3. But, the sentences about women seem factual, about official polices enforced by the government. I think they meet the criteria for neutral and don't need revision.

5) I agree with Red's point - the number of estimated victims in WWII should probably be the same across wikipedia. The sources cited in The Holocaust seem valid, but not all the numbers of victims have citations.

Thanks for your time and hope this gets resolved with a minimum of acrimony. JaneDoe17 05:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Intro part of Hitler is quite factual and neutral measured by the standard of a biography, and sorry I really can't see any substantial controversy only by the arguments presented by Xanon here. Although Red52 has made a very detailed and organized analysis of possible disputes here, I'm not sure whether they are the exact and whole things that Xanon are concerned about. I'm afraid that our discussion will be futile if we just second-guess Xanon's concerns without having Xanon make clear the exact content about Hilter he wants to change (because although I think Xanon is clear enough about his position, I'm not quite sure what modifications exactly he wants to make). I therefore agree with MarkThomas that Xanon should make clear the exact changes he wants to make, and then we can discuss and judge whether they are more netural and better than the existed content. Hannjing140.247.249.15 17:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have some comments on intro part. It seems to me that both sides quite agree on the issue of fact as to what happened at the beginning of the World War II. The problems are (1.) how to explain this fact in a neutral way, and (2.) which particular point in the sequence of events should be defined as “the beginning of the war”. As to (1.), we need someone to propose his neutral way of explanation so that others can judge if it is really neutral or not. And, in my opinion, it is Xanon’s job as he suggested amendment. If no better explanation is offered, we will then have no choices other than keeping the existing one. As to (2.), can we just tell how the story developed without being specific on when exactly the war started? Is this acceptable to historian? ntptk

I agree that Xanon should make suggestions for revisions. Adding citations is a good method of keeping the page neutral and objective. If people want to say that historians of the west consider Hitler's actions to be condemnatory, it might not be a bad idea to add a couple of citations....this would enable the page to remain neutral according to Wikipedia standards. 24.61.45.18 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Buddy95

I'd just like to chime in on the "Intro phrasing" issue briefly, specifically the following sentence: "With the establishment of a restructured economy, a rearmed military, and a totalitarian or fascist regime, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"), which triggered World War II when Germany invaded Poland." Ignoring the dispute over the implications of "triggered" in this context, does the current phrasing not suggest that Hitler's "aggressive foreign policy" triggered WWII, at least more than the invasion of Poland? It seems that the relevant "trigger" is the invasion, and not the foreign policy itself. The WP article on causes of World War II lists Germany's invasion of Poland as one of the generally accepted causes of the war.

I don't want to muddy the waters even further, but I think that phrasing might be clarified, perhaps along the lines of: "...Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expaning German Lebensraum ("living space"). When that policy led to Germany's invasion of Poland, World War II was triggered." FootballPurist 05:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with FootballPurist. Red52 05:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't help noticing that we seem to have a rash of new users contributing to this fairly obscure and expert part of Wikipedia all of whom appear to have made just one or two edits and then immediately come here to back up a revisionist view of Nazi history. I think I smell a small sockpuppeteer. :-) MarkThomas 09:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark Thomas, I have nothing to do with this influx of new users. I'm doing some research right now so that I can back up what I say with solid evidence. Xanon 10:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas - the new users are related, but are not a single person. As part of a class project, groups of people were asked to contribute to ongoing wikipedia disputes. Each person is acting as an individual and represents his or her own viewpoint. Red52 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

This probably isn't the place to do so; this is a mediation case called by Xanon where he is supposed to make a case for why something is wrong (so far he hasn't done so) and then the requested editors make comments and mediation takes place. If you all want to get involved in routine disputes on Wikipedia, simply visit any controversial talk page (there are tens of thousands - pick any subject of public controversy!) and get stuck in. However, from the pattern here, I suspect your argument is a cloud and that in reality we have here a clear case of mass sockpuppetting by person or persons unknown. If it doesn't desist I will request the case be closed down due to abuse of process. MarkThomas 18:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

We really are law students, all individuals who aren't coordinating our opinions. We only have a few edits in our history because our first assignment was to edit an article, second to help in a dispute. If you look at our suggestions, some of us disagree with Xanon, others ask for more information; there is no coordination here and none of us have any idea who Xanon is. Sorry to have caused a problem. JaneDoe17 19:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, in that case you could look at topics that are considered controversial, for example, look at the lists at Controversy and see if you can make a contribution. However, I should warn you that it's considered to be against Wikipedia policy for a group of editors to co-operate offline towards a particular viewpoint on the encyclopedia - that's called being a cabal. These rules have good sense behind them as they aim to encourage good editing and well-meaning editors rather than promoting edit wars. MarkThomas 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas is confused about Wikipedia policy and MedCabal in particular. First of all, there is no evidence that these law students are cooperating twoards a particular viewpoint. That is called a failure to assume good faith, which is very clearly against Wikipedia policy. It is also a clear MedCabal goal to encourage participation by any and all interested parties, in keeping with overall Wikipedia values that "more eyes are better". I think it is a shame that one paranoid editor is accusing well-meaning newbies of being "sockpuppets" in clear violation of another Wikipedia policy, "Don't bite the newbies". --Ideogram 00:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See above - I wasn't biting, just asking. The users admitted themselves they were acting in consert so there's no mis-assumption by me as to good faith. Basically your correction is rubbish. MarkThomas 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

"Acting in concert" is not the same thing as "cooperating towards a specific viewpoint", both your words. Maybe you'd better think about what you call "rubbish". --Ideogram 02:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the start of WWII, can we reconcile the intro of this article with the Wikipedia article on World War II? That article states that "The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the German invasion of Poland, and the Japanese attacks on China, the United States, and the British and Dutch colonies." Perhaps we can rephrase the intro sentence to reflect language such as "Germany's invasion of Poland is generally considered to be one of the major triggers of World War II." Venetianflare 17:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to what is going on here. From what I can tell Xanon seems to suggesting changes which would also affect a significant number of other articles, while not actually being able to cite any reliable sources. I find his initial comments to be quite disturbing. Not only is he using a Wikipedia mirror site as a source he also states "This is my version of a part of the intro. It presents a compromise between my opinion and theirs". This seems to be POV pushing to me. His opinion is not relevant, what matters is the the content of the article is supported by reliable sources. One Night In Hackney 10:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Xanon's use of this process is basically an attempt to get others to accept his POV. When I've asked him to clarify exactly what his POV is, nothing is forthcoming, although we did get a little fusilade of possible new users many of whom were arguing that his POV is correct or that the article is false in some way. IMO the whole thing is a pathetic attempt at neo-Nazi revisionism so I won't bother to contribute further unless Xanon actually does some work and contributes. Lazy point-scoring is not what this is for. MarkThomas 15:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas, you need to calm down. I've tried to be as polite as possible, but you continue to be rude. Your fanatical championing of the accepted view of WWII is downright disturbing. I don't have time right now, I'll get back to this as soon as I can. Meanwhile, let's agree that historians can be very biased in their interpretations of facts and that if it is clearly demonstrated through logic that this is the case, then the mistaken interpretation should be rejected, ok? I am starting to have serious doubt that rational arguments can get me anywhere with some people. Also, for the last time, I don't sympathize with Nazis because I just don't like fanatics in general, militaristic ones least of all.Xanon 12:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this case alot more in-depth, and thank all parties for the comments. Please do not edit this page, when not logged in. I realize this page may cause some stress for some, but lets try to keep it civil. I will be here to police this a bit more now. Somitho 00:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)