WH1953

List of fascists

I re-added the National Socialists to the list of fascists because the list includes "adherents to a variant of fascism or related ideology (e.g. Nazism, Rexism, Falangism, etc.)." I understand that NS and Fascism are distinct, but fascism (with a lowercase 'f') describes a general category including both. —Morning star 00:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining.--Willem Huberts 04:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome! —Morning star 16:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Hello. The talk pages are for discussing changes in the articles, not the films, computer or video games, characters, people, and various other things. --PJ Pete

Sorry, but I've absolutely no idea what you're referring to.--Willem Huberts 05:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Henk Feldmeijer

Hi Willem Huberts I actually got most of my infofrom the Dutch Waffen-SS site (not a neo-nazi site mind you, but a site of stories and photo's). They again claim to get their information from books, including the reference work of Lou de Jong about Holland in WW2. Since they do not actually attribute the claim you requested a citation for, perhaps they just copied the hoax? I have no access to the reference works they mentioned; will look it up when i Have the time. MarcoLittel 12:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your use of the "SS" glyph in article text

Regarding your use of the "SS" glyph in article text: although I agree that the Nazis actually used that glyph in that context, from a typographical viewpoint, the Nazi "SS" glyph is best regarded as a specialist ligature for the two letters "SS", designed to be used in a single specialized context. Since most users' fonts don't (and aren't ever likely to) contain that glyph, and it is (to the best of my knowledge) not encoded in the Universal Character Set, it's inappropriate for use in running text in Wikipedia. -- The Anome 07:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The comment of your edit was "revert: this is indeed no nazi pamphlet, but we do respect historic truth and this really is the official name of the organisation" Sorry, but this is wrong. This organisation was called SS-Totenkopfverbände and not even the German Brockhaus Enzyklopädie of those days used this runic typography. I think it is not wrong to use this image in general, but as The Anome wrote not in running text. - Regards Gesus 08:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree there can be a problem with the Universal Character Set - that's not a field of which I know much. What I do know however is, that during the Nazi era in Germany, it was strictly forbidden to write SS in 'normal' letters. Use of the special glyph was imposed. Even all typewriters during that era were equipped with the Nazi SS glyph . Therefore I restored the glyph, but only at the first mentioning of the name, so that our readers are aware of the historic situation.--Willem Huberts 16:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the fact that typewriters had to have the runic SS is something for the SS article. In this article I think it might be right to use this glyph in the beginning. But that's all. Grettings Gesus 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed: I'll put the glyph only in the beginning of the article.--Willem Huberts 20:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You agreed? Why do you revert the edits in Allgemeine SS? The glyph is already used in Schutzstaffel. - Gesus 06:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, don't understand your reaction. Our agreement was that the SS-glyph was to be mentioned only once, in the beginning of the article. That's what I dit. There seems to be a misunderstanding...--Willem Huberts 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. I think that it is right to use the glyph in Schutzstaffel - but only there. The Allgemeine SS was a subgroup of the Schutzstaffel and because of the typographic problems in this encyclopedia I suggest not to use that glyph that much in running text.

Moreover think about blind persons for example using braille displays reading the text! They would notice that there's an image of something. SS are two letters which are no problem for a lot of displays. So it would be good style not to use this as much. - Regards Gesus 07:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)