Talk:Kalergi Plan/Archive 1

Archive 1

No Link to Actual Text?

Linking to translations and originals of Practical Idealism (1922) must be included. This is just basic rigor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.228.19.0 (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Article

The article is part (1) and not encyclopedic (2). There are historically demonstrable errors. (3)

(1) refers to 2 Italian newspapers that are not independent, at all. But they are politically deployed newspapers. "LINKIESTA" is an online newspaper, of very low circulation, and editing made by freelance journalists, from the extreme left. "Il Foglio" is a paper-based, newspaper of little circulation, and financed by Silvio Berlusconi's wife, and which has always favored pro-immigration policies. Therefore they are not independent newspapers. (!) They have never carried out an inquiry into the Kalergis but only brief dogmatic articles, (!) brief on Kalergi that have no encyclopedic value. (!)

(2) Political opinions (LINKIESTA ad IL FOGLIO) are not encyclopedic sources. (!)

(3) historically demonstrable ERRORS: you assert here that the theory would have been made by Gerd Honsik in 2004. But this is FALSE. The theory was absolutely not invented by Gerd Honsik. Is simple. Just put in google images: "Arthur Rogers Warbug Kalergi Plan" and many photos appear, of a work by Arthur Rogers of 1955 printed in London. Rogers was certainly not a Nazi. But not even Arthur Rogers is the first in 1955 to speak of PIANO KALERGI. The first was in 1927 in a book by Hans Friedrich Karl Günther "Der nordiche Gedanke" ... Then, a long journalistic article appeared in 1994, in the Germanic magazine U.N. specially dedicated to Kalergi article, from which Gerd Honsik was inspired. Therefore the theory that the KALERGI PLAN would have been invented by Gerd Honsik is a historical "fake" shown in the book by Micheli Luca.

Book of Micheli Luca, on Kalergi, 311 pages with almost 300 photos very many taken from the State Archives of Switzerland (Lausanne) and the Czech Republic (Plzen). On Amazon.
Title: THE CASTEL RONSPERG MODEL THE PLAN KALERGI LABORATORY.(Italian title: IL MODELLO CASTEL RONSPERG IL LABORATORIO DEL PIANO KALERGI)
Other books on Kalergi and Kalergi plan:

-Matteo Simonetti, (2015 edition) : "The truth about the Kalergi plan" First edition.(italian title. LA VERITA' SUL PIANO KALERGI) 130 pages

-Carlo Arrigo Pedretti (2018) title: The practical idealism of Richard N. Coudenhove-Kalergi. The ideological foundations of his plan: (Italian title: L'idealismo pratico di Richard Kalergi. Il fondamento ideologico del suo piano) 310 pages

-Luca Micheli (2019) : "THE MODEL CASTEL RONSPERG THE LABORATORY OF THE KALERGI PLAN." The most complete and with everything demonstrated with documents and photos. (Italian title: IL MODELLO CASTEL RONSPERG IL LABORATORIO DEL PIANO KALERGI)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.0.30 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic links and required subscription for Il Foglio

The conspiracy theory originated with Austrian neo-nazi Gerd Honsik. According to Il Foglio, he began publishing works which distorted the writings of Coudenhove-Kalergi in the 1970s.[6]

there are non-encyclopedic links. The [6] attributed to the newspaper "il FOGLIO" ... is not openable, to open and consult it and verify, it is necessary to have 1 subscription to the newspaper IL FOGLIO. Therefore a non-encyclopedic link. The newspaper IL FOGLIO then is a newspaper declaredly of political opinion, created with a technical trick (the creation of a party that does not exist and even the founder, Giuliano Ferrara has admitted it) that lives off public contributions, a law on publishing . If there were some copies to sell, it should close the next day.

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_Foglio_(quotidiano) ...........see section "Public funding"
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.101.0.30 (talk) 08:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hope Not Hate as a source?

Should we REALLY use Hope Not Hate as a source? It's not a very neutral organization to cite-- it's like if they wrote about the legitimacy of the Kalergi Plan and cited a website called 'aryanresurgence.com' or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricallyAccurate (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@HistoricallyAccurate, it's not written in the POV of WP but the sentence that uses HNH as a source makes it clear that it's in HNH's POV (ie Hope Not Hate says x), if it were written without the part that says HNH says X then I'd agree with you. I guess adding that HNH is an advocacy group (or however it can be described) would be ok so that people know they're not a neutral organization. Swil999 (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Swil999: why? There's a link people can click on to find out who they are, that's the purpose of the link. There's no similarity between being against racism and fascism, which all decent people should be, and being some sort of aryanresurgence group, ie some sort of Nazi-like group. Hell, is it even a controversial statement - it more or less says what the lead says using other sources. In any case, what does neutral mean in relationship to racism and fascism? Not really caring or having an opinion? So for this article I do not see a need or reason to add advocacy group for HNH or (and I'm not sure why this wasn't requested) the SPLC. Doug Weller talk 09:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I don't really have a strong opinion on this article (saw someone mention it in a YT comment, which can be filled with white nationalist types, so just wanted to see what it was) and not so familiar with HNH, it was more of a suggestion to keep it with possible slight additions if there was a neutrality concern rather than removing it. Swil999 (talk) 11:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Most Important Source Omitted

The source for this "Kalergi Plan" is no newspaper article, but a book called "Practical Idealism", which was written by a guy called Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, and published 1925 if I remember correctly. I think the article even mentions this person. But the book is not mentioned in the section of the sources. 2A02:C7D:CA1A:5400:2314:6C61:A552:BDBA (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

This is still not the case in this particular article. Also, interesting to note, Kalergi's main article on Wikipedia used to have the quote in question from his book, which can be seen from this revision from 3 of January 2019, but now, no longer does. 2601:8C:4581:1150:41FC:781E:31EC:6001 (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

But he's not the source. Our article on him says that "Nazi criticism and propaganda against Coudenhove-Kalergi, and his European worldview, would decades later form the basis of the racist Kalergi plan conspiracy theory."

I also see that a fascist publisher (or just ultra-right) republished his book with a fake title. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

Add:

• Miscegenation pamphlet

to the See also section.

Justification: Because Miscegenation and the Kalergi plan are both right-wing conspiracy theories/hoaxes about race-mixing. Folx (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"The New European" is not a reliable source

You are using "The New European" as a source for claiming that the "Kalergi Plan" is a "far-right" conspiracy. According to the standards established by Wikipedia itself, "The New European" is not a reliable scientific source, since it is a weekly, politically motivated, newspaper platform. So, this statement should be removed from the article.