Talk:Prussian Blue (American duo)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Sam Weaver

Someone, admin, perhaps, i dont know who does this. please remove reference to sam weaver as a "neo-nazi activist." Sam weaver was 14 years old when he died. He lived in an isolated cabin in idaho. He never marched in a neo nazi parade. He is not on record as making any kinds of racist statements. There is no proof of any kind that he was ever an activist or a neo nazi. I dont know how this works, like do we need to have a vote or something to get that line removed. It is factually incorrect. I would just fix it but the article is protected. --Henrybaker 02:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right, the sentence does come out inaccurate. I don't have have any experience with protected pages, but I don't think the contents are going to be editable again until it is finally unprotected, which may take awhile (even a week), due to excessive vandalism and disagreements. When its back up again, and if someone doesn't change it, I'll be sure to make the edit (if it isn't held up too long, and I remember). Shadowolf 03:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Protection?

Ok... who unprotected it? Or rather, was it ever protected?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 04:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's still protected. Try to edit it, if you doubt it. There's no penalty for trying. --Trovatore 06:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
(cur) (last) 21:41, 24 October 2005 DragonflySixtyseven (just making sure it's clear)
(cur) (last) 16:18, 24 October 2005 Doc glasgow ({{vprotect}})
There is a CABAL!
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
For the record, administrators (like me) are able to edit protected pages without unprotecting them. Gonna look at the "Sammy Weaver" reference now... DS 13:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Page will need to be monitored if it comes off protection because per the PB forums there is apparently a concerted effort to revert to the version they want up (which is less NPOV). I agree with the above thread though, Sammy Weaver reference needs to be removed or reworded. I have no idea what his personal beliefs were, but as a 14-year-old kid living in a rural house in the woods, you can't really consider him an activist of any kind (and I don't recall ever seeing anything credible written about his personal beliefs anyway).--Isotope23 13:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


Jerry Abbott said > Any version of the Prussian Blue article that presumes that a lawyer for the NAACP is an objective and authoritative source of information on the relationships within the Gaede family is less NPOV than an alternative version that presents the NAACP lawyer's opinion as the ignorant and politically hostile opinion that it actually is. The NAACP and White nationalism are opposed to each other in a political struggle.

Jerry Abbott said > No "neutral point of view" can fail to take into account the fact that the NAACP and White nationalists are political adversaries when estimating the value of Ted Shaw's opinion.

Jerry Abbot said > No "neutral point of view" can fail to downwardly revise its estimate of the credibility of a third party who fails to take into account the fact that the NAACP and White nationalists are political adversaries when estimating the value of Ted Shaw's opinion.

Wikipedia is neither a political platform or an advertising medium, it's an encyclopedia and as such, differing points of view, so long as they are cited from credible secondary sources, are not only acceptable but considered helpful and necessary to a balanced article. Note that the group members' stated views are indeed summarized in the text. Wyss 14:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Wyss is correct. It's not necessary to spell out the fact that white nationalists and the NAACP are adversaries in this article. Anyone with even a slight awareness of the world around them can probably figure out those two groups are not planning a picnic together. Wikipedia users don't need to be spoonfed; they can come to their own conclusions about possible bias. The only possible change I would make to make this even more NPOV would be to change "He added that it is his opinion that the girls aren't expressing their own opinions, but ones they're being taught." The article as it stands is probably the least POV version that has been posited, though it could stand a few minor wording tweaks here and there to make it even more NPOV.--Isotope23 15:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


poor music quality

These 2 kids deserve an entry for all reasons imaginable but their music talent, which, after a careful (and patient) audition of their debut "Fragments of the future", turned out to be close to none. Nevertheless, all this media fuss around their white supremecist jerbbish makes them enough noticeable and widely known, even among non-racist audienmces outside the US (my case). It's true they are being used as a useful forefront by neonazi organizations to endoctrinate younger generations and, above all, to get visibility. The article shall remain also as a case study in pedagogical conditioning, since all evidence i have gathered so far portrays an overwhelming influence of their mother, as if they have been carefully sculpted to voice the nonsenses we are all familiar with.

A personal review of their musical abilities is original research. Please sign your posts with four tildes, thanks. Wyss 12:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott writes > The girls are thirteen year old twins whose voices are just now maturing and who began their musical hobby about four years ago. Naturally they are not as polished as adult bands who have had a decade or more of practice and performing experience. While the level of attention they've drawn from the Jewish media and the liberal left is mostly the result of their politics, the girls music has been enjoyed by those to whom the politics are not a problem. In other words, people who lack the political conditioning necessary to find White Pride themes in music distasteful seem also to lack the unreasonable expectations that 13 year old girls, practiced for 4 years, should perform like 23 year old women, practiced for 14 years.

Melburne herald sun (australian newspaper)

The duo were featured in the 26/10/2005 issue of the hearald sun, an austrlian newspaper. News spreads

"Not that many Jews in existence"

From a previous version of this article I found a transcript of the interview (can't find it now), and it seemed to me that this line about there not having been that many Jews in existence was just something that one of the girls had said in response to a question she wasn't really prepared for. The article makes it sound like a fixed and well-examined opinion of both girls; I don't see any evidence for that. Possibly someone can find a clearer wording than the current one.

As for informing the reader that there really were that many Jews in existence, this seems unnecessary to me. Most of us know that, and few expect thirteen-year-olds to be reliable sources for 1939 demographic information from Central Europe. --Trovatore 18:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree informing the reader of it is awkward but the way it's written it implies as if their reasoning is actually a fairly solid, accurate fact. Perhaps something like "...subscribing to the theory that there were not that many Jews in existence..." would do. --Jamieli 19:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
one could even support saying the discredited assertion that there were not that many Jews in existence. Wyss 19:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Both of those formulations imply that this is something they "subscribe" to, which is the point to which I was objecting. I don't think that's clear at all, from one brief response to an interviewer's question. They're not David Irving; they're thirteen. If they had attempted to defend the point, cited sources or any such thing, or even said it twice, I might feel differently. Something like "in response to the interviewer's question about whether the Nazis had killed six million Jews, one of the girls said she didn't think there were that many at the time" would more accurately convey the facts, I think. --Trovatore 20:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that since they're 13 and a musical act, their views on the Holocaust needn't be discussed at length in the article. Wyss 22:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So as it turns out the transcript I was remembering was added by an anon contributor in this talk page (see #POV above). It may be that I was giving the girls a bit too much benefit of the doubt--look up the interview on the National Vanguard page, linked to from the article, and see what they have to say about the name "Prussian Blue". Eeeew. Anyway it's normal at thirteen to believe what your mother tells you (even if it's also normal to make her think you don't). They won't be thirteen forever. Hope they find their way back. It's not going to be an easy trip. --Trovatore 01:55, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The news report on Primetime said that they were homeschooled by their mother and she admitted to giving one-sided opinions. So if the neutrality is in question, it is because the reporters are trying to not stray from the truth without personal opinions being included. But when opinions of the subject are quoted and reported, the reporter(s) can not be held accountable for what a person has said becuase they are merely using information from various sources, so the new reporter can not be accountable when it is the source's fault for biased opinions.

Jerry Abbott says > The incorrect statement by one of the girls that there weren't six million Jews in existence immediately prior to WW2 is an example of the kind of mistake that is often made when one is under pressure and "shoots from the hip." According to figures published by the World Jewish Congress, there were 15.5 million Jews alive worldwide in 1938, so perhaps there were at least six million Jews in Europe that year. Interestingly, though, the World Jewish Congress also provided the number of Jews alive in 1948: 18.7 million. So Lynx made the wrong point; what she should have called attention to is the fact that the Jewish population grew during the decade that included WW2, and to the best of my knowledge there was no sudden downward shift in the average age of the world's Jews - say from 35 to 20 - during this time.

Jerry Abbott says > If we assume the Holocaust happened, there would have to be 9.2 million Jewish babies born in 1938-48.

Jerry Abbott shows the arithmetic > 18.7 million Jews after WW2 - 15.5 million Jews before WW2 + 6.0 million Jewish Holocaust victims = 9.2 million Jewish babies born from 1938 to 1948.

Jerry Abbott says > Let's assume that half of the Jews who survived the Holocaust were female. That's about 4.8 million female Jews.

Jerry Abbott shows the arithmetic > 15.5 million Jews - 6.0 million Jews = 9.5 million Jews; 9.5 million Jews / 2 = 4.75 million female Jews.

Jerry Abbott says > Female Jews can't have babies from the moment they are born until the moment they die, however. I'll assume that half of a Jewess's lifespan are taken up by her childbearing years, which means that there are about 2.4 million female Jews of childbearing years who must produce the necessary number of babies.

Jerry Abbott shows the arithmetic > 4.8 million female Jews / 2 = 2.4 million female Jews of childbearing age.

Jerry Abbott says > So 2.4 million female Jews of childbearing age must produce 9.2 million Jewish babies from 1938 to 1948. The average female Jew of childbearing age must bear 3.8 babies from 1938-48. Yes, this is possible. But it is an exceedingly high birthrate that I doubt any national group ever reaches. Not even the mestizos breed that rapidly. This improbability by itself discredits the Jews' Holocaust claims. But I'm not content with merely discrediting it; I am about to disprove it.

Jerry Abbott says > Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that the Jews did buckle down to the task of making babies as fast as they could make them, during and after World War 2. The reduction in the average age of Jews worldwide would have been very obvious: from age 35 (assuming an average lifespan of 70 years) to about age 20.

Jerry Abbott shows the arithmetic > [(35 years age)(9.5 million) + (5 years age)(9.2 million)] / 18.7 million = 20.2 years age.

Jerry Abbott says > I don't believe that any such average age reduction ever took place. Since no such reduction ever happened, the Holocaust is ipso facto disproved by the simplest demographic reality: Babies are at age zero when they are born.


DLC > Actually, yeah that makes alot of sense, you have to remember there was a huge global population growth in that period of time. So it would not be unimaginationable that the jews would be having high birth rates alongside everybody else. Another thing, even if just one Jew was killed by the nazis, it would still be a great tradegy. I dont know how you neo-nazis try to rationalise these sorts of things by attaching a number to it. For the record I am not of jewish decent incase you try and scream jewish conspiracy on me.

Jerry Abbott says > I don't believe that any such average age reduction ever took place. Since no such reduction ever happened, the Holocaust is ipso facto disproved I dont believe your birth ever took place.Since your birth never happened, your existence is ipso facto disproved.201.238.89.18 14:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversial

I've restored the word "controversial" to the intro. I cannot agree with the assertion that the word itself is POV, for two reasons:

  • 1. It simply indicates the presence of controversy; in light of activity on this very page, it seems disingenuous to even imply lack of controversy. This leads directly into...
  • 2.Controversy is their only claim to notability. This makes the act of removing any mention from lead absurd at best.

Fox1 02:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

For there to be a controversy there needs to be at least two sides to a dispute. Does the subject of article have any support whatsoever? If the condemnation is unanimous and universal, there's no controversy.
I think you mean celebrity rather than notability. People can't seem to agree on what notability means. patsw 02:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I removed it again, but I didn't notice this discussion until now. Personally I think the word carries very little information in this context. There aren't any non-controversial white nationalist whatsits out there. Their notability rests on their unusual combination of fluffy exterior and views which can be euphemistically described as controversial. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Hoax

A number of web sites are discussing the indications that this is a hoax (to some degree). Are there any editors of this article who think there's enough buzz on this being a hoax now for this to added to the article? patsw 02:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Museum of Hoaxes has a discussion of this as a possible hoax. patsw 03:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Funny read. I especially found those guys' comments about the thoroughly-debunked correlation between race and intelligence supremely hilarious... considering I am Asian... :D
Back on topic: The discussion and the site pretty much established Prussian Blue as a real organisation, so any hoax claim is tenuous at best, and completely unsubstantiated.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 05:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott says > There is a correlation between race and intelligence, and it has never been validly debunked.

Jerry Abbott says > Lynx and Lamb are real girls, and those are their real names. I have personally met the girls and their mom, April Gaede. I have personally watched Prussian Blue performances. They really do play their instruments. Although they have occasionally contracted instrumental assistance from other musicians, most of what you hear on most of their songs is their own violin-and-guitar playing. Lynx is learning the bass guitar, but I'm not sure what her proficiency is with it just now. Some of the Prussian Blue fan pages (like mine) make fanciful extensions from fact into storybook fiction.

http://jabpage.org/features/prussianblue.html

Jerry Abbott says > The girls travel around, and occasionally they'll detour to visit some interesting part of America. They went to Zion Canyon in Utah last summer. They visited a stand of redwood trees this season. From these pictures, ideas for novels have come, one for a "Gaede Girls" mystery story, the other for a science-fiction story. The stories have not been written as yet, except in broad outline. But the girl-band itself, Prussian Blue, is real, and they really do travel and perform, mostly for White nationalist audiences.

KERN 1410 Interview

The interviewer was a retard.

"You did say Jewish the first time, hon."

Ummm...no she didn't.

"Are you a Christian?" "No I'm not, I'm an atheist." "You're an atheist? Alright. Well Ellie Mae (sp?) I'm glad that you called today. I -- she's an atheist, she's an eleven year old atheist."

That comment pissed me off too. What? Is it so much better to be an eleven year old Christian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.143.22 (talk • contribs) 28 October, 2005

I don't agree with most of the viewpoints of the girls at all, but that interviewer was an idiot.

it's idiotic to seriously interview 11 (or 13) year olds about their views of the holocaust, European history and theology. These girls are obviously just brainwashed by their mother (just like lots of girls are brainwashed by their fundametalist Christian parents, sure there is no difference in principle). They are just a publicity tool for National Vanguard, never mind what they think they know. Baad 10:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Likely so... a notable publicity tool for National Vanguard, never mind what they think they know. Wyss 12:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Prussian"

What does it even mean to be of "Prussian" descent? Ethnic Prussians (Balts)? see Image:Prussiamap.gif, Prussia up to 1945 was a territory spanning modern Germany and Poland. To say you are of Prussian descent, other than in the meaning of ethnic Prussians, implies (surprise surprise) the Nazi pov that Poland should properly be part of Germany. It seems rather likely that this is the case here, so could you please change it. Baad 10:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, it is no more racism that they describe their ancestry as Prussian than English. Both nationalities are ethnically Germanic, but the terms refer rather to the states and geographical entities. That their ancestors were English, Scottish and Prussian means only that their ancestors came from these states (and likely long before WWII). Using "Prussian" instead of "German" is simply more precise, just like many Bavarians often would describe themselves as "Bavarians". In any event, the Baltic Prussians are usually referred to as Old Prussians, while Prussians is reserved for the later meaning.
It is not a "Nazi pov" that the historical East Germany should be part of Germany. It a Hague and Geneva convention pov, the POV of German constitution until 1990 and the POV of all major German political parties for decades after the war. Today it is generally considered a revanchist/nationalist POV. Sigward 15:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's what they claim so there's no reason it can't be in the article, especially since it relates to both their racist message and the band's name. Knowing something about how people sometimes mistakenly describe the details of their genealogy, however, it would be interesting to know if they truly have significant Prussian ancestry (rather than Silesian or Bavarian or whatever). Wyss 11:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

We might, then, want to change it to something like "they claim" or similar. To extrapolate the issue to absurdity, if someone described themselves as being of "Klingon ancestry," would we simply state "this individual is of Klingon descent?" In more practical terms, since we don't know what, exactly, they meant by the claim, combined with some debate over just what a "Prussian" would even be, it seems wrong to state it as bald fact.
Fox1 12:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Your comparison is ridicolous. The Prussians are an actual nation and a former state. The Klingons are not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigward (talk • contribs) 28 October, 2005
I'm aware that it's not a great analogy. I even clearly stated that. I'm fully aware that reductio ad absurdum is generally a fallacious argument, but I was trying to establish a general point. That's why I (thought I) clearly labeled it and followed it with more substantive argument. Thanks for... uh... catching that though.
Fox1 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
on topic, (can't Godwin this) let's just assume they claimed Aryan descent. We wouldn't take that for granted, although the claim is not outlandish, for example if they had Gypsy ancestry. It would be clear that, hypothetically, by saying they are Aryan, they don't mean to say they are Gypsies. Similarly, by saying they are Prussian, they probably do not claim to have Baltic ancestry. After all, the article has "Prussian (German)". Is this what they said, or is the "(German)" a wellmeaning attempt at clarification by some editor?
No, "Prussian" is the specific (regional) term just like "Bavarian", and "German" is the umbrella term. It makes sense to say you are Prussian or Bavarian rather than just "German", because "German" is extremely unprecise. Obviously you can use both, depending on context. In the interview in the talk radio KERN Bakersfield she states her ancestry is "German", while in other interviews (like the Viceland magazine) they say: "Part of our heritage is Prussian German". ThompsJohn 17:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
my point was, Bavaria is currently an administrative division of Germany. Prussia was an administrative division, up to 1945. You would say "Franconian", "Hessian", "Saxon", "Berliner" or whatever, but not "Prussian". 81.63.58.220 20:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
you can say prussian if your ancestor came from Prussia when Prussia still existed.Which means if that ancestor migrated before 1945.201.238.89.18 14:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
The text should read they describe their ancestry as Prussian.. to retain NPoV unless their background is confirmed by a reliable secondary source citing their documented genealogoy. Wyss 12:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. Fox1 (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Their ethnic ancestry appears to be 100% Anglo-Saxon and is about evenly split between English, Icelandic, Dutch, and German. Their German ancestors are primarily from Rheinland-Pfalz, Alsace, and Switzerland. Their Dutch ancestors (Mennonites) migrated to West Prussia and lived there for several generations before migrating to Russia and then the US. Though perhaps technically Dutch, they have historically been called Germans or Prussians and a case can be made for any of the labels. I have sources and notes at my website PBAncestrybut I'll leave it up to someone who cares to update the article. (I'm also not sure whether it is okay to have the link to my site in here.) Questors 03:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Prussian Blue and Zyklon-B

User:Hipocrite added claims that the name of the band was an allusion to the colour of Zyklon-B residue. I have been under the impression that the name was based on their "Prussian heritage" and the colour of their eyes. If you think the point was important, please explain it here before putting it back. Lapinmies 16:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I did not add that ridiculous claim, I rather removed it. The extremely POV, abusive and factually incorrect claim was added by User:Hipocrite. The band clearly states they named themselves after the color. ThompsJohn 17:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note that the girls themselves are the ones who brought up the Prussian Blue and Zyklon-B connection in explaining why they chose the name Prussian Blue. They were very clear that this was one reason (they gave three reasons altogether) as to why they chose the name. They can't back peddle at this point, even if they might want to-- its on record that they truly believe (or have been taught by their mother) that this is a valid excuse to deny the holocaust, that they do deny the holocaust, and that this was part of their reason for choosing this name. They were very clear, and this reference belongs in the article.

Jerry Abbott adds > "...that this is a valid excuse to deny the holocaust" ... Which is exactly what it is! Forensic evidence is always a valid reason (not "excuse" - watch those implicitly pejorative word choices, buster) to doubt testimony to the contrary. The Holocaust may be validly called into question because the lack of prussian blue on bricks, where prussian blue would have formed had they been part of a gas chamber, is sufficient to cast doubt on the Holocaust's gas chamber propositions.

Sorry ThompsJohn. ThompsJohn was NOT the one who mentioned Zyklon-B in the first place. User:Hipocrite was the one? Lapinmies 19:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Prussian blue is the residue from Zyklon B gas. I can find critics mentioning this. I will write up an NPOV statement to this effect. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"Prussian blue" is indeed a ferrocyanide-based pigment which is, yes, blue. However, it's not particularly toxic, and it's not the residue from the use of Zyklon B. You're thinking of the related substance prussic acid - better known as hydrogen cyanide. DS 17:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Obviously, my chemistry is quite dated (ask me physics questions, please). I've corrcted the claim to accurately convey the chemistry. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The long zyklon B discussion is inappropriate, and should not be in the article. It's true one of them mentioned something about it in an interview, but it seems to be clear that the then 11 year old girls did not name themselves "Prussian Blue" because of this. The obsession with petty details which looks bad is not NPOV. We should leave such things to the tabloids. ThompsJohn 17:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Do you consider yourself a historical revisionist, and/or do others consider you a holocaust denier? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. I have absolutely no interest in the Holocaust discussion. Your edits here are however violating Wikipedia:NPOV and seems to be an attempt to smear this band and German-related things in general [1]. ThompsJohn 17:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
How ironic, you quoting policy at me. I have no qualm with Germans in general. Nazis, however, should be revealed as such (it's part of human knowledge). This group is not German (they are Americans of unknown descent). That you think my calling Nazis Nazis is an attack on germans is telling. Very. Telling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for revealing your POV and showing that you are not able to deal with this article in a manner compatible with our NPOV policy. Which your first edit also clearly showed. ThompsJohn 18:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
You have now violated the wikipedia three revert rule, which I have reported. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I have not. You are the main reverter here. Your edits have been reverted by at least 3 persons. Do you not take a hint? If you revert anything again, I will ask to have the stable version protected. ThompsJohn 18:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The name of the band

User:Hipocrit insists on a long discussion on the motivations behind the name of the band, despite being reverted by at least 3 editors. I'm not aware of any other band articles having such detailed and mostly irrelevant explanations obsessed with details which can make the band look bad, and which do not seem to be the primary motivation behind the name. I do not think this is in accordance with the NPOV policy. I suggest we simply state that the band was named after the colour. ThompsJohn 18:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. Please review proposer's edit history. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm usually a slash and burn deletionist, so, under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. However, in this case, I don't know that a comparison to other band articles is appropriate. Again, I've seen no citations for the notability of this group other than existence of controversy, so I find the apparent desire to skirt mention of controversy... odd, and quite possibly a disservice to the reader.
I also find the argument that "11 year-old girls would not name a band after such-and-such" odd, since little girls would generally not be assumed to be cognizant of many of the other topics on which they have reportedly held forth, when measuring by this same yardstick. Besides, why would one assume that the group's name was wholly the product of 11 year-old minds in a vacuum?
Fox1 (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Why not have something on it? If it can be sourced, then I don't see the problem with it. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please consider the following:

The Gaedes have claimed that the band was named after the color Prussian blue, as a reference to the girls' Prussian heritage and their blue eyes. They have not specifically stated whether the decision to use this name was at all influenced by references to the ferrocyanide pigment Prussian Blue used to dispute evidence of the use of Zyklon B gas in German concentration camps during World War II, but have spoken in support of these arguments and their role in disputing details of the Holocaust.

And comment on whether this would be a suitable compromise/replacement paragraph for inclusion in the article.

Fox1 (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This proposal is not acceptable. I provided a refrence where they make it clear that the decision to use this name was influenced by such refrences. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I must missed that somewhere. Well, I'm out of time for today, that was my best shot.
Fox1 (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems at least better than the current version. But I think this entire Holocaust discussion taking up so much place in the article is really completely off topic. The ABC News explain their name short and consise [2]: "Known as "Prussian Blue" — a nod to their German heritage and bright blue eyes". The girls, 11 years old when they formed the band, are not known for being Holocaust revisionsts (and 11 years old couldn't possibly accurately be described as that) but for being musicians. It would be natural to discuss views on the Holocaust in the David Irving article, but not here. ThompsJohn 19:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth I tend to agree that long discussions of Holocaust denial and residues of Prussian blue aren't needed in the article. Wyss 03:21, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
neither are four colour images of the duo. at least two should be scrapped, this is not a family album. 81.63.58.220 20:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The girls are far more well known for being Nazi sympathisers and holocaust revisionists than they are for their musical talents. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
They're known for being a young girl Nazi singing group, not for anything else. If they didn't sing or weren't young girls, they wouldn't be known at all. Remove their public statements about the holocaust and they'd still be just as famous. Notice how this isn't a page about them personally, but them as a singing group. Your added statement is out of place, doesn't actually reflect consensus, as no one actually exppressed agreement on the talk page. Unless you can source someone trying to speak against their claims specifically, addressed to them, then it shouldn't be included, because this is an article about them, not the holocaust. Both you and ThompsJohn appear to have violated 3RR in the process of edit warring this page, I suggest you both stop doing that until there is an actual consensus. Nathan J. Yoder 06:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Please provide difs of me violating 3rr. Without their statements about the Holocaust and White Power they would not be famous, regardles of their singing or young girl status. In fact, one would argue that of the three, only one is the reason for their fame - the neo-Nazi connection. Articles about other bands include important controvercies that have made the bands what they are today. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
But there are other neo-nazi bands and other neo-nazi girls and they aren't famous. "I think hitler is great" is enough on its own. Their lyrics don't mention anything about Zyklon-B, it's just a random side note they made in some interview, they even specifically said that wasn't what they were named after. And as I said, you can't include it as per NPOV unless someone made that comment specifically addressed to them. You can wikify the link and link to a page on Zyklon-B so readers can read more, but this isn't the page to discuss it, since this only deals with things they said and things said about them specifically. Your edits were: [3], [4], [5] and [6] (this last one wasn't a strict revert, but you did reinsert the removed link and basically just rephrased the removed content you added back in and added a little to it). Nathan J. Yoder 14:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh wait, I reread their quote, that did influence it, but my point still stands nonetheless. Nathan J. Yoder 14:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I do not consider the last revert to be a revert in the spirit of WP:3rr, and challenge you to pick one admin who would consider it so. Your point does not stand if the premises are removed - and you have removed the premises yourself. If you'd like to make an arguement from accurate premises, I'd be happy to hear it. Since it's clear that we all agree that their name comes from the blue coloring the lack of which pseudo-scientists believe disproves the holocaust, I don't see how mentioning that is in any way a violation of NPOV. The earth is not flat, and the lack of blue coloring in the execution chambers does not disprove the holocaust, and mentioning that scientists believe that is not in any way a violation of NPOV. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother pursuing it, but I'm sure there are admins who would consider it a violation. That was actually a side point, not the main premise of my argument, so it still stands just fine. You don't seem to understand WP:NPOV policy. Whether or not something is true has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's a violation of NPOV, it even says that explicitly on the policy page. This is an article about the band, not Zyklon B, which is why it's POV. Quotations and citations should be regarding the subject matter of the article, which is the band. You seem to think that NPOV is "Scientific POV", which it's actually not, and that's a common misconception. Nathan J. Yoder 14:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I am quite aware of the NPOV policy, thank you. The band named themselves after a substance that is not left by Zyklon-B, because they belived it is left by Zyklon-B, a view espoused by the neo-Nazi movement in the US. Mainstream science believes they are wrong. That's an NPOV formulation. What lacks from the current version is an additional paragraph about the neo-Nazi view of prussian blue, which I intend to add when the article is unprotected. Does that solve your problem? (ref NPOV:Pseudoscience)Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
That's not an NPOV formulation. Simply being true or even being properly sourced doesn't necessarily make something NPOV. The context in which a statement is placed also determines whether or not it's NPOV and in this case, your insistence on placing it here is POV. You can't just go around inserting "but-the-nazis-are-wrong" statements in every article about a Nazi. That portion you linked to is referring to articles on pseudoscientific topics, but this is one about a band. An entire paragraph about Zyklon B/prussian blue/holocaust denial or whatever else is inappropriate for this article. That's why you simply wikilink from this article to articles that are specifically about those topics. Nathan J. Yoder 14:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It's an NPOV formulation because it explains both sides of the contravercy, per the NPOV policy. If you have an alternative formulation that does not leave the reader of this article only with bad information (allow me to propose, "substance prussian blue, the absence of which in the execution chambers of the holocaust death camps neo-Nazi pseudoscientists believe disproves the holocaust(existing link)" that would be fine with me. I believe you have confused the NPOV policy with the articles-should-be-good guideline. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
But this isn't an article about that controversy, it's an article about the band. All you have to do is wikilink the Zyklon-B page, which directly links to a page explaining prussian blue. You could even add a section to Zyklon-B to link to about prussian blue. If you absolutely must, an NPOV phrasing would include a wikilink with a phrase like "this is a reference to a holocaust denial theory concering zyklon b," although that would be redundant. Nathan J. Yoder 15:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I can work with the redundant phase. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
"But this isn't an article about that controversy, it's an article about the band..." Actually, the article really is about the controversy, if it was just about the band they would be up for AfD again as another band that fails WP:MUSIC. The controversy is the only thing that is notable about them. Their music isn't worth the cost of their instruments; it makes the Shaggs sound like the Beatles.--Isotope23 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
You're conflating two different kinds of controversy. This is controversy over two little girls being manipulated into a neo-nazi band to spread neo-nazi propaganda. The other controversy is "did the holocaust happen?", which isn't actually being discussed in the media. You don't see Dan Rather (or whoever else) getting up and discussing Zyklon B or holocaust denial or anything along those lines, do you? The fact that the media doesn't even bother debunking the claims shows that they consider it self-evidently wrong and that the girls are being quoted for the shock value of it. Nathan J. Yoder 18:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Isotope - please review - if the section in question read:
The band was named after the color Prussian Blue, as a reference to the girls Prussian heritage and their blue eyes. The name is also an allusion to a belief, widely held by Holocoust deniers that the absence of Prussian Blue residue in the gas chambers of Aushwitz disproves the holocaust.(Viceland Link)(Chemistry article link)
Would that work? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The band was named after the color Prussian Blue, as a reference to the girls Prussian heritage and their blue eyes. The name is also an allusion to a belief, held by Holocoust deniers but (verbed) by mainstream scientists that the absence of Prussian Blue residue in the gas chambers of Aushwitz disproves the holocaust.(Viceland Link)(Chemistry article link)
Revised - would that work? Can someone suggest a verb? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
The band was named after the color Prussian Blue, as a reference to the girls Prussian heritage and their blue eyes. The name is also an allusion to a belief, held by Holocaust deniers but repudiated by mainstream scientists and holocaust researchers, that the absence of Prussian Blue residue in the gas chambers of Auschwitz disproves the holocaust.(Viceland Link)(Chemistry article link)
How about the above wording Hipocrite?--Isotope23 19:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. My brain was stuck on debunked, which was obviously too strong (though accurate.) Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
"Repudiated" sounds as though it was a view they once held, then changed their minds. I think "rejected" is better. --Trovatore 21:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I've always personally been fond of "eschewed"... but "Rejected" suggested by Trovatore is probably the best call.--Isotope23 03:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
And now you're back to violating NPOV again, that phrasing isn't acceptable at all. It's not acceptable to violate NPOV policy just because it's something involving neo-Nazis. Why is it so hard to just link to Zyklon-B and leave it at that? Nathan J. Yoder 17:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott replies > This statement from the article "The absence of prussian blue deposits in the execution chambers, however, is to be expected, as it is not an endproduct of Zyklon-B under expected conditions" is false. There is a building in which Zyklon B was used under conditions similar to the way it would have been used in an often-used execution gas chamber. The building is a small delousing chamber made of brick. The Nazis would take clothing from the camp interns and fumigate them overnight with Zyklon B hydrogen cyanide. The next day, the guards would air out the clothing and return them to their owners. When you see pictures of naked people in the camps, it usually meant that it was the day for their clothes to be disinfested.

Jerry Abbott replies > The reason for this fastidiousness is that clothing-borne lice would often transmit typhus (then a very deadly disease) with their bites. These delousing buildings did indeed accumulate prussian blue on their bricks. The accumulation was not merely on the surfaces of the brick, but penetrated deeply into the brick material, and in at least one case (in Auschwitz) went all the way through the bricks to be visible on the outside of the building. So it is not true that prussian blue would not be expected in the conditions with which Zyklon B was used. It not only would be expected; it in fact did occur in the one building that was substantially exposed to hydrogen cyanide from Zyklon B.

Jerry Abbott replies > Here is a photoscan of the delousing building walls, showing where the prussian blue staining has appeared on the outside.

http://www.vho.org/D/rga2/Image331a.jpg

Jerry Abbott replies > Staining like this can be expected wherever a building made of bricks is used frequently to contain an atmosphere that includes hydrogen cyanide. You can see that it DOES appear in the "expected conditions," and hence the statement to the contrary in the article on the American band Prussian Blue is incorrect.

Jerry Abbott replies > I would have said originally that your incorrect statement regarding the formation of prussian blue on bricks exposed to HCN gas was irrelevant and off-topic, not to mention politically partisan. But since, after presumably careful deliberations, you found that the incorrect statement was relevant enough to include, then, with this photograph shifting the balance of evidence the other way, to be consistent with your NPOV policy, you should change it to read that this staining would, indeed, be formed under the expected conditions. (That is, it would not be consistent with NPOV merely to delete the statement as it now reads.)

Jerry Abbott replies > Because of its size, nobody is claiming that this delousing building was an extermination center. But on none of the larger buildings alleged to have been used as gas chambers can any trace of prussian blue be seen. To be sure, very minute traces of cyanide compounds have been detected on the bricks of the alleged extermination facilities, and these are the "criminal traces" of which the Jews have made much to-do. However, the same level of the same compounds can be found on most of the other buildings in the camps, including the guard barracks. These low-level cyanide traces are the remains of once-a-year fumigations to kill rats and mice. Regular use as a "gas chamber" would have caused much higher levels of the compounds to form, including some amount of prussian blue. None of the alleged extermination buildings was ever used as a gas chamber.

Current version not ideal, but acceptable to White Nationalists

It appears that while there are still a few items that are slightly anti in their POV, the major POV problems appear to have been fixed, and so the version that exists right now seems to be about as NPOV as I and other fans of Prussian Blue could expect. While I recognize that there exists "controversy" over these girls, that controversy is solely jew-produced and exists simply because the Gaedes do not go along with the jewsmedia, anti-White, "multicultural" framework. In a healthy society, these girls would be notable because of their good music, not because of their politics.

John A. Flynn


"White Supremacists"?

White Nationalists are White Separatists and they are NOT actually White Supremacists, whatsoever!!!

They are also White Racialists and NOT any White Racists!!!

It is typical for the enemies of OUR CAUSE and of OUR FOLK to always slander and to always mis-label and to mis-represent us.

What else isn't new?

Best regards, Needle

Yadayada. If this page is "acceptable" to white nationalists then there are serious problems with it.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

A "product of jewmedia"? Try, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and all other sorts of religious, and ethnic, types who find the idea of hating an entire group of people based on their skin color and/or religion both absurd and morally repugnant. Something I've said before, if you truly had 'pride', you wouldn't feel the need to trash-talk every other race/culture but yours. And "White Separatist" is bollocks... unless it just means you want to Separate the head from the shoulders of everyone who isn't White, which is the basic sentiment I get from you folks. 24.63.43.62 04:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott says > Racial mixing causes racial hatred. To prevent racial hatred, the races must be kept separate. Racial nationalists are people who observe and remark upon those facts. It doesn't change them one bit to assign to the messenger the blame for the message. The message was written by Nature; the White nationalist is only trying to direct your attention to it, to persuade you to acknowledge what Nature's rules are, and to help you to begin living in accordance with them.

Please see notices at top of talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

Browsing the PS Forum I've seen in an user's signature the quote "They call us crackers, we call them mud" (Lamb Gaede). If it is actually real I suggest it to be included, along the "Our music isn't about hating anyone" quote. This, without affecting the neutrality of the article, clearly shows how hipocratic and contradictory this people are...

Jerry Abbott says > Actually, she was illustrating for you a concept called "parity." The term was in common use during the Cold War, when the USA and the USSR would dispute whether their nuclear weapons and ours were in parity. In the sense used, it means that both sides of a two-party dispute have struck a balance of offensive and defensive capabilities. Lamb Gaede was telling you that for as long as non-Whites call Whites by offensive names, it's perfectly OK (in parity) for Whites to call non-Whites by offensive names, too. Really, this line of reasoning is so obvious that, when someone speaks as if he doesn't understand, it smacks of - what to call it - insincere confusion (?).

  • The idea that they there were not 8 miliion Jews at the time of the Holocaust is not accuracte becuase the population of the world is 6,000,000,000+ people and the number of Jews in the world (presently) in 2% meaning that the number of Jews right now is about 120,000,000+. And population cannot rise that quickly, logicaly -of course-, in a mere 70 years.
    • For the record, there aren't a hundred and twenty million Jews in the world. There's about fifteen million, tops. You're off by a factor of ten - 0.2%, no 2%. Before the war, there were maybe ten and a half million in Europe, and another seven million throughout the rest of the world. That said, Lynx and Lamb pretty obviously have Jewish blood. (NOTE: I AM JOKING, ALTHOUGH REALLY THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL, IS THERE) DS 01:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Jerry Abbott says > On the number of Jews, these figures are for 1995. United States, 5.8 million. Israel, 4.6 million. France, 600K. Russia, 550K. Ukraine, 400K. Canada, 360K. Great Britain, 300K. Argentina, 250K. Brazil, 130K. Bolivia, 130K. South Africa, 106K. Australia, 100K. Hungary, 80K. Belarus, 60K. Mexico, 41K. Venezuela, 35K. Uruguay, 33K.

Jerry Abbott says > However, in 1938 the World Jewish Congress reported 15.5 million Jews alive in the world. In 1948, the WJC reported a global Jewish population of 18.7 million. The net gain added to an alleged six million Holocaust victims requires that 9.2 million Jewish babies be born to a presumable 2.4 million female Jews of childbearing years between 1938 and 1948, for an average of 3.8 babies per female Jew of childbearing years, together with an abrupt drop in the average age of Jews by 15 years: from age 35 to age 20. Such a drop in the average age of Jews was never recorded anywhere, as far as I know. And the estimated Jewish birth rate would have been the world's highest by a substantial margin.

Jerry Abbott says > More recent tabulations of the global Jewish population over time have been doctored to show a decline in Jewish numbers of 5.1 million between 1938 and 1948, instead of the 3.2 million gain reported in the earlier census for the same period by the World Jewish Congress. The Holohoaxers were trying to cover up this evidence after it had already gotten away from them.

http://www.stormfront.org/truth_at_last/holox/d6mrd05.htm

Jerry Abbott says > Lynx Gaede was under pressure and shot from the hip. She'd obviously been told that there was something demographically fishy about the Jews casualty claims, but she didn't quite remember what, and in "winging it" said what to her must have seemed the simplest guess. But she picked the wrong statistic. Live and learn.

T ConX says > How about ending your posts with four ~'s. When you do that, you get this nice little tag that has your user name w/ page link, and the time you posted. Secondly, do you really believe adding that to every paragraph makes you look any smarter? You sound like some advice giving robot. 'Jerry Abbott says > Green means go. Red means stop.'

Please don't feed the troll or otherwise engage in needless squabbles that do not improve the article, thanks. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 08:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
It depends on who you consider a Jew.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 01:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

interwiki: adding he

Please add link to Hebrew Wiki: he:פרושיאן בלו.

Why ask here? Just add the above link at the bottom of the main page. --Trovatore 20:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Article still locked. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
the forum has moved. I would update the link but I disslike editing protected pages.Geni 21:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep article

My opinion is also that the article should be kept in order to create awareness. The subject matter, because it has many feeling associated with it, may seem biased or subjective, but I don't see how it would be possible to change it so that it is not so. Monagz 21:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You're a little late; that debate's been over for a couple of weeks now. Your side won. --Trovatore 21:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Their early foray into film should be mentioned

This _must_ be added, in the interest of fairness & decency, by god!

http://store.goodgirlsgobad.com/box_front.cfm?ID=13463

  • actually, they were in this movie, as creepy twins. BlueShirts 19:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Valhalla and Vinland

This sentence strikes me as weird:

"Prussian Blue's lyrics contain phrases and images often associated with white power music and Neo-Nazi doctrine, including Valhalla and Vinland."

What does "Vinland" - an Old Norse name for a land to the west of Greenland - have to do with Neo-Nazi doctrine? Maybe Neo-Nazis like Old Norse words, fine, but that has nothing to do with any doctrine. In any case neither Valhalla nor Vinland is much of a phrase. And they should, at the very least, be wiki-linked rather than italicized.

I would change this paragraph except that the article is protected so I can't. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Valhalla and Vinland are images frequently invoked by neo-nazis. But I agree that they are not part of any Neo-nazi doctrine per se, so the paragraph can be better worded. Suggestions? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I suggest something like the following:
Many of the duo's songs are dedicated to famous Nazis and neo-Nazi activists such as Rudolf Hess and Robert Jay Mathews, as in the song "Sacrifice": [etc.]
Their lyrics also contain references to concepts from Norse mythology and sagas, such as Valhalla and Vinland.
- Haukur Þorgeirsson 03:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
OK, but this doesn't address why Valhalla and Vinland et al are important in their songs. I suggest the second part be changed to something like "Their lyrics also contain references to concepts from Norse mythology and sagas such as Valhalla and Vinland, which are recurring themes in Nazi ideology." Now I'm not exactly sure how accurate this is, so I'm not gonna add this to the article. If another admin comes around and decides that it could be changed then by all means do so.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Recurring themes is okay, I suppose, though I don't know about ideology... One more try:
Like many groups with similar ideology the duo uses concepts like Valhalla and Vinland, derived from Norse mythology and sagas. - Haukur Þorgeirsson

Unprotected

This page is now unprotected; edit away (and we'll try and keep on top of any vandalism). — Matt Crypto 12:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

David Irving

Did the Gaedes and David Irving know each other? 64.12.116.10 04:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What Would Anne Frank Think of the Gaedes?

"Look at those poor Aryans, being forced to believe in hatred for the sake of their parents' foolishness!" I bet. 64.12.116.10 04:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)