Talk:National Socialist Underground trial

Californian law
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)


 * What has Californian law got to do with any of this? 86.147.197.65 (talk) 04:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Would anyone be so kind
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)
 * This may just be me absolutely despising tabloids, but could someone also replace the 'Bild' source to something more reputable like Süddeutsche Zeitung? Not vital i guess but most certainly a more reliable source anyway. 85.16.166.77 (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Regards SoWhy 12:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, just did not want to break anything and was not entirely sure about formatting and getting it right in the reference section. So, asking seemed easiest... Cheers anyway. 85.16.166.77 (talk) 12:39, 12 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)
 * Another issue, source 16 does not support the second sentence in the paragraph about the number of questions. This could be used, but it is a public broadcasting source again so will die eventually. But it is the only one i could find saying it was exactly 63 questions. 85.16.166.77 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And here is a source that states that Gerlach was convicted of aiding a terror organisation, which was raised at ITN. 85.16.166.77 (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

What are all these non-English sources doing in an English-language article?
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)
 * How about you raise that some place where it actually matters, like the village pump or whatever? Why raise it on a random article talk? And... bit speechless about your points, lol. No offense of course, i just disagree with it. 91.97.249.18 (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Non-English topics by necessity often require non-English sources. The important part is that the source is reliable, not that everyone understands it or can review it. After all, offline sources are allowed as well and you probably cannot verify most of them without access to specialized libraries. The policy (WP:NONENG) is quite clear actually: English sources are preferred but if they don't exist, non-English sources can be used instead. You are welcome to replace sources with English ones if you can do so. On a side note, with tools like Google Translate most languages can be assessed even by non-native speakers, at least partly. Regards SoWhy 08:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply and helpful pointers. I will study and perhaps revise my opinion. Regards to you as well. Dayirmiter (talk) 09:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Timing Gaps in the Proceedings
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.  L &Ograve;&Oacute; kingYourBest (Talk&#124;Edits) 12:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since the trial consisted of 400+ days, most dates had little of note for this article happen, see this detailed chronology. We don't need to recount every witness testimony after all. Regards SoWhy 13:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not just that there are gaps, but also that there is confusion. The section starts with three paragraphs dealing with 2013, then abruptly a single paragraph dealing with trial's end in 2018. This is not a summary section, and yet jarringly attempts 5 years span? The following two subsections deal with discrete spans of time.  The fourth paragraph is out-of-place, and the first three paragraphs ought to be properly labelled as regarding 2013 only. Shenme (talk) 01:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As I see it, there was a problem seeing the direction the court took, possibly in part owing to the inquisitorial (rather than adversarial) nature of the German legal system. The explanation of how the verdicts were reached is yet to be published. This information should, hopefully, make it easier to decide what further information is best supplied. Anyone believing they can add to the article now anything that is almost certainly going to be needed is, of course, free to do so.Rjtucker (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Socialist Group cited as far-right?
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)


 * National socialism is widely accepted to be a form of fascism. But I suspect you know that already. Regards SoWhy 16:45, 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'm sorry to tell you but what you always understood is incorrect, in any country. As you can tell from our article on fascism, it's widely accepted as far-right. If you are truly interested, you should read our articles on those subjects, then you will understand that while both extreme left and extreme right leaning organisations and people might use similar tactics, their ideology is completely different. Since both Nazism and far-right are linked from the article, every reader is able to know what is correct and what not. On a side note, anarchism is usually considered a far-left philosophy (see the article on it). Regards <b style="color:#7A2F2F; font-variant:small-caps">So</b><b style="color:#474F84; font-variant:small-caps">Why</b> 17:38, 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)