This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Joachim Peiper 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | 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 |
It has been commented in at least one book (which I read in 1990s) that discusses his death that 14 July 1976 was Bastille Day, the French national day. While I acknowledge the coincidence, I wonder if it was quoted as a possible factor in the murder by police? He had been receiving a series of death threats over a period which could have given a politically motivated murder time to be plotted. Cloptonson ( talk) 18:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
One of the photo captions - 'Tiger I tanks of the 1 SS Panzer Corps Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler close to Villers-Bocage (June 1944)' - doesn't quite make sense. I SS-Panzer Korps was, obviously, a corps headquarters. In Normandy it commanded two fighting divisions, 1st SS-Panzer Division 'Leibstandarte' and 12th SS-Panzer Division 'Hitler Jugend'. By 1944, Tiger tanks did not serve in panzer divisions, but in special battalions attached to corps headquarters, to be sent where needed. I SS-Panzer Korps' Tiger battalion was Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 101. If the Tigers are from that unit, the number 231 on the second tank means they are part of Obersturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann's 2 Kompanie, which did fight British 7th Armoured Division at Villers-Bocage. Wittmann is a well-known figure, but the picture does not have much to do with Jochen Peiper. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe it's more appropriate to classify L'Humanité as a Left publication. Thoughts? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to remove this section as redundant - the commendations are listed in the body of the article. Further, the explanation of the nickname "Blowtorch" is not consistent with what appears earlier in the article.
Compare
His leadership of the Sd.Kfz. 251 armored half-track battalion in the Third Battle of Kharkov earned the unit the nickname Lötlampenbataillon or "Blowtorch Battalion", [1] which resulted in his receiving the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold. [2] Three days after his actions on 6 March 1943, he received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. [3] Twelve days later, Peiper demonstrated his military skill when he led his unit at full speed through Russian positions in a surprise attack on Belgorod, causing the surprised Russians to flee. [4] Oberführer Theodor Wisch, divisional commander of the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, recommended him for the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, which he was awarded on 27 January 1944. [5]
[Pieper] developed the tactic of attacking enemy-held villages by night from all sides while advancing in his armored half-tracks at full speed, firing at every building. This tactic often set the building's straw roofs on fire and contributed to panic among enemy troops. Peiper's unit gained the nickname the " Blowtorch Battalion" as a result. [1] Another source, however, reported that the nickname derived from the torching and slaughter of two Soviet villages where their inhabitants were either shot or burned. [6] [7] [8]
References
I would like to remove the Recognition section, unless there are objections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Agte is used throughout in an uncritical fashion. I have not read the book, but here's a 3rd party review, which gives an idea of the overall tone. It should be noted that Agte is closely associated with HIAG; he was (is?) the publisher of HIAG's periodical Der Freiwillige (De wikipedia) and is the current owner of Munin Verlag GmbH, which (according to the German wikipedia) is a right-wing extremist German publishing company.
References
I would like to remove Agte entirely. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I've obtained some feedback on the Reliable sources noticeboard, with two down votes: Agte. With Lobob's comment above, plus another inquiry that was posted today, that makes 4 down votes total.
Coincidentally, I recently got a copy of Parker's work on Peiper, and here are some comments based on cursory review (did not have a chance to consult it in detail):
In general, I believe that articles about high-profile and/or controversial historical figures such as Peiper should especially adhere to the MilHist guidelines on using reliable secondary sources from reputable historians. Since Agte fails this test decisively, I believe there's a strong case to remove his book altogether to strengthen the integrity of the article.
Feedback or suggestions? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
There are two quotes that are citing from primary sources quite extensively, looking like a WP:QUOTEFARM and also giving undue weight to this content. I would like to convert them to a narrative with key points.
In Stawerowka the battalion was ordered to take Zigderowka. The mission was executed by night against heavy resistance and an enemy battalion was routed, four 7.62 guns, an infantry gun, 10 mortars and many machine guns and hand guns being captured and destroyed. Peiper advanced immediately towards Kasatschij Maidan, encountered an enemy battalion on the march and executed a hasty attack. Here, he inflicted heavy losses on the enemy and took Kasatschij Maidan. From here Peiper prepared his battalion for the attack on Jeremejewka, attacked it at dawn against heavy resistance and took Jeremejewka. Exploiting the confusion among the enemy, the battalion advanced on Leninskij and broke the last resistance. By an immediate advance, he inflicted heavy losses on the enemy which was fleeing through open fields. The battalion destroyed one T-34, six guns 7.62 and captured 300 horses. Three sledge columns were routed. The enemy casualties amounted about to anywhere from 800 to 900. SS-Sturmbannführer Peiper has distinguished himself in all these fights by a sensible command of his battalion and personal bravery and has proven himself worthy of the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold. [1] unreliable source? [2]
In preparation for the attack on Kharkov, on his own initiative SS-Sturmbannführer Peiper twice seized bridgeheads which proved of decisive importance in the advance of attacking forces. [...] Nevertheless, SS-Sturmbannführer Peiper was the master of the situation in all its phases. [...] Every officer and man of Kampfgruppe Peiper had the feeling of absolute safety. Here a man was thinking and caring for them, made his decisions quickly, and issued his orders with precision. These decisions and orders were often bold and unorthodox, but they were issued from a sovereign command of the situation. Everyone sensed the intellectual work and the instinctive safety behind this. Of course, the commander also had soldier’s luck. The unconditional trust of his men, however, has it basis in something else, namely the feeling that a born leader is in command, one filled with the highest sense of responsibility for the life of every single one of his men, but who is also able to be hard if necessary. But always the orders and measures stem, not from clever deliberation, but rather from a personality whose heart, brain, and hands are the same. [3]
References
Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
At another editor's request (please see User_talk:K.e.coffman#Joachim_Peiper), I replaced Agte cites with Parker. Please let me know of any comments or concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I have seen two separate sources recently state the age of Joachim Peiper when he died, was at 66 years of age. The information on this wiki entry lists he was 61. Can anyone help confirm without a doubt on how old he was during his passing? One source dates back to 2010, so that information might just be outdated, and 61 is the accurate age. I just don't want to spread false information, even when dealing with something as minor as age of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarijx ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This article states that Peiper went to the Bad Tölz SS officer training school in Braunschweig. This is incorrect. Bad Tölz and Braunschweig are two different locations that are many miles apart. Bad Tölz is in the extreme south of Germany. Braunschweig is in north central Germany. There was an SS officer training school in both locations. Peiper went to the school in Braunschweig. My source for this information is the book Jochen Peiper by Patrick Agte, page 11. It’s true that Agte is a notorious apologist for Nazis, but, he can be relied upon when it comes to basic factual information such as where Peiper went to officer training school. I will now attempt to make my first time ever edit within the body of a preexisting article in Wikipedia. Signed: Stephen W. Richey, April 10, 2017 Stephen W. Richey ( talk) 22:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
In answer to the posting above regarding confusion about Peiper's age at death, he was born in 1915 and died in 1976. Doing the arithmetic, he was 61 years of age when he was incinerated by his house burning down on top of him. Signed: Stephen W. Richey, 10 April 2017 192.230.163.162 ( talk) 00:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Will someone do me the courtesy of explaining to me why my contribution that Peiper went to officer school in Braunschweig, not Bad Tolz, was deleted? Signed, Stephen W. Richey, April 12 2017 Stephen W. Richey ( talk) 02:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Okay, everybody, I just made a second attempt to edit the text in order to remove the false statement that Peiper went to the officer school in Bad Tolz when in fact he went to the officer school in Braunschweig. The difference this time is that I used Parker for my source, NOT Agte. Presumably, my new choice of source will make my contribution more palatable to the powers that be. Signed: Stephen W. Richey, 12 April 2017 Stephen W. Richey ( talk) 04:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
"He was often seen at the funerals of personalities such as Meyer, Dietrich and Paul Hausser." Surely he wasn't seen more than once at each funeral?
"Peiper assisted the efforts of these organizations..." What organizations? 2A02:AA1:1012:8DD1:B183:9FDD:69E8:7C71 ( talk) 19:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
It's said that Joachim was placed into the Party via Himmler [1] He also never joined HIAG after the war but kept contact with them, probably assuming he was keeping in touch with his friends ect.
References
I've made some pretty uncontroversial edits which are mostly about grammar, style, etc. Diffs below:
Reducing repetition:
Consistent use of unit names, removing claim of glory hound in lead which doesn't summarize what's in the article.
I've been reverted with edit comments as follows:
Perhaps the IP editor can explain their rationale? Hopefully it's misunderstanding, but the insult about glorifying Nazis is both inaccurate, and offensive.( Hohum @) 21:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll reply to you, shortly.
Thanks.
2601:240:E181:E880:6824:3442:ECB0:9EE5 (
talk)
21:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Was he a father himself? 2003:F5:CF0A:75B7:51C9:BCE9:611C:45B2 ( talk) 07:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
“ In November 1943, the LSSAH) fought in battles at Zhytomyr, in Ukraine. In the course of battle, the inexperienced Peiper replaced the regiment's dead commander”
I get it he wasn’t a very nice man, but inexperienced?? This article used to be biased in his favour as some sort of mythical combat legend. Now, some anti-factual wannabe historian is painting him as Private Gomer Pyle. Do better! Bias either way is poor. 24.69.20.123 ( talk) 02:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
In the controversial section "Nazi idolatry", I did a three-word minor edit, just to make the article's text less inaccurate and obnozious. Peiper was a murdering scum, and I propose that no genuine "right-wing American" would disagree with that summary, knowing his history and true record. Peiper represents the SS military wing of the arrogant murdering monstrosity that was Nazi Germany. I changed "right-wing American" to the more appropriate and accurate "neo-Nazi American". I also changed the phrase "practised by right-wing organisations" to "practised by certain right-wing organisations". Note the European/UK spelling of practised and organisations, not that I care. But whoever made these BIASED and OFFENSIVE statements may not be aware of their seriousness. To inform our probable European editor of the long-standing political landscape in America, the predominance of U.S. military veterans from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam---especially in their later years (say, from the 1980's forward)---would identify as some form of "right-leaning" or "right-wing" if pressed to choose, depending on the fairness of the definition of "right-_____" presented. This typically tends to mean holders of traditional American values and Judaeo-Christian ethics, Contistutional freedoms and the personal values of hard work, faith, and community support. To link these men and women and their families and their political support with Nazis is supremely biased and uncalled-for; again, perhaps written by someone in good faith who does not know what they are talking about. If there is a Nazi sympathizing artist producing some form of his or her "art", and it gets around on the internet, and some lazy officer or non-com at the Pentagon took a short-cut and used something off the internet without running its source completely to ground, they are guilty of just being as lazy and stupid as the average person out there in the world looking for some digital image to enhance their writings or website or project, not of being Nazi sympathizers. And just because they did it when Donald Trump was President in 2019, does not make Nazis of American veterans, nor the active-duty personnel, officers, or commanders of the U.S. Army, nor the DoD, nor the President, nor any other common punching-bag of the ultra-leftist New York Times and the Washington Post newspapers. As a U.S. Army veteran, I have never met any veteran of any of our wars or peace-time who had any admiration for our enemies except for their toughness in battle and military prowess, not their murdering ways or political Socialism of any stripe. I am hoping that my three-word attempt to make this article section at least APPEAR to be more fair-minded will not be reversed or rejected by other Wiki editors, who should feel free to improve on it further, but not go back to the way it was. If it is reverted to what it was before, I will report this article section for bias. Mluklu7 ( talk) 22:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Joachim Peiper 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 |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | 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 |
It has been commented in at least one book (which I read in 1990s) that discusses his death that 14 July 1976 was Bastille Day, the French national day. While I acknowledge the coincidence, I wonder if it was quoted as a possible factor in the murder by police? He had been receiving a series of death threats over a period which could have given a politically motivated murder time to be plotted. Cloptonson ( talk) 18:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
One of the photo captions - 'Tiger I tanks of the 1 SS Panzer Corps Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler close to Villers-Bocage (June 1944)' - doesn't quite make sense. I SS-Panzer Korps was, obviously, a corps headquarters. In Normandy it commanded two fighting divisions, 1st SS-Panzer Division 'Leibstandarte' and 12th SS-Panzer Division 'Hitler Jugend'. By 1944, Tiger tanks did not serve in panzer divisions, but in special battalions attached to corps headquarters, to be sent where needed. I SS-Panzer Korps' Tiger battalion was Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 101. If the Tigers are from that unit, the number 231 on the second tank means they are part of Obersturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann's 2 Kompanie, which did fight British 7th Armoured Division at Villers-Bocage. Wittmann is a well-known figure, but the picture does not have much to do with Jochen Peiper. Khamba Tendal ( talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I believe it's more appropriate to classify L'Humanité as a Left publication. Thoughts? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to remove this section as redundant - the commendations are listed in the body of the article. Further, the explanation of the nickname "Blowtorch" is not consistent with what appears earlier in the article.
Compare
His leadership of the Sd.Kfz. 251 armored half-track battalion in the Third Battle of Kharkov earned the unit the nickname Lötlampenbataillon or "Blowtorch Battalion", [1] which resulted in his receiving the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold. [2] Three days after his actions on 6 March 1943, he received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. [3] Twelve days later, Peiper demonstrated his military skill when he led his unit at full speed through Russian positions in a surprise attack on Belgorod, causing the surprised Russians to flee. [4] Oberführer Theodor Wisch, divisional commander of the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, recommended him for the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, which he was awarded on 27 January 1944. [5]
[Pieper] developed the tactic of attacking enemy-held villages by night from all sides while advancing in his armored half-tracks at full speed, firing at every building. This tactic often set the building's straw roofs on fire and contributed to panic among enemy troops. Peiper's unit gained the nickname the " Blowtorch Battalion" as a result. [1] Another source, however, reported that the nickname derived from the torching and slaughter of two Soviet villages where their inhabitants were either shot or burned. [6] [7] [8]
References
I would like to remove the Recognition section, unless there are objections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Agte is used throughout in an uncritical fashion. I have not read the book, but here's a 3rd party review, which gives an idea of the overall tone. It should be noted that Agte is closely associated with HIAG; he was (is?) the publisher of HIAG's periodical Der Freiwillige (De wikipedia) and is the current owner of Munin Verlag GmbH, which (according to the German wikipedia) is a right-wing extremist German publishing company.
References
I would like to remove Agte entirely. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)I've obtained some feedback on the Reliable sources noticeboard, with two down votes: Agte. With Lobob's comment above, plus another inquiry that was posted today, that makes 4 down votes total.
Coincidentally, I recently got a copy of Parker's work on Peiper, and here are some comments based on cursory review (did not have a chance to consult it in detail):
In general, I believe that articles about high-profile and/or controversial historical figures such as Peiper should especially adhere to the MilHist guidelines on using reliable secondary sources from reputable historians. Since Agte fails this test decisively, I believe there's a strong case to remove his book altogether to strengthen the integrity of the article.
Feedback or suggestions? K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
There are two quotes that are citing from primary sources quite extensively, looking like a WP:QUOTEFARM and also giving undue weight to this content. I would like to convert them to a narrative with key points.
In Stawerowka the battalion was ordered to take Zigderowka. The mission was executed by night against heavy resistance and an enemy battalion was routed, four 7.62 guns, an infantry gun, 10 mortars and many machine guns and hand guns being captured and destroyed. Peiper advanced immediately towards Kasatschij Maidan, encountered an enemy battalion on the march and executed a hasty attack. Here, he inflicted heavy losses on the enemy and took Kasatschij Maidan. From here Peiper prepared his battalion for the attack on Jeremejewka, attacked it at dawn against heavy resistance and took Jeremejewka. Exploiting the confusion among the enemy, the battalion advanced on Leninskij and broke the last resistance. By an immediate advance, he inflicted heavy losses on the enemy which was fleeing through open fields. The battalion destroyed one T-34, six guns 7.62 and captured 300 horses. Three sledge columns were routed. The enemy casualties amounted about to anywhere from 800 to 900. SS-Sturmbannführer Peiper has distinguished himself in all these fights by a sensible command of his battalion and personal bravery and has proven himself worthy of the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold. [1] unreliable source? [2]
In preparation for the attack on Kharkov, on his own initiative SS-Sturmbannführer Peiper twice seized bridgeheads which proved of decisive importance in the advance of attacking forces. [...] Nevertheless, SS-Sturmbannführer Peiper was the master of the situation in all its phases. [...] Every officer and man of Kampfgruppe Peiper had the feeling of absolute safety. Here a man was thinking and caring for them, made his decisions quickly, and issued his orders with precision. These decisions and orders were often bold and unorthodox, but they were issued from a sovereign command of the situation. Everyone sensed the intellectual work and the instinctive safety behind this. Of course, the commander also had soldier’s luck. The unconditional trust of his men, however, has it basis in something else, namely the feeling that a born leader is in command, one filled with the highest sense of responsibility for the life of every single one of his men, but who is also able to be hard if necessary. But always the orders and measures stem, not from clever deliberation, but rather from a personality whose heart, brain, and hands are the same. [3]
References
Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman ( talk) 22:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
At another editor's request (please see User_talk:K.e.coffman#Joachim_Peiper), I replaced Agte cites with Parker. Please let me know of any comments or concerns. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I have seen two separate sources recently state the age of Joachim Peiper when he died, was at 66 years of age. The information on this wiki entry lists he was 61. Can anyone help confirm without a doubt on how old he was during his passing? One source dates back to 2010, so that information might just be outdated, and 61 is the accurate age. I just don't want to spread false information, even when dealing with something as minor as age of death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarijx ( talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This article states that Peiper went to the Bad Tölz SS officer training school in Braunschweig. This is incorrect. Bad Tölz and Braunschweig are two different locations that are many miles apart. Bad Tölz is in the extreme south of Germany. Braunschweig is in north central Germany. There was an SS officer training school in both locations. Peiper went to the school in Braunschweig. My source for this information is the book Jochen Peiper by Patrick Agte, page 11. It’s true that Agte is a notorious apologist for Nazis, but, he can be relied upon when it comes to basic factual information such as where Peiper went to officer training school. I will now attempt to make my first time ever edit within the body of a preexisting article in Wikipedia. Signed: Stephen W. Richey, April 10, 2017 Stephen W. Richey ( talk) 22:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
In answer to the posting above regarding confusion about Peiper's age at death, he was born in 1915 and died in 1976. Doing the arithmetic, he was 61 years of age when he was incinerated by his house burning down on top of him. Signed: Stephen W. Richey, 10 April 2017 192.230.163.162 ( talk) 00:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Will someone do me the courtesy of explaining to me why my contribution that Peiper went to officer school in Braunschweig, not Bad Tolz, was deleted? Signed, Stephen W. Richey, April 12 2017 Stephen W. Richey ( talk) 02:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC) Okay, everybody, I just made a second attempt to edit the text in order to remove the false statement that Peiper went to the officer school in Bad Tolz when in fact he went to the officer school in Braunschweig. The difference this time is that I used Parker for my source, NOT Agte. Presumably, my new choice of source will make my contribution more palatable to the powers that be. Signed: Stephen W. Richey, 12 April 2017 Stephen W. Richey ( talk) 04:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
"He was often seen at the funerals of personalities such as Meyer, Dietrich and Paul Hausser." Surely he wasn't seen more than once at each funeral?
"Peiper assisted the efforts of these organizations..." What organizations? 2A02:AA1:1012:8DD1:B183:9FDD:69E8:7C71 ( talk) 19:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
It's said that Joachim was placed into the Party via Himmler [1] He also never joined HIAG after the war but kept contact with them, probably assuming he was keeping in touch with his friends ect.
References
I've made some pretty uncontroversial edits which are mostly about grammar, style, etc. Diffs below:
Reducing repetition:
Consistent use of unit names, removing claim of glory hound in lead which doesn't summarize what's in the article.
I've been reverted with edit comments as follows:
Perhaps the IP editor can explain their rationale? Hopefully it's misunderstanding, but the insult about glorifying Nazis is both inaccurate, and offensive.( Hohum @) 21:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll reply to you, shortly.
Thanks.
2601:240:E181:E880:6824:3442:ECB0:9EE5 (
talk)
21:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Was he a father himself? 2003:F5:CF0A:75B7:51C9:BCE9:611C:45B2 ( talk) 07:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
“ In November 1943, the LSSAH) fought in battles at Zhytomyr, in Ukraine. In the course of battle, the inexperienced Peiper replaced the regiment's dead commander”
I get it he wasn’t a very nice man, but inexperienced?? This article used to be biased in his favour as some sort of mythical combat legend. Now, some anti-factual wannabe historian is painting him as Private Gomer Pyle. Do better! Bias either way is poor. 24.69.20.123 ( talk) 02:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
In the controversial section "Nazi idolatry", I did a three-word minor edit, just to make the article's text less inaccurate and obnozious. Peiper was a murdering scum, and I propose that no genuine "right-wing American" would disagree with that summary, knowing his history and true record. Peiper represents the SS military wing of the arrogant murdering monstrosity that was Nazi Germany. I changed "right-wing American" to the more appropriate and accurate "neo-Nazi American". I also changed the phrase "practised by right-wing organisations" to "practised by certain right-wing organisations". Note the European/UK spelling of practised and organisations, not that I care. But whoever made these BIASED and OFFENSIVE statements may not be aware of their seriousness. To inform our probable European editor of the long-standing political landscape in America, the predominance of U.S. military veterans from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam---especially in their later years (say, from the 1980's forward)---would identify as some form of "right-leaning" or "right-wing" if pressed to choose, depending on the fairness of the definition of "right-_____" presented. This typically tends to mean holders of traditional American values and Judaeo-Christian ethics, Contistutional freedoms and the personal values of hard work, faith, and community support. To link these men and women and their families and their political support with Nazis is supremely biased and uncalled-for; again, perhaps written by someone in good faith who does not know what they are talking about. If there is a Nazi sympathizing artist producing some form of his or her "art", and it gets around on the internet, and some lazy officer or non-com at the Pentagon took a short-cut and used something off the internet without running its source completely to ground, they are guilty of just being as lazy and stupid as the average person out there in the world looking for some digital image to enhance their writings or website or project, not of being Nazi sympathizers. And just because they did it when Donald Trump was President in 2019, does not make Nazis of American veterans, nor the active-duty personnel, officers, or commanders of the U.S. Army, nor the DoD, nor the President, nor any other common punching-bag of the ultra-leftist New York Times and the Washington Post newspapers. As a U.S. Army veteran, I have never met any veteran of any of our wars or peace-time who had any admiration for our enemies except for their toughness in battle and military prowess, not their murdering ways or political Socialism of any stripe. I am hoping that my three-word attempt to make this article section at least APPEAR to be more fair-minded will not be reversed or rejected by other Wiki editors, who should feel free to improve on it further, but not go back to the way it was. If it is reverted to what it was before, I will report this article section for bias. Mluklu7 ( talk) 22:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)