![]() | This article contains a translation of NSU-Prozess from de.wikipedia. |
![]() | A news item involving National Socialist Underground trial was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 July 2018. | ![]() |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Socialist Underground trial article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A person is equally guilty of the crime whether he or she committed it personally or aided and abetted the perpetrator who committed it. http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/400/400.html
To prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime based on aiding and abetting that crime, the People must prove that: 1. The perpetrator committed the crime; 2. The defendant knew that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime; 3. Before or during the commission of the crime, the defendant intended to aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the crime; AND 4. The defendant's words or conduct did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator's commission of the crime. Someone aids and abets a crime if he or she knows of the perpetrator's unlawful purpose and he or she specifically intends to, and does in fact, aid, facilitate, promote, encourage, or instigate the perpetrator's commission of that crime. If all of these requirements are proved, the defendant does not need to actually have been present when the crime was committed to be guilty as an aider and abettor. ... Perpetrator versus Aider and Abettor For purposes of culpability the law does not distinguish between perpetrators and aiders and abettors; however, the required mental states that must be proved for each are different. One who engages in conduct that is an element of the charged crime is a perpetrator, not an aider and abettor of the crime. (People v. Cook (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1371 [72 Cal.Rptr.2d 183].)
http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/400/401.html
Rjtucker ( talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please switch out the sourcing of anything sourced to the far right blog "Deutsche Lobby" at reference 1? The source to the names of the accused in the lead can be changed to, for example, this. The list of charges for the other defendants, also in the lead, can be sourced to this. Both should be totally reliable. 31.150.101.31 ( talk) 17:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Another thing, what is the point of the sentence "Newspaper Bild ran a headline "Zschaepe's confession - nothing but excuses!""? What does a sensationalist headline of a tabloid have to do with the court case? What makes that Bild headline more important than any other headline about the case? Or rather, what makes it stand out to be mentioned specifically? Just curious really because i see no value at all in picking out a random headline when public opinion was described in the previous sentence. At the very least it should be made clear that Bild is not a proper newspaper but a tabloid, or preferably just binned altogether. Thoughts on the matter? 85.16.166.77 ( talk) 21:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not objecting to the topic of this article, so please do not confuse the issue. I am objecting to the presence of sources that I, as an English-using editor, cannot review and verify. Allowing non-native language sources - three out of four in this article - completely vitiates the essential Wikipedia function of community oversight. It prevents participation by any editor that doesn't happen to know the particular non-native language of that particular source - probably the vast majority of English Widipedia users and editors!
Again, the point here is not the particulars of this article, for example that the sources are German. Maybe a fair number of English Wikipedia users have some familiarity with French or German or Italian, but what about Greek? How about Russian? How about Hindi or Urdu or Mandarin? I have noticed this trend toward non-English sources in English Wikipedia just recently and I believe it is a very serious problem. Allowing a proliferation of non-native language sources in any version of Wikipedia will surely undermine its credibility and its functional integrity as an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Dayirmiter ( talk) 07:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Just for personal interest, can anyone explain the large gaps in the proceedings? The article skips from 04 June 2013 to July 2015, then September 2017 to July 2018. LÒÓkingYourBest( Talk| Edits) 12:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
It seems that someone has the definitions wrong in this article. Socialism by definition is a left-leaning, left of centre point of view. So how is this group considered far-right when they are Socialists? Its a bit like ANTIFA in the US stating they are against fascism by being fascists themselves (telling other people how they should view a subject or think about a subject). It doesn't make any sense does it? Its concerning that this is in the news feed today. People will get the wrong idea about what socialism is and what its about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.159.144.43 ( talk) 16:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Right, and the fascism seen in the US is considered far-left there - take the example above with ANTIFA - extremely far-left communists/socialists. I always understood any type of authoritarianism (Communism/socialism) as left while the further right one goes you end with anarchy. In general: Extreme left = communism(Total govt) - center - extreme right = Anarchy(No govt) It's entirely possible that the spectrum I just described is not used/understood in Germany, it may have differences I am not aware of. But that's why there was concern for it being the news feed. It seems that people aren't aware of what is right and what is left. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.159.144.43 ( talk) 17:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I have read them and I disagree with them as well including anarchy. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.159.144.43 ( talk) 17:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)