Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Continuous neutrality dispute Jews and Accession to power

I still say that the word accession has definite POV connotation. Accession relates to legitimate transfer in accordance with a public expectation . This was absent from the rise to power , and this is deeply wrong to even accidentally through ignorance legitimise the constitutionally un-unusual and un-expected etc . I protest again .User:EffK 3 Dec 159.134.213.174 11:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK, accession is as neutral as it can get. If you are saying it implies legality, than you have no argument, since the accession of Hitler was in fact legal though deplorable. Also, may I remind you that this article is not about explaing this accesssion but about the Holocaust. And please stay logged in. Str1977 11:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I was searching up your and McC's harrassment of the user famekeeper, a non wikipedian at that time , I see that harrassment of me continues now to an extreme degeee . you may find it at evidence , first for 3 December . I am deeply shocked , deeply shocked that this user would write innuendo suggesting He(EffK) in such counter-balance to God . The innuendo is inescapable and logic dictates that this is some undercover manner to signal that I have been officially classed by such an obviously faith-led comment as the anti-thesis of God . The anti-thesis of God is Satan , your devil.

To the matter here in question/dispute -accession : I clearly define why assumption is more neutral, and dispute here you ability to understand. What do you not understand ? EffK 12:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this restricted use of "accession" -- in what contexts does it suggest a legitimate transfer? Point us to some examples; easier to solve a problem that way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The moment of Kind Charles' accession, he caught flu.159.134.212.55 22:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Accession still stinks, and the use of it now to direct us to german , nay Nazi, terminology does little to elucidate the history. It should go to Weimar Republic . The German link completely undermines this erroneous use of English, if little else. Please ,someone, stand up and change it to seizure- the correct word. EffK 19:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Listening to EffK's nonsense does nobody any good. I'm not even certain that he knows what the hell he's talking about. john k 19:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

You have no right to censor good faith remark/questions elsewhere at Centre Party now, and I fail to see why you deny English useage and prefer ad hominem stupidity here. Royals and Popes accede to their thrones . The use is wrong, but you only care for spite and bad faith. It beats me why you don't mind your POV . Here then that which you weren't sure of but care to dispute for your bad-faith attack:

Accession- The act of coming to , approach , esp. coming to or reaching a condition, state , office, dignity, power esp. the throne: the king's accession.

Furthermore you chose to skip, as does pretty well everyone on WP, the odd statements of Str1977 as to legal empowerment of Hitler. This editor has yet to show any evidence for what is essentially his POV, and the fact that you are sharing this curious bed by attacking me rather than using your post-Nuremberg brain, is just reminiscent of your earlier multiple mistakes. You seem to have harboured a right grudge, when in fact you should have followed the logic of sources presented . I repeat that the legality of the empowerment is incorrect and un-sourced , and therefore of considerable significance both under Holocaust, or anywhere else . The fact that a cabal whom you may wish to accompany, cannot provide proper source sufficient to over-turn the Nuremberg Trial verdicts can only demonstrate your inability to rationalize. It is a pity , no more . I refer you to facts I uncover from freely available source and to the history which is the source for succeeding histories , the which if you continue and try to dispute, I can readily prove. Go to sourced clarity on Reichstag Fire Decree, but please do not join with that old bad-faith trick of Str's by simply archiving, as I suggest it puts you in the error, not I. Any other editors should know that the cabal dispute every word I change, and pay no attention to sourced justification, and this is a right bore as it stimulates me to pursue rational solution, for which I am attacked in circular fashion. All this here for some fools insistence on one crap English mis-use of a word. Or not,as Str1977 is no fool but retains and defends it on purpose, because of course if the truth be told, that Hitler's seizure of power (translation from the German and Nazi term) was precisely that - a Common plan or Conspiracy as the Trials verdict specified, then powers that therefter allied themselves to the conspiracy, are tainted and more. That is at least rational and it is not for nothing that this word is fought over: it is simply the particular Holocaust manifestation of an on-line battle reflecting the real world battles, to do with the Reichskonkordat and Cardinal Pacelli and the scandal of assisting Hitler to , well you yourself go so far, and balk at the details, Kenney. Your intervention is regrettable. you should write seizure of rather than allow accession to . You know that to be NPOV, but if you still doubt me press the button accession currently is to get the instruction from Berlin. in German...... EffK 02:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's accession to the Chancellorship (please point out how his appointment does not fit the definition you quoted) was legal under the Weimar Constitution, even though it was brough about by a intrigue (or conspiracy if you prefer that term) - it was a conspiracy aimed at convincing President Hindenburg. What was of dubious legality is Hitler's succession to Hindenburg as head of state. I don't have to prove to you, Mr EffK (am I guessing correctly that this means the "Editor Formerly Known as Famekeeper"). It is you who have to prove that it was illegal. Or rather, for Wiki purposes, you have to reference someone who does this and is accepted with this view (otherwise Original Research). Look, we all deplore AH's accession (and again the word does not imply legality), but our dislike does not make it illegal. I could take the view that all British monarchs since Mary II were illegal - and that was a not so uncommon view at the time, not just hindsight - but it doesn't change the facts. Str1977 19:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that "EffK" is simply a phoneticization of "FK," isn't it? In English, "f" is pronounced "eff." john k 21:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Guess you're right, John. Otherwise it should be Efk(a)F - I hadn't thought this through properly. Signing öff. Str1977 22:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

This Article used to read 'the recently elected Nazis. Str1977 then inserted after my corrections shortly after their electoral success. I was thereby astounded at such odd characterisation of a totalitarian state.

You are a bit lost on some of the finer points of English Str1977. Obviously we can't over-turn appointments .But here it is after the totalitarian seizure by common-plan of conspiracy , hardly an accession , under the definition. And as wrong as the above versions, but more difficult to recognise. Seizure. And this seizure has not been sourced as legal. EffK 03:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• I asked you a week ago; perhaps you missed it: I'm unfamiliar with this restricted use of "accession" -- in what contexts does it suggest a legitimate transfer? Point us to some examples; easier to solve a problem that way. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[The answer to this question I had been up-loading. I fail to see why it was deleted by Str1977 as I did so.FK]

I fail to see why it was deleted too. I did not mean to. I guees it was some Wiki-PC-glitch. I'm Sorry. Str1977 11:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

From above where you maybe missed it too, and taken from a fat dictionary is this again, now high-lighted. I already gave you the flu example and it is confirmed by the dictionary. I do not see that clarity is needed beyond this dictionary, but you are welcome to find whichever one differing as to this:

Accession- The act of coming to , approach , esp. coming to or reaching a condition, state , office, dignity, power esp. the throne: the king's accession.

Note "esp."

Kingship, popes :I don't suppose re-incarnated Lamas are such. In so far as it is especially royalty, it is especially hereditary. Popes legitimise themselves equally through God but skipping heredidity. I think "the Lords" would have been another crowd , but accede is stronger as it says, 'especially' royals. One would accede to one's fathers estate, by right exactly as of a king, of course. Lords don't quite deserve the dignity accorded by this word. Ascent obviously would be the particular act of mounting the steps and thus ascending. Accession I would suggest refers to the legitimacy of the ascent through accession (as stipulated by custom or law thereof). I think this is quite clear. I remind you that accession here covers a rolling conspiracy which was the subject of the Nuremberg Trials. Maybe you can try a king for his accession as Hitlerism was tried, but a kingship unless a Caesar type novel kingship, would not be a conspiracy simply by one accession, but would have to be tried as a principle. The Trials at Nuremberg specify crimes against humanity , and in so far as murder and un-constitutional arrest of Deputies of the Reichstag Institution literally enabled this , that is one of the first crimes against a portion of humanity, it was so tried, as a commnon-plan or conspiracy. Accession can as Str1977 says solely relate to the H'g appointment , but that is not what is being referred to in the text here. The text here should be a little more sacred and respectful considering its Section title, I believe. It should take this pain of precision to therefore properly describe , however so briefly that which is wrongfully skirted over, with exactitude. That I consider the use of the word accession to be the very opposite of precision and to the point of wilful POV massage, is apart, and a reflection of the severe lack of modern PC and post-Nuremberg/Auschwitz thinking/massage in this whole article. I would challenge the entire tone and presentation of this article, which does insufficient justice to its subject. Accession there where it is, is a POV out-rage, in short.Or a mistake in English, to be speedily corrected.

I EffK am however not permitted to either correct the word in proving good faith, nor, as charged by two editors bringing me in common-plan to trial at Arbcom, even to be allowed to safely post to discussions such as this. I hope everybody's English will not suffer as much as their history. TAnthony, does this definition finally help you? Are you persuaded as to the POV use?

EffK 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK, this article is about "The Holocaust" and not about any conditions, motives, circumstances of Hitler coming to power. Hence it is perfectly appropriate to use a word as neutral as "accesssion" (please read your definition again, there's nothing in there about legality). "Seizure" would be wrong and Nazi propaganda. I changed "recently elected" because it implied that the Nazis were elected into power - elections played their part but this was a misleading focus. "after electoral success" didn't seem to imply the same, but I can see your point and hence the neutral "accession" is preferable. The "how" of this accession is not the topic of this article. And please spare me your linguistic criticism. Str1977 11:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I will now up-load my answer to tAnthony, and if need be answer you Str1977, as I have not read yr intervening text.EffK 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The neutral interpretation is irrational use of the intellect. I attend to this one word because it appears in public. I show how far it is a POV incorrect use and why . If you do not like seizure, why does this accession to power link to seizure of power? Why do we have a page for that Nazi admission? Why does it not link to the Enabling Act empowerment of the non- Presidential and thus different and totalitarian Third Reich ? Machtergreifung and all those other German words have only a diffusing and de-clarifying effect to English language readers. I suggest Str1977, that our languages re:accession, do not communicate successfully. I cannot, I'm sorry, be responsible for you interpretation of English. I can be responsible as a wikipedist, to hunt out POV use of English. EffK 12:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's a language problem on my part, why don't other native speakers of English agree with you? As for the "seizure" article, yes, the title is just as problematic. On adcantage of "Machtergreifung" is that it is contemporary and that its meaning is not immediately clear in English (avoiding the propaganda effect). But I understand and mostly agree with your judgment on German terms. I still think accession neutral, but if won't believe me ask others. As for the link, it should either lead you to Hitler's appointment or, better still, to an article covering it all. It is not specifically the EA that's referred to here, though it has its place in the sequence of events. Str1977 20:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't need other users-The dictionary is clear. I don't need to wonder why one way of another here. What I often wonder is why a non-native tries to out-native a native. Then I wonder at those early days , when Str1977 English was sub-standard. If you are as you say a non-native, you would nto bridle at sucg remark. Anyone reading you would assume you to be a native user. That raises questions in itself . Yes, I can source this comment. EffK 13:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)ps I still await constitutionality of arrests, and that which you refer to as legal. Legal to whom? We see there was a vote, someone kindly has advanced the "procedural" changes, but where legally were the sovereign deputies-legally? Were they legally detained? in which case you are absolutely right in the legal assertion here. Please source legal arrest of KPD/SDP "deputies" by constitutionality changes over-rding section 2 of the Enabling Act, so we can go off to the bookies ?

This is an awfully big tempest in an awfully small teapot. According to the OED, "accession" means "The act of coming or attaining to a dignity, office, or position of honour, esp. the throne." The word "accession" does not signify how one comes to or attains office, nor does it signify that the person is worthy of that office. It makes no value-judgement whatsoever. It is a rather neutral word. I see absolutely no problem with using it &mdah; followed of course by an explanation of how and why he acceded to power in Germany. Slrubenstein|Talk 17:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but there you have it. I have yet to hear or see how Article 37 at [1], was overturned to legalise arrests of the Parliamentary deputies .

I keep asking Str1977 to inform me. What other police power as asserted at Reichstag Fire Decree over-turned Art. 37 ??? ...like I say, if I could see that sourced see that-absent from everywhere in WP and everywhere in source- then I'd agree with you as to a brief explanation. I'm sorry but it's still a wrong use by the dictionary for the greatest putsch ever, come on. However it is not the central problem. It is the facts behind the dictionary's legitimising dignity meaning -as of the crown etc especially- , or doesn't especially mean a thing? Where is the source for this darn dignity?

159.134.212.85- EffK 18:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Allright. I agree with Slrubenstein on the teapot and hence will not address EffK's failure to read a dictionary or to listen to fellow native speakers or even quite well-versed non-natives. May he jump about it as long as he must.

BTW, please don't use putsch, as it has "only a diffusing and de-clarifying effect to English language readers."

As for his second question ... I have deleted my answer here and copied it over to Enabling Act, where the same question is asked.

Str1977 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I, for my part want to apologize to all fellow editors here for filling up so much space. Str1977 20:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not apologise for furthering the Wikipedia accuracy.

I say that "esp." means especially, and refers to a dignity completely lacking then, when the Nazis continuously referred to 'Jewish Horror as one of the main reasons for their seizure of power.

I think it was Churchill who said : Balls-they're round , and they bounce.

Gubu is another one that springs to mind for description of these discussions and Article misqualifications : gross/unprecedented/bizarre/unbelievable. Put seizure where it belongs .

EffK