text:
Talk:List of Slovenes

LightningHop's comment of 12 March 2004
With all respect, this page contains many entries that show a lack of objectivity by the contributor of those particular items, and, indeed, show remarkable political bias and subjectivity. Chiefly, as should be apparent by recent and past edits from observers (including myself), are the entries that are political in nature and controversial. For example, under the header "National Heroes" are names that, as best I can tell, are mostly, if not all, historical Slovenian communists. These names(people) operated within the former Yugoslav federation that existed with Slovenia in its composition from 1945 until 1991 (when Slovenia seceded from the communist federation). Though these names are Slovenian in heritage they are not considered de facto heroes by any consensus within the present-day independant Slovenia. Many, however, were seen as heroes under the former communist government in Belgrade, Serbia, the seat of the Yugoslav federation, and within Slovenia but again, not by consensus but rather within the Slovenian communist sphere.

It is my opinion that this page needs revision toward objectivity. As another example, if I were to fill in some historical data for those listed under "National Heroes" over a dozen that I recognize presently would have "Slovenian communist" as a political affiliation in the description. I am not sure that all listed under "National Heroes" are not former Slovenian communists. If this is fact, then it is an inaccurate depiction of who present-day Slovenian society sees as its "heroes". It is, however, most probable that it would be an accurate depiction of who the heroes are/were in the former Slovenian communist sphere.

--LightningHop 01:38, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

National heroes
The list as it was/is was provided by me and since I do not have the official list of national heroes some inaccuracies may still be present but mainly the list contains persons which were declared heroes not just by former Yugoslav government but also by Slovene nation itself. I didn't put on the list persons which were solely Slovene communusts, but I just gave information from several external sources. These kind of twisting words all around can't bring much constructive. If you believe and truly know that some person do not belong to the list you can correct it, but if a person was a communist, why can't he also be a national hero? Do you want perhaps Nazis to be national heroes or what during (as you've said) Yugoslav civil war? Many in the list gave their lives for our present and future, so, please, show also some respect. And do not simply lean on anti-communist elements all over. Allied forces during World War II were not anti-communist but anti-Nazi. --XJamRastafire 04:51, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I am not expressing unobjective POV. Soon or later your editings will be stoped by other Wikipedians if you are not able to listen to others in this way. I shall not discuss further on herein about this object, until people throw away their presumptuousness. I was warned by other wikipedians that someone is vandalizing this article, so you should consider this. And finally, show some respect. --XJamRastafire 17:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor
It is obvious that there are contributors to this page that want to express a particular point of view (one that is leftist). This is obvious by a recent revision by 193.77.107.13. The particular revision contains the header National Traitors and lists two individuals that were part of anti-communist elements during the war that took place in Slovenia and Yugoslavia. The page "List of Slovenians" is more slanted toward a leftist view rather than a neutral view (see my previous comment in Discuss This Page). There should be no problem including these people that are listed under the National Traitors header as long as their description is unbiased and doesn't express a particular point of view as it currently does by placing their names under a header titled "National Traitors". That previous format decisively shows a political bias toward the left. If I'm not mistaken an encyclopedia should be objective and not show a political point of view.

--LightningHop 20:11, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

RE: National Heroes
I apologize for not seeing your comments prior to the last revision and I'll reply to your comments at this time.

In your commentary you state tht there may be inaccuracies and that the list under national heroes "contains persons which were declared heroes not just by former Yugoslav government but also by Slovene nation itself." May I suggest that only those names that the Slovene nation has declared "heroes" be listed then. Do you have such a list? You also state in your first post that I may correct inaccuracies yet your next post threatens me with censorship by the wikipedia community if I do so (and you label my corrections as vandalism). First, I have no problems with communists being on the list(I've even added NPOV descriptions to those Slovene communists that had no description). However, I view the article as having a skewed non-neutral point of view because all listed are communists. The anti-communist elements that were listed (domobranci or white guard) and who fought during the civil war were/are labeled "collaborationalist" and "national traitors" and that is inaccurate. If it is not inaccurate then how would one describe the collaboration that existed between the Yugoslav (and Slovene) communists and the Russian Soviets during that period? You say I am twisting words yet you claim in one of your recent revisions that there was no civil war but an occupation. There was an occupation but there was a civil war as well as many historians have pointed out in the past. This can be documented presently by a recent article in the March 2004 edition of The Slovenian Times (originating from Ljubljana) under`News'catagory. It states "During the Second World War Slovenes in these two groups effectively fought a civil war".: http://www.sloveniatimes.com/. That quote was in reference to the fighting between the partisans and domobranci. Also, a question -- So that my edits are not viewed as vandalism how should I proceed here? Am I do obtain permission somewhere? How do I go about this please since I do not wish to be reproached. Is there a senior editor that I must go to first? I've read the rules but I don't see any formalized protocol before one can edit and I've done as I thought was acceptable. I hope, xjamrastafire, that you will disuss this further.

--LightningHop 19:20, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Of course I shall discuss this further. I can't be quiet, since you have changed your attitude a bit. I did not say that you vandalized the article, but it seems like you have. You have just reverted what I have corrected or changed. I did not count all the communists on the list, so do not accuse me for that. I have put these persons as they were listed on some other sources all around. And what is important - which tells me something about your orientation towards vandalizing - how in a heaven Franc Rozman Stane is accused to be on the list as just a communist. Of paramount importance is that he was just a freedom fighter all of his whole life to his bitter death. So was my father - and he never fought in a so called civil war - which is now invented by some insane historians. Soviet Union and also so blackened Yugoslavia have the highest number of civil casualties in Europe during WW2. Just read the numbers. The price for this so called »Civil war« was too high. Please be so kind and do not give me any kind of external references which might discredit the NOB (Slovene National liberation struggle). I do not threaten you - I just warn you, what your activity may bring. I've said I do not have a complete list of Slovene national heroes. And for national traitors: war crimes do not fall under the statute of limitations - never. Rupnik was convicted by nation - and this is not my invention. I just give the fact. If you interpret his swearing to Nazism, it is your problem. The other on the list of national traitors Frakelj killed over 60 innocent civilians. This is War crime made to his own nation. Partisans fought primarily against German and other occupation armies, and they have to fight against adherents with Nazism - they were soon recognized by the Allies. Where did you find a civil war, please? You do not need any permission to write here, but you can show some understandings with other contributors which work hard to make some sence with all of this. 10 day war for Slovenia in this manner was not a liberation war but a secession war and so on. According to you national heroes once proclaimed can't be heroes anymore in some other state. How strange. I thought they stay heroes forever. I at least showed some respect and you are saying that I write rubbish. If you think so - so let it be, I can't do nothing more than writting this and knowing everything is in vain. I would like to understand my nation and the world's history. You may also tell this to my dead grandfather that he died 1943 in a civil war if you please... »You kill my mothers, you rape my sisters, ...« Winston Rodney --XJamRastafire 02:15, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's a little bit chewy, isn't it? I'm afraid that your statement about Mr.Rozman Stane resonates partiality and prepossession of mind on your part. I don't know precisely how you were raised and educated but you were educated in a communist society that allowed no desenting, contradictory or opposing views.

 * Your last sentence is totaly irelevant. Leave behind the society itself. If Hitler should won the WW2, then I would have to live in a nazi society or whatever... (if my parents had survived) ...

Perhaps you should keep this in mind when you are editing this article. I offered you some immediate evidence coming from your own present-day countrymen who stated a civil war occurred within Yugoslavia during the 1940's and you dismiss it and say it isn't proof.

 * Name some of these countrymen. But reconsider also that they might be prolonged hand of these antipartisan forces from the 1940. Slovenia is independent yes, but a lot of water shall flow until many of them will undress the defeated wolf's skin, man. It is peace, yes, but national conciliation is yet to come, and yet for many to confess their agancies to the nation itself. Until that day European continent shall not know peace, if I may paraphrase Ras Tafari's words from 1930. Leave me alone now, 'cause I have a lot of better work to do. You have right to delete all here and write everything on your own, but you do not have right to teach me how wrongly raised, stupid, blind or biased I am. --XJamRastafire 00:45, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How is that? You say some "insane historians" came up with it. What kind of proof do you want of this civil war? Western libraries are full of assessments that the war in that region was not only a conflict with occupational forces but a civil war as well. A civil war is defined as (per Merriam-Webster dictionary) "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country". How do you define a civil war, xjamrastafire?

 * How do I define a civil war? Let me focus on this, if you permit me. Firstly the occupation of foreign forces took place on the territory of nowadays Slovenia. We know what these forces did to the nation. This German occupation itself is a war crime. Why? If you are »fair« (enough), you do not kill, hang, burn, exterminate the civilinas on that area. Now. Slovene people at that time in fact had 2 options. To collaborate or to fight against oppressors. We shall not talk how politicaly Slovenia was devided before 1940/41. Someone had to organize armed struggle against foreign armies, right. If that was Russian/Soviet CP, Yugoslav or Slovene communists it is not so important. Important is that other forces decided to fight against partisans (not communists as you say the whole time) together with occupiers. Anti partisans forces - I shall name them here:

 * MVAC (Milizia Voluntaria anticomunista (Voluntary anticommunist militia), founded 1942-12, total number 4,000,
 * Village sentries (Vaške straže)
 * Legion of Death (Legija smrti)
 * Slovene mountain detachment (Slovenski planinski odred) (Slovene Chetniks (slovenski četniki), founded 1943-12, total numebr 350,
 * Slovene home guard legion (Slovenska domobranska legija), founded 1943-12, total number 10,500,
 * Slovene home guard legion (Slovenska domobranska legija), founded 1944-07, total number 12,000,
 * Slovene safety national assembly (Slovenski varnostni narodni zbor) (SNVZ), Primorska, founded 1944-07, tn 1,800,
 * Upper Carniola (Gorenjska), founded 1944-07, tn 800 - 1.000,
 * Slovene national army (Slovenska narodna vojska), Ljubljana division (Ljubljanska divizija), Slovene mountainous division (Slovenska gorska divizija), founded 1945-02-21, tn 13,000.

 * All these units were under German police headquarters for the combat against partisans in Ljubljana and Trieste (Trst) and they have sworn to Adolf Hitler. In my opinion (not as I was raised or anyhow) fighting against its own nation is the highest possible (war) crime. I can't define civil war in this way, nohow. Anti partisan movement did not appeared in a whole Slovene ethnical territory. In Styria youngsters who were not organized in the NOB, were sent directly to German Wehrmacht and many died on Russian front. Now you come and try to foist a certan civil war. Excuse me Sir, but you should also reconsider your visitings to all of that western public libraries. Secondly what is very important the whole Slovene ethnical territory was liberated by Slovene partisan's units together with Yugoslav four armies and with British 8th Army. This is not civil war. All antipartisan's units should bind themselves in a fight against the enemy and not to do crimes against nation itself. After the war, political regime would be open and they could expectate participation in a rule over Slovenia. Slovenia was never communist state, but social - all the time. It is true that it was onepartial. You must dare a lot to invade one country (as Germans did), hang people on the trees, to shoot civilians in prisons, publicaly revile them or to send them in concentration camps. You must have done a deal with the devil, and I here in 2004 within Wikipedia have to close my eyes... »400 years of the same same philosophy.«

Please. You react as if Yugoslav/Slovenian communism was something pure, sacred, lily white, virtuous and uninfluenced by outside forces and that only the opposition were collaborators and criminals. You add comments on Rupnik and Frakelj but omit that Ivan Macek Matija has been accused of war crimes as well. Maybe you were not taught that Macek is accused of taking opposition prisoners and disemboweling them with a knife while they were still alive.

 * If Maček commited war crimes, you can freely state that. I am not aware of that - and I do belive that some oppresion forces were within such state. I won't delete your additions if so. But if you can't except that these two men betrayed the nation, it is your problem.

Yet for you only the opposition committed war crimes.

 * I didn't say that.

Your society has most probably not taught you that Tito fought with the Red Army in Russia after WWI or that he couldn't attack the invading Nazi's in '41 until Stalin allowed him to several months later (due to the non-aggression pact Soviet Russia had with Nazi Germany and after Germany invaded Russia). After the war, in 1946, your allies the U.S. and Britian declared Yugoslavia a puppet state of Soviet Union. So it can be said that the communists could be looked upon as traitors of the Yugoslav/Slovenian people as well. And as for heroes, they don't last forever. If that were true then Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee would be on American coins and American dollars today.

 * I agree with this. But now Tito is to blame for all of this, right. What about the regular Yugoslav Royal Army?

Yet at the same time these American figures are not looked upon as traitors in their society. Perhaps you should take a trip aboard and visit libraries in the west, old man.

 * Old man? And you? Take you a trip to the east sometimes, let us say to wide Ukraine, where 11.000 civilians died in (so called) civil wars under fast German tanks nad flames. Old man. What else?

I would venture to say that there are fewer pieces of objective literature on this war in Maribor or Ljubljana libraries than there are within a Chicago, Mexico City or London public library. Because you are from Slovenia does not make you an "expert" on all that concerns Slovenia's past.

 * This is true, but I never claim that. I just try to write, man.

In fact, it seems the opposite may be true and I wonder how much of your upbringing in a communist society has colored or clouded your objectivity on this subject. Your emotional defense of anything that you perceive critical of anything communist shows a lack of impartiality on your part. You defend the communist view ardently it seems. This is not objective writing on your part. You write and edit like a communist and Slovenia is no longer a communist state and that should be reflected in this article.

 * Communism in fact has nothing to do with this particular subject.

I propose that the table of contents for the list of Slovenians be similar to the lists that exist in Wikipedia for other cultures such as the French, English, Italians, Germans. For example, National Heroes could be replaced with the more non-partisan titles like Politicians and/or Military Men and Women. What do you think?

 * I think national heroes should stay and also »national traitors«, when they once will be properly defined. Fair military men are something completely differenr than war criminals. Respect. --XJamRastafire 00:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

--LightningHop 20:07, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

I also propose that wording in descriptions of this article be completely neutral like they are on similar pages for other cultures. Wording at present is not neutral.

 * This is a list of Slovenes, and you have denoted some person as Yugoslav what ever. I can not see why.

--LightningHop 20:32, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedic articles should be non-partisan and objective
Xjamrastafire, you have a unique method of responding to a posted comment. What do you call that "the cow caught in the combine" method or "the lazy man's way"? It is a very sloppy way to respond and I suspect done intentionally to disrupt and chop up my comments. Refrain from doing this again please.

Nothing was irrelavent about my statement. Its point you just seem to want to ignore or it just went over your head. Also, the evidence of your fellow countrymen substantiating that there was a civil war is evident by the link I submitted earlier to The Slovenia Times website. I don't have to provide names...The Slovenia Times in Ljubljana supported my claim in that March 2004 article. Did you view it? Of course, you can claim that the Times are "anti-partisan forces from the 40's" if you want but that isn't credible just ridiculous. Many citizens in Slovenia have lost family and friends to communist atrocities before, during and after the war and therefore do not support the party line or view which apparently you swallowed hook, line and sinker. Their "prolonged hand" is in reality knowledge of what happened during the war and they do not accept communist rhetoric on the subject. And now they are free to express what they know.

You express how horrible the occupiers were in Slovenia (and that is true for sure) but you refrain from telling also how horrible the partisans were. Peasant, farmers, priests were given 2 choices by the partisans too when they entered a village. One; join us, or two; die because you will not join us. If you were a villager or farmer and didn't believe the communist dogma and doctrine and refused to join the partisans you were labeled a fascist and anti-communist. Many times these folks were terrorized, tortured and then murdered by the partisans (and that is well documented). Ever heard of the atrocities committed against the Kozina family in Zapotok by the partisans? You say I should go to the Ukraine to view fascist atrocities? Why not just visit Kocevje Rog where the partisans slaughtered 12,000 unarmed domobrans and others (without trials)? An atrocity is an atrocity after all. There are mass graves all over Slovenia thanks to the partisans and that is known throughout Slovenia this very day, isn't it? And during the communist era if these places were talked about one wound up in prison and then found life difficult for a very long time. Isn't that right?

Regarding Rupnik and Frakjl you state; "But if you can't except that these two men betrayed the nation, it is your problem". It is not my problem it is your problem. It is your inflamatory, biased wording. For example in the Wikipedia under Famous French People is listed Petin of Vichy France characterized by many as a traitor. He is listed under "Politicians" and there is no inflamatory, biased or partisan language used. It is objective, neutral and unbiased. You state, "In my opinion (not as I was raised or anyhow) fighting against its own nation is the highest possible (war) crime". But, an encyclopedia should be influenced by facts and not opinions. That is why I say your views on this topic are colored and clouded. Yet your partisan fighters fought against its own nation as well (hence civil war).

Regarding the forces you listed, the Vaske Starze were begun as a force to counter such crimes committed by the partisans. They eventually became the domobranci if I'm not mistaken and received backing by the Nazis as is known. However, these forces were not begun initially by the Nazis but began in response to the cruelty that was perpetrated upon innocent people in small villages throughout Slovenia by the partisans. It is documented that the partisans began their terror campaign and revolution prior to the Italian and German occupation. Forces, such as the domobranci, gained Nazi support because they were anti-communist. Communism was reviled by many in the world and in Slovenian villages and without being pro-fascist. The only reason the allies supported Tito's partisan forces was because they were the more effective fighting force against the Nazis. They certainly did not support the communist revolution in Slovenia/Yugoslavia. Supporting the communist partisans was the lesser of two evils at the time.

Notwithstanding, what I want to point out is that these articles should be without partiality. They should be non-partisan and utilize neutral language as is the case with other list of peoples of other cultures listed in Wikipedia. Some of the contributions you have made utilize words that are inflamatory, partisan and biased.

Also, the phrase "old man" is only an expression for males of any age. --LightningHop 23:34, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

NOB
Please do not mark others way of writting. If you do not like my way of responding, do not blame me - everything is pretty much visible. My knowledge of English is not perfect so I won't read and bother about all those your blind man's buffs words... (if I wrote correctly). The WW2 in Slovenia lasted between two precise dates (1941 to 1945). The correct number of slaughters was not 12,000 but around 9,000. But NOV fighters had 16,000 victims (of total number of fighters 37,901). And further on, 9,000 died in concentration camps (many of them were announced to Nazis by anti-partisan's forces), 1,600 died because of bombing, 5,000 Slovenes died which were mobilized in German Army, 19,600 killed by shooting as hostages. We must count also 71,000 exiles to Germany, Serbia and to Croatia (of planned 220,000 to 260,000), 8,000 exiles because of reprisals, 35,000 on forced labour, 35,000 mobilized to German Army, 35,000 arrested, 29,000 in concentration camps. All together 10% of the populations - the highest number during the WW2 in Europe!

You went off topic. Once the true responsible persons for post war activities shall be found, they will be characterized as criminals - but - you can't blame all the partisans - which were the only true free fighters in Slovenia in this terrible war - for what had happened. Blame who whatever you want, but in god's sake do not blame Slovene partisans for that, man. I'll never except anyone's claiming of civil war at that times. Sorry. What does it mean to receive backing by Nazis - the synonim for collaborating, not my opinion - but pure fact.

 * However, these forces were not begun initially by the Nazis but began in response to the cruelty that was perpetrated upon innocent people in small villages throughout Slovenia by the partisans. It is documented that the partisans began their terror campaign and revolution prior to the Italian and German occupation.

Really? How can you imagine that? Germans burnt the village of Upper Carniola Dražgoše to ground (and many more), just because partisans fought against them. This fight was unfair, they killed 10 or even more civilians just for one German soldier. How can you kill civilians because their people is fighting against you? Nobody does this. Where do you see so called partisan's terror? Fight against the enemy is a terror against you own nation?

And about Kočevski Rog, Teharje and all that. If I have decided wrongly at that time and fought against my own nation, I would not expect no mercy, but this is not the issue here. You can also recall sveti Urh and many more places, if you are brave enough. I can hardly. I can not talk this with my father who was there and now has enough blood for the whole of his life. What do you expect me to do? I was raised wrong - my father never told me almost anything - just a few things from this time, that he was nearly killed two times and that he read about his own death in a newspaper, published in Ljubljana. Leave these wounds in peace and do not quarrel what is non-partisan and objective and what is not - please. Just correct what do you have to and do not teach others how to live, feel and think.

Why are you all the bloody time attacking persons like Josip Broz Tito. Why not Sir Bernard Law Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein who also fought against Nazis in Northern Africa and all around? They were both Field Marshals as I recall. Monty was soldier, so Tito was too. And show some respect and do not give just flowery phrases...

And finally BTW your designation of Slovene partisans is wrong. They were not just partisans, they were called NOV and POS (Narodnoosvobodilna vojska in partizanski odredi Slovenije, National Liberation Army and Partisan's Detachments of Slovenia) - and they were predecessors of later Slovenska teritorialna obramba (Slovene Territorial Defence) and nowaday Slovenska vojska (Slovene Army). I do not know your nationality, but the small nations also can have regular armies. Everything that I was talking is also well documented, but as you've said probaly not in Chicago, or elsewhere outside of Slovenia. I'm not surprised. I am Slovene, and I am proud of that. Really proud. Do not blame me for the mass graves inhere, do not blame freedom fighters for that - blame all those who were really responsible for - perhaps Yugoslav millitary authorities (perhaps only few Slovenes knew for what has happened after the war). And why do you think British Army refused fugitives in Carinthia and left them to Yugoslav Army? The war was finished, so this problem could be solved in more human way, because they surely could expect that many revenge will be present. How many German soldiers (and among them thousands of Slovene youngsters from Styria) did come back from Soviet Union in 1950s? The Discovery Channel has the numbers, I just recall that the number was very low. But the price of »communist« Soviet Union is measured in millions, exactly 9,000,000 soldiers and 11,000,000 civilians! And do not speak me about civilian wars, I know I can count well.

I see this debate is thoughtless, so I shall slowly finish down. --XJamRastafire 07:31, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Issue with List of Slovenians
Well discussing the aspects of your contribution from its political base is futile. Let me see if I can clarify again my contention with this "List of Slovenians" page. The real issues here are the neutrality of the designations for individuals as national heroes and national traitors as well as its official legitimacy. One, I don't see these types of designations anywhere else in Wikipedia hence they smack of partisanship and non-neutrality. It is my contention that those people listed should be under other designations such as "politicians" and "military men and women" as is the case in other similar Wikipedia works. The descriptions should be without the inflamatory, politcally biased language and wording. In other words, non-partisan descriptions should prevail. (Respectfully, I assume you understand the english terms "partisanship" and "non-partisan" completely, correct?) Second, my basis for the stance on legitamacy is the fact that this list of people described and designated as heroes and traitors was conceived by a country and government that no longer exists. It is my contention that the present Slovenian republic does not recognize this list as it exists here and is therefore an arbitrary, subjective contribution and not a true reflection of the sentiments within present Slovenian society or government.

I do know that some of these fellows were listed by the former communist Yugoslav government as they are (pre-1991) when Slovenia was not an independant democratic state. But, now that Slovenia is an independant parliamentary democratic republic this list and contribution and its neutrality is questionable and dubious since it was conceived under the hegemony of a government that no longer exists. You rationalize your inclusion but offer no irrefutable proof as to whether the present day Slovenian government officially lists these people as national heroes and national traitors. Like I said, I know the previous communist government officially did but that government and country (Yugoslavia) no longer exists. Therefore the list is invalid unless the present day Slovenian government officially recongnises it. So does the current democratic Republic of Slovenia list these particular individuals as heroes and traitors of Slovenia this very day, xjamrastafire? All you have to do is prove it. If you say you don't have to prove it or can't for whatever reason then that contribution I contend is hearsay, false, arbitrary, illegitimate and that the designations national heroes and traitor must be dropped and changed to something else since they are not verified as nationally recognized designations. You've claimed that everything you say is well documented. Well provide some documention on whether these people that you list as traitors and heroes are recognized as such by the present day Slovenian democratic republic. Not the Slovenian government before 1991 but the Slovenian government after 1991. The one that exists today. Not the one that no longer exists and came up with the list.

Also, you said this; "Everything that I was talking is also well documented, but as you've said probaly not in Chicago, or elsewhere outside of Slovenia." That is not what I said at all. In fact I stated the exact opposite. Perhaps you should read more carefully and cease misrepresenting the truth as you have done now many times. --LightningHop 03:11, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

Response to the Issue with List of Slovenes
Well, all right. I admit my grammatical error. I wanted to say "everything that I was talking is also well documented, but as you've said not withing Slovene cities but probably better in Chicago or elsewhere outside of Slovenia". Are you satisfied now? I have already said twice that I do not have the proper list (whatever might be) and you are free to go and delete or add persons which should be on the list. But you can't designate the WW2 on the territory of Slovenia (the NOB) with civil war - as you have tried, I guess also twice. (If we count 9.000 wictims of anti-partisan forces on one side and if we sum up wictims on the other side - 51.200 - how (even just mathematically) this can be designated as civil war?!). You have no right to distort the history! Why is so important that Slovene government which took place after 1991 is the only one which is suitable for recognitions of every sort? The regular government also took place during the war - please read when first Slovene governement was established. You can't also say that pre 1991 Slovene government was not legal. You just put everything in the communist area. You also think that present government of Slovenia is the best of them all. It is just a government which is as legal as the first postwar Slovene government established at the Bratina hall in Ajdovščina on May 5 1945 - four days before actual war ended in Slovenia. For instance Franc Rozman Stane was well known partisan commandant and you designated him to be commandant in a civil war. Why is that so? If you have data that, for instance, Maček Matija was a war criminal - you can state that. See what is an issue here or not? I do not know why there are no national heroes or national traitors listed on other nation lists. What about a term war criminal? How about these persons:

 * Josef Mengele,
 * Adolf Eichmann - convicted on all counts, Eichmann was sentenced to death (the only civil death penalty ever carried out in Israel) on December 2, 1961 and was hanged on May 31, 1962 at Ramleh prison. (Is this NPOV designation?) - I've put the same to Leon Rupnik - he was also convicted and sentenced to death by shooting in 1946 (by legal Slovene government as Eichmann was by legal Israeli one).
 * Slobodan Milošević - not yet recognised as war criminal...
 * Tojo Hideki, ...

The list I've made is not meant to extol so called communist area, but to distinguish between some non-human persons within the nation itself. What is wrong with this? This is not POV? The Wikipedia should follow the same step. Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini are well known persons - but Leon Rupnik, which falls to the 'same category' is not. That's why he appeared in this list. The same with Franc Frakelj. As I've said I am proud that I am Slovene - but should I be proud because of these persons or because of so many other which really deserve to be respected - IN ALL TIMES... I am proud of a nation, but I known it is not better than any other nation. It has its own darkd side (and this list should mirror this fact), although it is well known that the nation alone is a peaceful one. I guess Germans or (Austrians) can't be proud because of Hitler, but because of Carl Friedrich Gauss and such persons. Do you see the difference now or still not? Now Rudolf Maister is also recognized as a respectable Slovene, and what is well known he was not recognized so before 1940, since he was not fond of prewar communists - as it is said. He did good to the nation, so he is on the list. --XJamRastafire 14:38, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Reply and Issues
First, I don't currently want to delete or add anyone to or from your list. What I see as inaccurate is the section titled "National Heroes". And the other section currently titled "National Traitors" should stay off. Those section titles imply that all people that are listed and described are somehow then a part of a sanctioned national statement which is not accurate. Once the title is changed the people listed should stay but the designations and descriptions should be revised to reflect impartiality. I object to the inclusion of the designation "heroes". It is a subjective description on your part and should not be used. Only objective historical descriptions of their respective roles during the conflict should be used. I don't object to terms such as partisan or NOB or National Liberation Army or whatever but it should be noted that they were communist led. I do object to terms such as collaborationist, etc., since these are era terminology used by the opposing faction. However, in place of collaborationist could be a description stating that these anti-communist/partisan forces did receive fascist/nazi backing amongst others.

Secondly, I am not distorting history when I say that a civil war occurred within Yugoslavia/Slovenia during WW2. And I think the term should be used within the context of the fighting. Cited here are several independant sources that back up my stand:

"There were two main resistance groups: the chetniks under Mihajlović and an army under the Communist Tito. In 1943 civil war broke out between the two factions, of which the second was more uncompromising in its opposition to the Axis." http://www.slider.com/enc/57000/Yugoslavia_History.htm

"The stage was set for a civil war." http://www.geocities.com/kumbayaaa/nationalcouncilforslovenia.html

"So the lands of the dismembered Yugoslav state became not only the scene of Europe's greatest resistance struggle, but also one of its bloodiest civil wars." http://www.ucc.ie/staff/jprodr/macedonia/yugmodww2g.html

"...Partisans or ‘Domobranci’ (the home guard accused of collaboration with the Nazis) into the grave. During the Second World War Slovenes in these two groups effectively fought a civil war." http://www.sloveniatimes.com/kontent.php?topic=2

Please, then, xjamrastafire, disprove that a civil war occurred. Cite some independant sources to back up your assertion. I can come up with more sources that assess and state that not only was there a war of occupation and liberation going on within Yugoslavia during WW2 but a civil war as well.

From the U.S. Library of Congress' Federal Research Division: "World War II claimed 1.7 million Yugoslav lives,...About one million of those were killed by other Yugoslavs." http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+yu0031). Please read what constitutes a civil war, xjamrastafire. If 1 million Yugoslavs died at the hands of other Yugoslavs and that isn't the result of a civil war then I guess no one knows what a civil war really is.

You say, "The list I've made is not meant to extol so called communist area, but to distinguish between some non-human persons." This statement alone displays POV and opinion even though you claim otherwise, and, as I've said in a previous post, you show partiality and prepossession.

So, the problem isn't with the people listed. The problem is how they are listed. How they are designated and described. The problem is also the terms 'heroes' and 'traitors', etc., which should be eliminated and replaced as I've said previously. --LightningHop 22:33, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, you could also simply say that you shall add or delete some persons from the list or put your arguments in this talk page instead that you are trying to denigrate others contributions. This will be just fine - but you have to go or try to foist the idea of civil war during the WW2 (specially on the Slovene ethnical territory). That is why I shall reply in a short manner - if you allow me.

I have checked URLs you gave, but I must say that they are full of lies, half truths and pickings. Try to read one serious historical book about this subject. (This is also valid for me :--) I also doubt that these are really independant sources, as you've said. They are bunch of mixtures of everything (and perhaps of nothing).

About civil war. I gave you correct approximate numbers about victims on Slovene territory - I can't see why are you giving now numbers within Yugoslav borders. 1 million Yugoslavs killed by other Yugoslavs - I have to check this number, but as I've said I am talking about Slovene NOB. (In fact the same thing is with Yugoslavia, too - and I am not the one who shall defend or intercede National liberation fight against designations ala Civil war). I was talking about numbers in Slovenia (51.200 towards 9.000)!

In recent times many attempts were made to discredit the NOB and to speak in favour of national collaborators (or those who were under command of occupiers) - but I won't go into the details.

My sentence:
 * The list I've made is not meant to extol so called communist area, but to distinguish between some non-human persons.

speaks for itself and it does not display POV. We can find many persons designated as national heroes listed all around here in Wikipedia. If you do not like this list itself, you can simply change it (as I've said) and do not fall into long debates or to teach others what to do or even what to think. What I've done (and you are saying I am biased) is, that I have just collected persons who were designated national heroes in several sites. You can also do the same with such persons in Wikipedia - but you said we do not need such lists. I won't argue - but on the other side after all we also do not need lists at all. The same with persons who have commited war crimes (soldiers, leaders, politicians, (national traitors), painters, ...). I do not want to have the last word and I'll say no more (I shall reply just in that case if you will perhaps again say something that is not true or that it insinuates on something). If you want to change anything, just give your arguments here and others shall say theirs - and please don't debate into far distance for no reason. And finally we can talk about Ivana Kobilca in the same manner as for many other persons. --XJamRastafire 12:21, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Term patriots is inappropriate
The term patriot is inappropriate and therefore unacceptable. Who constitutes a patriot or who should be included under the titled heading "patriots" simply is a point of view. For example, you then would not mind if Leon Rupnik is then included as a patriot if someone viewed Rupnik as a Slovene patriot who was against communism and fought with all means against communism, correct, or, wrong? Please no polemics which include figures, opinions, etc. --LightningHop 11:30, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

What then?
What then should be in? I really do not know now - if ever I'll know at all. This mumbo-jumbo of what is right and what is wrong, what is polemic and what is not...

National heroes are not right. No respect for them. National traitors are not right too. They are just wicked people. Patriots never existed. Fredom was never achieved. Ras Tafari was never the Conquering Lion of Judah. Spare me - will you. 'Rise Up Freeman, Rise Up - so we Rise Up from these little highlands - Italians invaded Ethiopia - so he send soldiers. Italians and Germans invaded Slovenia so he ---'. --XJamRastafire 22:12, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then?
Mumbo-jumbo, schmumbo-jumbo. You seem sore that someone is calling you on this contribution of yours, rasta man (corrected this unproper offensive designation to Jani by XJamRastafire 14:21, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)) Melik. I am all astonishment that a man of your background who is fully aware of the debate within Slovene society cannot see or refuses to acknowledge the problem with this contribution of yours. I know you are biased for you have given numerous reasons why you are so. Nonetheless...

You bring up the term 'respect' often when you refer to my objections or comments regarding this article. Why should there be 'respect' for inaccuracies and non-neutral points of view? Respect should be sensed within an encyclopedia only as it is reflected from the truthful, accurate presentation of the relevant facts regarding whatever it is that is featured. An encyclopedia should not be a self-serving expression of the contributor, nor a platform to postulate opinions or viewpoints, nor glorify ones heroes and dead family members. If a viewpoint or perspective is to be expressed then fittingly a contradistinction should be made as well. An encyclopedia should present facts about man and men, facts about his ideas and the world he lives/lived in. Those facts should be presented without bias, partiality or opinions whether personal or political. I am equally astonished that such a man of letters as yourself cannot recognize or refuses to acknowledge that this is what an encyclopedia should entail.

What then, you ask? I stated previously what should be done in my post 'The Issue with List of Slovenians'. I think that your revision 'political leaders/politicians/statesmen' is a step in the proper direction. I suggest in my previous post that perhaps 'military men and women' may be appropriate. This perhaps could replace 'patriots' and thereby quell some debate which you seemingly find tedious and pedantic.

Another point of contention is the civil war issue. Regarding the civil war issue, further indications: "Even Ribicic, who wrote about the national liberation struggle as the first stage of our revolution, whereas the change of social relations was the second (Ibid, p. 279) said in Iskanja (p.15 i.e. in 1994): ‘The claim that the National Liberation Struggle was a civil war – because of the clash between citizens of the same nation, a war between those for communism and those against communism – is unscientific, one-sided and primitive.’ So we know the truth, albeit Tito himself admitted, “…this was a civil war. We just did not talk about it during the war as it would have been detrimental to us.” (Vjesnik, 24 May 1972). http://www.crce.org.uk/brief7.htm

Please, if you can, cite some sources that dispute that a civil war occurred during 1941-1945 in Yugoslavia which Slovenia was a part.

--LightningHop 11:45, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

 * Domoljubje ni isto kot nacionalizem in ni škodljivo! (Patriotism is not the same as nationalism and it is not harmful!) --Boris Pahor, Slovene author from Trieste, survivor of concentration camp in French Vosges. --XJamRastafire 01:07, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well Then
Well rastafire, I will take your lack of response as a response (basing it on one of your previous posts). Based on the comments of that previous post I shall alter the title "Patriots" to that which is less biased and impartial - "Military men and women". I will make the change in upcoming days (giving you time to respond to this post, if you wish). --LightningHop 06:22, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Rast man Melik
Please. I never altered or edited your commentaries on this page in any manner. Cease with the crude behavior to edit my commentaries as you have by altering your name to that which you wish to be addressed as opposed to that which I the commentator addressed. I will allow it this time.

Regarding your lame quote; Boris Pohar then can rightly be described as an idiot and a fool.

"Patriotism is nonsense and foolhardy if it means accepting a political or economic philosophy that is nonsense and detrimental to the populace."

"Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons".

"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real estate above principles."

"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

"You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race."

"I am not an Athenian or a Greek, I am a citizen of the world."

"Patriotism, the virtue of the vicious."

"It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind."

--LightningHop 11:39, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * You, LightningHop have no right to adress me as you wish. I have just showed you how to call me. Inhere I just have two names, my nick (or user name) and my real name. By calling me »Rast(a) man Melik« is an offensive act, which is not in an accordance of Wikipedia policy. So, you should consider and follow it up. How dare you calling Boris Pahor an idiot? I gave you what he has said about patriotism and you are now blemishing him. Shame on you, man. --XJamRastafire 11:38, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * »I am not just a citizen of this world, I am also a Slovene.«

 * All above citations (or whatever) belong to the same category, which is already marked as NPOV in the article of patriotism. (Think about it - and also read the article itself, please). You think that patriotism is just one political term or a tool of some sovereign to manipulate masses. Well, all right, you have a right to think what you think is right. If Tolstoy had negative attitude toward patriotism, this does not mean that this term is a priori without any positive senses. I do not know for your nationality, LightningHop (I really do not care - and in this way you can not tell me that you're a citizen of the world, 'cause you're not), but I know that a lot of patriotism kept my nation still alive. You have stucked to the civil war on nations's territory during WW2, but I hope you also know some other related history. And as it shows you do not have it probably, otherwise you wouldn't say so many untrue things. Patriotism, my dear fellow, keeps some nation alive. What else? Stupid obedience to major nations, or (I don't know). I won't argue any more about the term, because I am not making the whole content of this encyclopedia. What bothers me is your constant accusations that I behave crude, etc. You're also damaging this article. I know that now you'll thousand and thousand words which will say it's not true. You have thrown away terms like »national heroes/traitors«, »patriots« and you have replaced them with some undefined or overgeneralized terms. According to your words I can say that you just seek to say so many bad things about Slovenes. Can you say something constructive and positive about them, old man? (This 'old man' is meant in a good sense of Star Trek: DS9 series - of what Captain Benjamin Sisko says to Jadzia..., although you might do not deserve it.....) I advise you that you better leave me alone in my errors, and that you erase your fantasy. --XJamRastafire 13:59, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mr. XJamrastafire
Addressing you with "rasta man Melik" was simply a play on words based on your frequent rasta references and quotes, your rasta-inspired user name and your real name. You apparently admire things Rastafarian, you are a man, and, you are a Melik. Hence, no derogatory offense toward you on my part was intended. If you truely feel offended by my addressing you as such then I apologize. I won't address you similarily again. What about it is offensive to you I can't determine.

Regarding Pahor, I will apologize for calling him an idiot. That was inappropriate and unnecessary. However, he is fully wrong in my opinion. Patriotism can be like blind faith and lead to many social aberrations and injustices. Who is a patriot to one can be a traitor to another. Patriotism is not a proper and equal substitute for an actual sense of moral or ethical rectitude inherent within an individual.

You say, "According to your words I can say that you just seek to say so many bad things about Slovenes." Can you show, XJamrastafire, where I've said "bad things about Slovenes"? You confuse or equate my critique or criticism of your contribution and of Slovenian partisans/communists as a criticism of Slovenia and Slovenes in general. That is your error. I hold Slovenia and Slovenes with highest regard and know many Slovenes as friends.

You say, "You're also damaging this article". How so? Please elaborate.

You say, "I advise you that you better leave me alone in my errors, and that you erase your fantasy.". What, precisely, do you mean to say by this? Are you threatening me with censor somehow? I understand that you are now an administrator but I hope you do not abuse your authority, XJamrastafire. Do you think your biased, partial contributions here are not to be contested? Are you intimating that you are above criticism, correction and dialectic on your contributions? And "fantasy"? What "fantasy" do you think I have? You're the one referencing Star Trek not I. I have no "fantasy" nor illusions concerning this serious discussion, contribution and article about Slovenia and Slovenes. --LightningHop 06:22, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Reply to LightningHop about Civil War in Slovenia during WW2

 * I accept your apology about adressing me in such a way. Okay. By saying that your adressing was offensive towards me I guess it is just a personal view. But on the other hand - why you call me after my surname, and not for example after my first name...? I do believe that you did not mean to insult me - and I've never said I am somekind of rastafarian (but in fact perhaps I am - but who cares...). You just have concluded that I admire many things from this. It is my personal thing what I do believe, and I do act according to this, so I do not want to press down on anyone.

 * Bad things about Slovenes. I've already said it several times that you try to show how a civil war was going on during WW2 in Slovenia. Recently a third Slovene Partisan general, Lado Ambrožič Novljan passed away. In his short TV biography he said and affirmed that there was no civil war, so this is your invention and I can not stand it. Who shall I believe - one who does not respect nation's struggle or one true fighter? For sure I have to deal with all kind of constructive criticism about the subject - but you try to represent me as a biased contributor. Why do you have to criticize Slovene partisans after all? They were also Slovenes and I do not see nothing wrong with their struggle for freedom. Novljan also said that in Primorje (a littoral region of Slovenia) there were no collaboration of any kind. The struggle embraced all levels of Slovene population in this area. Also in Styria there were no collaboration. 30.000 (35.000) young Slovenes from Styria were brought to German Army under constraint (of which 5.000 have died in battlefields). Anti-communist fight (your designation - not mine) was held just in a central part of Slovenia. For units see above. And tell to your Slovene friends what you think about so called civil war. I wonder what they have to say about this. »...erase your fantasy« is from Robert Nesta »Bob« Marley's song Stiff Necked Fools. You can read the lyrics and you can tell me what Bob meant by 'fantasy'. With Star Trek I have just explained in which way I have used a term 'old man' - not to say that you have a fantasy. I am not threatening you in no way. I just try to discuss this serious subject. That's all. I hope we do understand. And finally, you didn't have to call me Mr. Jani, or my nick is just fine...

 * Damaging the article. I try to be constructive, but in this way I can not go further on. How can I? What do I have to deny, what do I have to believe? To my nation's true history, or to modern fashions of all kinds? How about you? Stop accusing me all the time, and write something down that will be adequate and try to help such contributors as I am. How can you go over the facts and numbers I gave you about NOB? It is true, yes, that patriotism can be traitorousness in many cases, but not in all ones. Slovene patriotism, Irish patriotism, ... they do exist and they have existed through history. Adolf Hitler was (simple - if I follow your proposal) a military man. As a wikipedian I can say nothing more about him? That he pushed European nations to one of the most terrible war and also one of the greates nation as Germans are... And as he admited in the court (about 1926) he was even not German... Do I have to be quiet about this?

 * Smrt fašizmu, svoboda narodu (Death to fascism, freedom to nation)
 * Živela OF (Hail Liberation Front)
 * --XJamRastafire 16:18, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV note
The NPOV notice has been here since 19:17, 16 Mar 2004. Someone please do something already, it's September... --Joy [shallot]   15:41, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * The »National Heroes« have been since renamed to »Military Men and Women«, which, I believe, is the proper title for people active in any military campaign on either side. I plan to add general Leon Rupnik onto the list; others will hopefully make the list more complete. Are there any further objections concerning the bias of the list, or could the NPOV notice be removed? --Peterlin 14:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heroes
There no place here for terms like "hero." The list should be objective and categorised as such. France Preseren is a Slovenian 'hero', yet we list him (correctly!) as simply a poet.

Regarding Civil War
Xjam says, "I've already said it several times that you try to show how a civil war was going on during WW2 in Slovenia. Recently a third Slovene Partisan general, Lado Ambrožič Novljan passed away. In his short TV biography he said and affirmed that there was no civil war..."

Xjam it is irrelavent what a participant, whether Slovene partisan general or an old Domobranc fighter has to say about the conflict that occurred within Slovene or Yugoslav borders. They have their own unobjective views since they were opposing participants. (However I find it ironic that Tito said it was a civil war in Vjesnik, 24 May 1972). What does matter more is the views of those who did not participate in that conflict or have any affiliation with the participants of that conflict. They are called historians...those who have objective and NOT subjective views and opinions. I've displayed some references in my previous posts and you only ignore them. This is due to your family's involvement within that conflict. You are right in the middle of it. I cannot blame you for your perspective however you are wrong, sir. You cannot see beyond your family's involvement and tragedy within and due to this conflict. ''Smrt fašizmu, svoboda narodu (Death to fascism, freedom to nation) Živela OF (Hail Liberation Front)'' This declaration of yours demonstrates your lack of objectivity on this matter. I never have said that the domobranci, chetniks, etc., were correct in their fight. Nor have I ever stated "death to socialism" or "death to communism". Yet I am amazed how you just dismiss my references to objective viewpoints simply because they oppose yours. Simply amazing. --LightningHop 08:27, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Pure fantasy: Arnulf of Carinthia
"Arnulf of Carinthia (850-899) - King of East Francia (887-899), King of Italy (896-899) and Holy Roman Emperor (896-899) (Carantanian(Slovenian) mother)" -entered by |User 86.61.124.15. This is pure fantasy! Even if it were original research, WP would not be the place for it. Not one of the various theories concerning Arnulf's mother even remotely ventilates the idea that she might not have been of Bavarian descent. --Marschner (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC) Another user -77.38.2.72 - had re-entered the same irresponsible speculation ("Carantanian mother"). Arnulf's mother had a Teutonic name - Liutswind or Litwinde, her father is said to have been one Bavarian count Ernst,  burgrave of Passau. Where do the Slav Carantanians come in? It hasn't even been proven that Arnulf's reported birthplace, the Mosaburch, was the one in Carinthia. There were several others   Moosburg castles, e.g. one Mosapurc or Mosabyrga in Bavaria and one in today's Hungary  (modern name:  Zalavár). Besides, only a few miles from the Carinthian Moosburg (Austria) was the Carlovingian Kaiserpfalz, the imperial palace, of Karnburg (Slovene: Krnski grad). Does it really seem likely that father Carloman afforded two expensive-to-keep fortresses  so close to each other?--Marschner (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

TARTINI

Surprisingly enough, only for Tartini is specified the nationality of the mother. Mothers of all known Slovenian are not mentioned. However, I have checked Wikipedia: it is written that the family of the mother was of Piran/Pirano and family name Zangrando. So also this information is wrong. She was Italian too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.155.197 (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Tito should be included in the section of "Military personel"
Tito was a son of a Slovenian mother. I think he should be also mentioned in this Article.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Slovenes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130104154830/http://www.randburg.com/si/general/slo8.html to http://www.randburg.com/si/general/slo8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of Slovenes


text:
Stuyvesant Fish

Stuyvesant Fish (June 24, 1851 – April 10, 1923) was an American businessman and member of the Fish family who served as president of the Illinois Central Railroad. He owned grand residences in New York City and Newport, Rhode Island, entertained lavishly and, along with his wife "Mamie", became prominent in American high society during the Gilded Age.

Early life and ancestry
Stuyvesant Fish was born on June 24, 1851, in New York City. He was the third son of Hamilton Fish (1808–1893), the 16th Governor of New York, a United States senator and United States Secretary of State who is recognized as the "pillar" of the Grant Administration and considered one of the best U.S. Secretaries of State by scholars. His mother was Julia Ursin Niemcewicz Kean (1816–1887), a descendant of New Jersey governor William Livingston. His parents' marriage has been described as a happy one, and his mother was known for her "sagacity and judgement". His father was named after his grandfather's friend, Alexander Hamilton. Fish had two older brothers, Nicholas Fish II (1846–1902) and Hamilton Fish II (1849–1936), and five sisters, Sarah Morris Fish (1838–1925), Julia Kean Fish (1841–1908), Susan LeRoy Fish (1844–1909), and Edith Livingston Fish (1856–1887).

His paternal grandparents were Nicholas Fish (1758–1833) and Elizabeth Stuyvesant (a great-great-granddaughter of Peter Stuyvesant). Nicholas Fish was a leading Federalist politician and notable figure of the American Revolutionary War who was active in the Yorktown Campaign that resulted in the surrender of Lord Cornwallis. Peter Stuyvesant was a prominent founder of New York, then a Dutch Colony, and his family owned much property in Manhattan.

Fish graduated from Columbia College in Manhattan where he was a member of St. Anthony Hall.

Career
Fish was an executive of the Illinois Central Railroad. He served as its president from 1887 to 1906, overseeing its period of greatest expansion. He also served on the board of directors of the National Park Bank.

In 1906, Fish was removed from his position at the Illinois Central by E. H. Harriman, possibly because of Fish's cooperation and participation with the state government in investigating the Mutual Life Insurance Company. However, it is also possible that the reason was because his wife, Mamie, had snubbed Harriman's wife, Mary, from a society tea party. Mamie found Mary too "dull" and so snubbed her from a tea party at their home in Newport, Rhode Island, where they spent the summer season.

His wife, Marion, known as "Mamie", was a leader in New York and Newport society. When in Newport, they lived in a grand Colonial Revival house named "Crossways", where her annual Harvest Festival Ball in August signaled the end of the Newport social season.

"When Grand Duke Boris of Russia visited Newport, Mrs. Fish issued invitations for a dinner and ball in his honor; the night of the ball the Duke was detained by Mary Wilson Goelet, a.k.a. Mrs. Ogden Goelet, Mrs. Fish's rival as social leader, at whose home he was staying. About 200 guests had assembled in the hall at Crossways, and when the hour for dinner approached and there was no sign of the Duke, Mrs. Fish announced that the Duke was unable to come, but the Czar of Russia had agreed to be her guest. Suddenly the doors of the room were flung open and in walked His Imperial Majesty, dressed in his royal robes, wearing the Imperial Crown and carrying a scepter. The guests, including Senator Chauncey Depew, Pierpont Morgan, and Lord Charles Beresford, sank in a court curtsy, only to recover themselves with shrieks of laughter when they realized they were paying homage to Harry Lehr."

Fish had no great interest in the doings of high society, and he bore great patience with his wife's peculiar parties.

Personal life
On June 1, 1876, he married Marion Graves Anthon (1853–1915), the daughter of Sarah Attwood Meert and Gen. William Henry Anthon (1827–1875), a successful lawyer and Staten Island assemblyman. Her paternal grandfather was John Anthon (1784–1863). Together, they had four children, three of whom lived to adulthood:

 * Livingston Fish (1879–1880), who died at six months.
 * Marian Anthon Fish (1880–1944), who married Albert Zabriskie Gray (1881–1964), the son of the Judge John Clinton Gray, on June 12, 1907. They divorced on December 5, 1934.
 * Stuyvesant Fish, Jr. (1883–1952), who married Isabelle Mildred Dick (1884–1972), daughter of Evans Rogers Dick, in 1910.
 * Sidney Webster Fish (1885–1950), who married Olga Martha Wiborg (1890–1937), daughter of Frank Bestow Wiborg, in 1915. In 1939, he married Esther Foss, the daughter of Gov. Eugene Noble Foss. She had previously been married to George Gordon Moore, a polo player whom she divorced in 1933, and Aiden Roark, another polo player whom she married in 1934 and divorced in 1937.

Stuyvesant Fish was a vestryman at Trinity Church, New York, and a member of the Republican Party.

Fish died on April 10, 1923, in New York.

Residences
From 1887 to 1898, Fish and his family lived at 19 Gramercy Park South, a brick row house located at the corner of Gramercy Park South (East 20th Street) and Irving Place in the Gramercy neighborhood of Manhattan, New York City.

Fish and his wife also maintained his grandmother's Federal-style house at 21 Stuyvesant Street, but after 1898, their New York residence was a brick and limestone Italianate mansion at 25 East 78th Street, at the corner of Madison Avenue. The house, which was designed by architect Stanford White, is now the headquarters of Bloomberg Philanthropies.

The Fish family built a grand Colonial Revival home named "Crossways" in Newport, Rhode Island, where they entertained during the summer social season. It was designed by Dudley Newton. Fish also had an estate named "Glenclyffe" in Philipstown, New York, which had belonged to his father.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Stuyvesant Fish


text:
Talk:Mora (linguistics)

Re: Another term for "mora" transparent to non-linguists.

Having difficulty explaining why counting syllabets created English haiku that were far longer than Japanese haiku, I found that we needed a new term, similar to "mora" but readable at a glance and far easier to remember. It is "syllabet." So far, I have only found it mentioned (I did get credit) in an article in a haiku magazine called Haijinxs.

"Syllabet" seems an intuitively correct way to describe the letters making up the Japanese syllabary.

Please feel free to use it!

robin d. gill

paraverse.org

Have revised the page WRT syllable-final consonants. The assumption that a syllable-final C counts as a mora on its own is incorrect, and is probably based on the situation in Japanese. In Japanese, only [n] can appear as a syllable coda, and it is pronounced syllabically, hence it is always a mora in Japanese. However, there's no phonological reason why the English word cat should be analysed as bimoraic. thefamouseccles 13:58 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure there is. English doesn't allow monomoraic content words like but it does allow bimoraic content words like . Since  is a word of English it must be bimoraic. --Angr 10:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

>>In Japanese, only [n] can appear as a syllable coda, and it is pronounced syllabically, hence it is always a mora in Japanese<< IS WRONG. For example, the so-called double consonants in the middle of words, phonological geminates, also represent some sort of syllable coda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.7.7.19 (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Added "modern" to the word "Japanese" last paragraph, since ancient Japanese was strictly syllable counting until in Heian period and ranged between mora counting and syllable counting even later (Bashō's poems vary between counting and not counting moraic n). --FAeR 16:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * note that Basho was not as strict about counting 5-7-5 as many modern haiku poets, and I've seen one account that said around 10% of his haiku/hokku deviated from that standard. Blank Verse   ∅  17:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, Bashō is not the best example, because he'd been using lots of jiamari and stuff. Nonetheless, I've been told that Japanese was syllable-timing some time ago, references: http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/~ts/japanese/message/jpnFHxuIVhkFH_R6rW9.html, http://www.sf.airnet.ne.jp/~ts/japanese/message/jpnFI1eqMHFFHy8bLL-.html --FAeR 30 June 2005 14:21 (UTC)

Can someone please add some examples to this article? As a non-Japanese speaker (and non-professional linguist), I think it would make the subject much easier to understand. matturn 00:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Amen to that. Also explain the term better. I have read and re-read this article several times and I still don't understand what "mora" means.DKMell (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Origin of the term
I know of no earlier use of the term "mora" as a linguistic unit than that by Edward Sapir. Unless someone knows of an earlier source, perhaps he should be given credit for coining this usage at least. Ziusudra 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Moren
"Mora" is a Latin term indicating a small delay or duration of time. This in mind, the plural "moræ" is acceptable. In addition to "moræ" and "moras", I have seen, in the work of Priebsch for instance, the use of the plural "moren". This plural seems natural and odd, and I am inclined to believe it comes from Priebsch, or some other German Filolog, introducing the word into English from German (which must have received it from Latin first), rather than Latin, and other, English writers, picking up this plural from him. Priebsch also suggests the idea of "half-moren" in order to solve certain moren counting inconsistencies.
 * Moren is certainly the German plural of Mora, but it would be quite odd to use moren as a plural of mora in English. Angr/ talk 12:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Japanese
The fact that Japanese uses moras for counting beats does not mean Japanese doesn't have syllables. The "syllabic n" can only be found in syllable coda position: [pan] is a possible (and real) word of Japanese, while *[npa] isn't. The "gemination mora" can also only occur in coda position: [patto] is a possible word of Japanese, but *[ppato] isn't. [pan] is "two beats" because it's two moras, and moras are what's counted in Japanese. But Japanese still definitely has syllables. Angr (t • c) 10:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think more examples are needed. The subject is hard enough to understand as is.

It's not that simple. Japanese is not English, and IMHO in Japanese the distinction between syllables and morae is not as marked (if there is any distinction at all). The syllabic nasal ん does occur as a word in it's own right, being a contraction of の "no". In songs ん is treated like any other syllable. That's why it's still reasonably accurate to say that a Haiku is 5/7/5 syllables. What about unvoiced vowels? した "shita" might sound like "shta" to the layman (one syllable) but in fact it is a full two syllables. The first one has an unvoiced vowel but still you put your mouth in the position of saying "shi" and you take about the same time to say it as if you voiced the /i/. It would feel wrong to think of "pan" or "shita" as one syllable words. You just wouldn't be speaking the language correctly. Raichu2 (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It is correct that in Japanese, the words Tōkyō (to-o-kyo-o とうきょう), Ōsaka (o-o-sa-ka おおさか), and Nagasaki (na-ga-sa-ki ながさき) all have four moras. To state that "they have two, three, and four syllables, respectively." is wrong. In Japanese each letter has one syllable. Japanese isn't English. In Japanese the letter for syllables and mora are basically the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.25.45.65 (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There is at least one Japanese word starting with "n": "nda", which means "yes" in Akita dialect. J IM ptalk·cont 13:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No tetramoraic syllables?
From the article: "Most linguists believe that no language uses syllables containing four or more moras." But how is the English word "trounced" [tɹ̥aʊnst] ordinarily broken up into moras? Using Japanese rules, it would be t-ro-u-n-ce-d (トラウンスト). --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk)
 * Right, but English isn't Japanese. There's no reason to believe that every segment in a syllable coda gets its own mora; trounced probably has no more moras than gown does (two or three depending on whose analysis you believe). —Angr 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But doesn't that mean the concept of moras is vacuous in English? If 'strengths' and 'bone' both have three moras, does this tell us anything useful at all? Jacob Newton (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In English, the concept of moras explains why [si:] (two moras) and [sIt] (two moras) are possible words, but *[sI] isn't a possible word. +Angr 10:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jacob Newton. Sea is really [si] phonemically for all native speakers and phonetically for many.  [sɪ] is not a word in English, but that's just a different vowel and not a difference in moras.  Anyway, everyone knows "meh" [mɛ] is a fully modern and used and popular word that's amazingly easy for every English speaker to pronounce.  "Sea" and "meh" and "sit" and "bones" and "trounced" are all equal because you use them equally.  They're all single syllables, and the moras are unknown to us English speakers becauese we don't pronounce moras.  They're just not part of our language.  I, just like many speakers, pronounce seat [sit] a little shorter than sit [sɪt], and this contradicts Angr's example about [si:].  A skosh longer here and a skosh shorter there is not the same thing as actual long and short vowels that exist in languages like Japanese.  We don't need to "believe" anyone's analysis because we don't need to believe in moras in English.  Moras are not real things that exist in soundwaves in the real world.  Moras are a way of chopping sounds, and in English, that way of chopping conflicts with actual usage.  Believing moras are in English is like believing Bilbo Baggins is in the Bible.  I sure hope this rant makes its point.  The whole way moras and syllables are being treated in Wikipedia smacks of writers getting tricked into believing in pie in the sky ideas and forgetting to focus on the reality.  Vacuous?  Yes!  Moras are fully vacuous.  They're not real.  They're fiction!  Fiction is immaterial nothing that you imagine.  More vacuous than a vacuum.  (Ejoty (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC))
 * You hoped your rant made its point, but in fact it makes no sense at all. It's true moras are not directly measurable with soundwaves, but then neither are syllables, and neither is the difference between tense and lax vowels like /i/ and /I/. That doesn't mean moras "aren't part of our language", and it certainly doesn't mean "we don't pronounce moras", which doesn't even make sense. The fact that /sit/ has a slightly longer vowel than /sIt/ has nothing whatever to do with mora count. I'm confident that Wikipedia's coverage of moras reflects the current majority view among professional mainstream phonologists. +Angr 15:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, you bothered to read my rant, but got what I said about [sit] and [sɪt] backwards. Secondly, you rudely accuse me of making no sense at all, while demonstrating my point.  You say that both syllables and moras aren't directly measurable "with soundwaves," and that shows how both moras and syllables are cultural constructs we CAN use to add to our understanding of pronunciation.  We aren't required to perceive moras in English the same way we're not required to do a feminist reading of "Hamlet."  Think about how syllables are relevant enough to be shown in the pronunciations given in English dictionaries while moras are neither indicated in these dictionaries nor sought by their readers.  Now think about how, when you advocate the use of moras for the analysis of English, you are trying to put an O-shaped peg into an あ-shaped hole.  (Ejoty (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Sorry, I hadn't noticed that you got your facts about /sit/ and /sIt/ backwards. Moras and syllables aren't "cultural concepts", they're units of a linguistic model that attempts to make sense of how languages work, and they are equally useful for describing both English and Japanese. Of course "we aren't required to perceive moras in English", but we're not required to perceive them in Japanese either, nor are we required to perceive syllables in either language. But our understanding of the phonologies of both languages is improved if we posit both categories in our analyses of both languages. There are definitely languages where moras don't seem to play any role, and a few where even syllables don't seem to play any role, but English and Japanese aren't among either group. +Angr 18:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are sarcastically apologizing and saying I have my facts backwards, but my facts are indisputably straight. They're indisputable because I was referencing my own pronunciation.  That's something you can't debunk, at least without scurrying around me with a voice recorder.  [sɪt] is the longer one for me.  There's a whole community I acquired this pronunciation from, and we don't have any facts backwards, and your way isn't more correct.  You quote me that we're not required to perceive moras in English, but you're not showing comprehension of cultural constructs or the analogies I've made to illustrate them.  You can't think or utter noumenal things (things in themselves). Every word you type and think is a cultural construct.  Of course mora is too.  Both mora and syllable are products of our minds, and there is no 'real' mora or syllable hiding out there for you to defend.  By using syllables to affect timing and relate to prosody, the English language asserts the existence of syllables in itself as a text.  This is an interplay of cultural constructs, but that's all that languages consist of.  Because of this assertion, English speakers learn the concept of the syllable while learning to pronounce words as babies.  We don't know learn moras as babies, and our brains don't need to be wired for them in order to speak English.  Damian Yerrick's example defies the use of moras for English: linguists can't even agree on a number of moras for it.  He didn't even use "strengths" which is the most extreme argument.  Syllables are a neat and workable tool for English, but moras are defective.  It's not odd that we native speakers have doubts about moras, easily think up ideas that break the rules of moras, and observe that they're vacuous: it's what our language asserts.  Japanese is a perfectly fine language.  Let's admit that moras describe languages like Japanese, and start making sense to our readers.  Both the tetramoraic rule, and moras have been trounced by English.  (Ejoty (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Neither moras nor syllables are "cultural concepts". They are nothing but tools linguists use to make explaining the behavior of languages easier; the same is true of phonemes, phonological features, and syntactic trees. None of these things is "real" in an objectively measurable way, but all of them belong in an adequate theory of linguistics. English speakers do not "learn the concept of the syllable while learning to pronounce words as babies", they learn the concept of the syllable when they go to school and their teacher tells them about it. The fact that they'll learn about syllables in elementary school but won't learn about moras until they take a linguistics class at university doesn't mean syllables are more important in the analysis of English, or more "real" in the minds of speakers, than moras are. +Angr 16:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, both are cultural concepts but that does not make them "vacuous." A wide variety of phenomena, even those with a biological basis, have connections to culture.  Food, for instance, is a cultural concept (what we consider isn't food, how we eat it, etc) but it's still a reality and certainly not vacuous.  Language itself is also a cultural concept (what constitute words and meanings, the accepted word order, the proper place for use, etc) but there's no question that language exists in a non-vacuous way.
 * Similarly, while the treatment and importance of moras and syllables vary amongst different languages and analyses thereof (i.e. culture), calling them "vacuous" means that their use in phonology is unhelpful when that is simply untrue. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  17:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

My 2¢: It's kind of interesting that every monosyllabic English word with no coda and a lax vowel (ǝ, e, ı, æ, ɑ/ɔ, ʌ; those that were short before the Great Vowel Shift) is a function word.137.99.243.225 (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Examples, please
Plenty of English examples would be helpful. After all, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is, surely, widely consulted by people with no specialized knowledge of the subject. Norvo (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Norvo. If you understand it, then you'd be able to simplify it to layman's terms. After reading once through the article I still have no real concept of what mora is. Please give examples, something we can identify with. Dragix (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 * English doesn't work well for examples. It's not a matter of understanding it, but of the structure of the language.

 * A mora is a "sub-syllable": it's what light syllables have one of and heavy syllables have two (or three) of. They're important for figuring out stress in Latin, Arabic, and Hindi, and for poetic meter at least in Latin and Japanese. English just doesn't work that way: in English, the syllable depends on stress, stress doesn't depend on the syllable. If we had to make up an example, I guess I'd say that the si in sitter was one mora, which is why the t joins that syllable (sit-er), whereas the ce in cedar is two moras, which is why it can be a full syllable (ce-der). But I doubt that would stand up very well to scrutiny, and in any case would be WP:original research. —kwami (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include a link to a audio file of a linguist reading the text? Reading the examples out loud requires an understanding that not everyone has. In this case a sound is worth a thousand characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Docmartin9 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think a sound file would help. You can't really hear moras directly. +Angr 10:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Norvo and Dragix that examples in English (the language I read Wikipedia in) would be greatly helpful. Also most helpful in the list of languages would be English, at least as helpful as, say, Gilbertese.66.241.92.187 (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)TerryDarc

Joining the Greek chorus, I would underscore the importance of these suggestions. There's a whole family of terms (mora, isochrony, prosody) that are incredibly important not only to linguists but musicians. I've been wrestling with these terms for years and would be in heaven if Wikipedia could establish a global policy of providing examples for terms, with audio being highly encouraged. Just as you add warnings such as "this article needs citations", you could add "this article needs examples". Otherwise each of the articles of this type becomes a discussion among people who already understand the subject, while many of us laymen are desperately trying to understand it in the first place! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevintimba (talk • contribs) 20:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect syllable count
"the words Tōkyō (to-o-kyo-o とうきょう), Ōsaka (o-o-sa-ka おおさか), and Nagasaki (na-ga-sa-ki ながさき) all have four moras, even though they have two, three, and four syllables, respectively."

This is wrong. All three of these words have four syllables. Fix this junk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.145.68.29 (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, they don't. You know the difference between a syllable and a mora, right? — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]  05:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 * There has been debate about "Tokyo" as an example over on the Haiku discussion page (and also about the transliteration of the separated morae). The biggest problem, to my mind, is that English-speaking readers pronounce "Tokyo" as three syllables (To-ky-o) and Japanese-speakers saying this is a mispronunciation does not help the clarity. See http://inogolo.com/pronunciation/d291/Tokyo Tesspub (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see another issue with this: as I understand it, the concept of "syllable" is as obscure to Japanese speakers as "morae" is to English speakers. I am not certain you can state unequivocally that, in Japanese, Osaka has three syllables, for example. Taking this point together with my point above it makes the statement that Tokyo has two syllables even more confusing and even less helpful. Tesspub (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Symbol missing
Could be nice if the symbol µ for mora was mentioned somewhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.84.147 (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Latin metre
Is Latin metre effectively an example, with long syllables being two moras long? If so perhaps the article should say something about this. Ben Finn (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tamil
This section is not really useful without transliteration of what I assume is Tamil script. A translation of meaning would also be a polite addition.121.215.167.60 (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Someone should do this for those of us who don't understand the script. Is there a special tag for this? I've been unable to find one.

Is there a tag marking this page as missing translation/transliteration/transcription? --Pet'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 22:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I've added not English to the section and listed it at Pages needing translation into English. Huon (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Excellent! Thanks a lot! Pet'usek [ petr dot hrubis at gmail dot com ] 14:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

A syllable onset (the first consonant or consonants of the syllable) does not represent any mora.
Is it not rather that the syllable onset TOGETHER WITH the syllable nucleus represents at least one mora? --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

English short diphthongs
The article doesn't mention which diphthongs are short in Present English or Old English --Backinstadiums (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Mora (linguistics)


text:
USS Mitscher (DL-2)

USS Mitscher (DL-2/DDG-35), named for Admiral Marc "Pete" Mitscher USN (1887–1947), was the lead ship of her class of destroyer leaders of the United States Navy. Commissioned in 1953, she was later converted to a guided missile destroyer, and served until 1978. She was sold for scrap in 1980.

Construction and commissioning
Originally designated DD-927, she was laid down by the Bath Iron Works Corporation at Bath, Maine on 3 October 1949, reclassified as a destroyer leader and designated DL-2 on 2 February 1951, launched on 26 January 1952 by Mrs. Marc A. Mitscher, widow of Admiral Mitscher and commissioned on 15 May 1953.

Service
Mitscher was initially homeported in Newport, R.I., and became the operational flagship for Commander Destroyer Flotilla Two. After initial shakedown exercises off Cuba, Mitscher returned to Boston for further modification, followed by another shakedown cruise to Guantanamo Bay, ending 31 August 1954. Homeported thereafter at Newport, R.I., she conducted exercises off the east coast until 3 January 1956, when she sailed on a good-will cruise to England, Germany, and France, returning to Rhode Island 10 February. For the next 5 years, she continued her east coast operations, deploying annually either to the northern or eastern Atlantic for NATO exercises.

In 1955, Mitscher cruised the Caribbean with Commander Destroyer Force, US Atlantic Fleet, embarked. In 1958, President Eisenhower broke his personal flag in Mitscher during the America's Cup Challenge Races off Newport. Mitscher journeyed to South America on a four-month cruise in 1959, and subsequently cruised to Northern Europe for extended NATO Exercises.

In November 1960, the ship's homeport was shifted to Naval Station Charleston, SC, where she became the operational flagship of Commander Destroyer Flotilla Six. On 9 February 1961, she departed her new homeport, and steamed to the Mediterranean for her first 6-month tour with the U.S. 6th Fleet. Early in 1961, Mitscher deployed with the Sixth Fleet. During this cruise, Mitscher was flagship for Admiral Anderson, Commander Sixth Fleet. The ship was again transferred to Newport, Rhode Island, in 1962, where she again became the flagship of Commander Cruiser Destroyer Flotilla Two. Such deployments over the next 4 years involved her in further NATO exercises as well as 6th Fleet exercises. Spring 1964, departed Newport, Rhode Island, for 6-month tour with 6th Fleet. In August 1964, while in the Mediterranean, she stood off Cyprus to aid in the evacuation of American nationals, and then steamed through the Suez Canal to patrol the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf. Returned to Mediterranean for 4-month tour with U.S. 6th Fleet in 1965, returned to Newport, Rhode Island, December 1965.

On 2 March 1966, Mitscher departed Newport for the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard. There, she was converted to a guided missile destroyer at between 18 March 1966 and 29 June 1968 and designated DDG-35. In late August 1970, Mitscher departed Norfolk for Mediterranean operations with COMDESRON One Four aboard. Her next deployment was in July 1971 as a member of Destroyer Squadron Twenty-Six, the "Mod Squad". Mitscher entered the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in March 1972 for overhaul.

Decommissioning and disposal
Mitscher was decommissioned and stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 1 June 1978, and sold for scrap in July 1980.

title: USS Mitscher (DL-2)


text:
USS John S. McCain (DL-3)

USS John S. McCain (DL-3/DDG-36) was the second Mitscher-class destroyer leader in the United States Navy. Commissioned in 1953, she was later converted into a guided missile destroyer and served until 1978. She was sold for scrap in 1979.

Construction and commissioning
The ship was launched by Bath Iron Works Corporation, Bath, Maine, on 12 July 1952. Originally designated DD-928 she was reclassified in 1951 as a destroyer leader. She was sponsored by Roberta McCain, the daughter-in-law of Admiral John S. McCain, Sr. (born 1884), and commissioned on 12 October 1953 at the Boston Naval Shipyard.

History
USS John S. McCain spent her first year of commissioned service undergoing sea trials and shakedown training in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea. One of the Mitscher-class destroyer of large and fast destroyer leaders, she carried the new guided-missile armament, and she embodied new ideas in hull design and construction. This warship arrived at Norfolk on 19 May 1955 to begin service with the Operational Development Force in testing new equipment and tactics. She operated out of Norfolk until 5 November 1956, when she steamed from Hampton Roads bound for the Panama Canal and San Diego, California. After her arrival on 4 December 1956, she spent five months on maneuvers in the Pacific Ocean off California.

The destroyer sailed for her first Far East cruise on 11 April 1957, and after a visit to Australia, she joined the Formosa (now called Taiwan) Patrol, helping to deter a military clash between Nationalist and Communist Chinese forces. She returned from this important duty to San Diego on 29 September 1957.

John S. McCain steamed to her new homeport, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in early 1958, and she took part in fleet maneuvers and antisubmarine training for the next eight months. In early September the ship deployed to the Formosa-South China Sea area to help the Seventh Fleet deter a possible Communist invasion of Quemoy and Matsu Islands. She remained in this region until returning to Pearl Harbor on 1 March 1959.

This warship made her third deployment to the Far East in the fall of 1959, departing on 8 September 1957 and moving directly to the coast of Southeast Asia. During October she was off Calcutta, India, carrying medicines and donating food and money to flood victims. In January 1960, this versatile ship rescued the entire 41-man crew of Japanese freighter Shinwa Maru during a storm in the South China Sea. Returning to Pearl Harbor on 25 February, she began a well-earned period of overhaul and shipboard training.

John S. McCain departed on 7 March 1961 for another deployment with Seventh Fleet, spending six months off Laos and Vietnam. She resumed operations in Hawaiian waters after her return to Pearl Harbor on 25 September With the resumption of atmospheric nuclear testing by the Soviet Union some months later, the United States went ahead with plans for her own series of Pacific tests, and John S. McCain steamed to Johnston Island on 27 April 1962 to take part in the experiments. For the next six months she operated between Hawaii and Johnston Island, departing for her next cruise to the Far East on 28 November 1962. There she returned to patrol duties in the South China Sea and Gulf of Tonkin, aiding the South Vietnamese government in its fight against the Viet Cong. She also took part in Formosa Patrol in the Straits before returning to Pearl Harbor on 16 June 1963. Antisubmarine warfare exercises followed, and the ship got underway again on 23 March 1964 for operations with a hunter-killer group in Japanese and Philippine waters. During this cruise she took part in exercises with ships from other SEATO nations as well as units of the 7th Fleet. John S. McCain returned to Pearl Harbor on 11 August. She operated in Hawaiian waters until the spring of 1965. The destroyer returned to Pearl Harbor, and then sailed on a six-month deployment in the western Pacific. In the fall, John S. McCain steamed off South Vietnam. On 24 November 1965 she shelled Viet Cong positions. Two days later she sailed to Hong Kong and ended the year in Japan. After further operations in the Far East early in 1966, John S. McCain returned to the East Coast of the United States.

On 24 June 1966, John S. McCain was decommissioned and entered the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard for conversion to a guided missile destroyer. She was recommissioned on 6 September 1969 and redesignated DDG-36.

Fate
USS John S. McCain was decommissioned and stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on 29–30 April 1978, and sold for scrap on 13 December 1979. Her entire class of guided missile destroyers was rather abruptly retired from service because of technical problems with their steam power plants.

title: USS John S. McCain (DL-3)