Talk:Einsatzgruppen trial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gustav Adolf Nosske[edit]

Here it reads in this article that Gustav Adolf Nosske died in 1990. But the link from his name reads 1986. Which is it? SilverWoodchuck47 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled[edit]

Any reason for the sudden release of all in 1958. It seems strange - new evidence?159.105.80.141 11:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not new evidence. Cold War and Amnesty. Lupo 12:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link to the article about Walter Blume seems to lead to an article about a different person of the same name. There should be a disambiguation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.197.117 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check.

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Auschwitz Trial which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Einsatzgruppen trial. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 November 2022[edit]

Procedural closure of this to combine it with the other move discussion which was also started today (by me) to reconcile conflicting titles in Holocaust trial names.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

– Most of these have no consistent capitalization either way, and therefore should be lowercased in Wikipedia per our capitalization rules. For examples, see Ministries T/trial and Einsatzgruppen T/trial. Some such as IG Farben trial appear to be trending towards the capitalized version but others such as Flick trial and RuSHA trial show the opposite pattern (during a time period when the Wikipedia articles were capitalized). In case someone is concerned that the lowercase versions might refer to something else, the Google Scholar results are pretty clear and also show mixed capitalization. Also, the capitalization of these trials should match the parent article, subsequent Nuremberg trials. In other cases such as Auschwitz trial the community has opted to lowercase "trial" in article titles. (t · c) buidhe 17:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addenum: the official short names of these trials end in "case", so "Justice Case" etc. These were originally capitalized and are generally capitalized in RS but the unofficial names with "trial" are not consistently so. (t · c) buidhe 17:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with buidhe, per their reasoning in addenum, above. Kierzek (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Doctors' Trial in specific, a move request to the current title was closed at 12:46, 3 November 2022, literally 5 hours before this discussion was initiated. See Talk:Doctors' Trial#Requested move 28 October 2022. -Ljleppan (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source review of Einsatzgruppen "trial" vs "Trial"[edit]

Proper noun (Einsatzgruppen Trial):
  • Tenenbaum, Joseph (1955). "The Einsatzgruppen". Jewish Social Studies. 17 (1): 43–64. ISSN 0021-6704. Retrieved 7 November 2022. (Sociology journal article)
  • Linder, Douglas. "The Nuremberg Trials." Available at SSRN 1027995 (2007). (SSRN research paper)
  • Amatrudo, Anthony. "Real-Life Cases: War Criminal Prosecutions and the Treatment of Membership of Illegal Organisations." Criminal Actions and Social Situations. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2018. 119-143. DOI: 10.1057/978-1-137-45731-8_5 (Sociology/Criminology journal article)
  • Baxter, Ian. Himmler's Death Squad-Einsatzgruppen in Action, 1939–1944: Rare Photographs from Wartime Archives. Pen and Sword Military, 2021. (History academic press book)
Not proper noun (Einsatzgruppen trial):

Heller, Kevin Jon (1 June 2011). "The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law". doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199554317.003.0014. Retrieved 7 November 2022. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) (Academic press book)

Mixed (both T and t):

Unknown/unclear:

The ngrams are equivocal, but have several periods throughout history (before Wikipedia) when T was preferred over t.

This is pretty clearly in favor of capital T "Trial" in my opinion. An overwhelming amount of the available scholarly sources, in both history and legal journals, are capitalized. The ngrams are equivocal. This isn't an RM, just a discussion. Does anyone object to me opening an RM here? Or disagree with my analysis? Does anyone have other scholarly articles they would like added to this list?— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC) (edited for clarity 16:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC) and for sources 18:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

@Buidhe@Ljleppan@Kierzek@Wallnot@SMcCandlish@El cid tagging interested parties from above discussion and from over at Talk:Auschwitz trial — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for starting the discussion. As we discussed, where the ngram is equivocal, that actually indicates it should be lowercase. Also, I’m not sure I would call your source review an “overwhelming majority”, given that you highlighted several sources using lowercase t. Source reviews are also less reliable for being less comprehensive than ngrams. For these reasons, I am opposed to a potential move. Wallnot (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input here, and I'm not intended to badger you, but I do not think that's a fair survey of the evidence presented.
  1. ngrams suffers from the following complicating issues: OCR errors, indiscriminate usage of any and all sources (e.g. a book that is reviewed in more than one abstract excerpt shows up several times, would include holocaust deniers and other non-experts), would not include un-OCR'd sources, and does not have many of the recent sources or scholarly sources I linked. Blind faith in ngrams is undeserved.
  2. I also didn't adjust the ngrams to account for differences over time, this has now been corrected. Several periods (1986-2201, 1942-1956), the capital T was clearly favored.
  3. "overwhelming majority" does not mean "unanimous". There will always be a small minority of sources which defy convention. This minority should not become the basis for how we title our articles.
— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although the ngram is an imperfect tool, selection of individual RSs is subject to a significant degree of bias. The comprehensive nature of the ngram is a significant advantage in that respect and should be considered along with evidence from sources. When the ngram itself shows that the two usages are equal, and only two thirds of the sources you yourself provided consistently capitalize the phrase, it is hardly the case that a "substantial majority" of sources favor capitalization.
Additionally, your statement that Several periods (1986-2201, 1942-1956), the capital T was clearly favored is misleading because sources from all these periods count toward the CAPS test, so the fact that there was a slight preference during certain periods does not outweigh the fact that most of the time the two forms are roughly equal. The peak difference occurred in 1993 I believe, and even then capital T was at only 64% of occurrences.
Finally, although overwhelming majority does not mean unanimity, the ngram and your own source review show that the group of sources that use lowercase t is at worst a large minority and at best equivalent to those that use uppercase t. Compare this state of affairs to the evidence for something that no one would dispute is a proper noun, such as the word Germany, which is capitalized in 99.7% of occurrences in an ngram, and I think both of us would struggle to find a single lowercase instance. Wallnot (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
comparison to "Germany" is misleading. A better comparison would be "Doctors' Trial" which the ngram shows a much murkier picture, but enough by community consensus to capitalize. I'm also not sure where you get 99.7% for Germany, I don't actually see that number anywhere on the ngram. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some additional lowercase-t sources. I did try not to duplicate anything you've already posted; if I did so, please know that it was a good faith mistake.

[1] · [2] · [3] · [4] · [5] · [6] · [7] · [8] · [9]

Additionally, I take issue with the quality of one of your sources; the Damplo piece is an undergraduate thesis. Wallnot (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several of your linked sources are book reviews, which replicate text from the book itself. I included the book, but did not include the review. Book reviews are also not typically subject to peer review or as strict formatting guidelines with editors, another reason to discount them. These are the ones I did not for this reason that you just linked: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] Book reviews are also tertiary sources. If you see any book reviews that I did include, let me know and I will remove them. I just removed Damplo. and added Langerbein. Can you provide a full text of Newman 2010 and Vice 2013? Or which page? I cannot verify that either of these has the small t anywhere. If we can't find it, I will add these to "Unknown/unclear" — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tertiary sources are reliable sources. I believe that trial is lowercase in the running text of the book reviews I provided, not just in quotations. Re Newman: small t is on the first page, top of the third column. Re Vice: my apologies; I now cannot find the lowercase t I had seen earlier.

As to your observation that book reviews are not subject to peer review, if that is the standard, you'll also have to omit the law journal articles you cite, as law journal articles are not subject to peer review. Wallnot (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I obtained the figures for Germany from the most recent year of data (2019). Re Doctors T/trial, the uppercase T is used 92% of the time in the most recent year of data. For that reason, I have not challenged that move at move review, although I think you closed it a bit hastily. The DT ngram tells a far different story from this one: since the 40s the capitalized form has predominated by an overwhelming margin and has only become more prevalent in the past few decades. So the result of that RM was certainly correct. Wallnot (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title should be lowercased because capitalized is not used by the significant majority of sources, so we default to lowercase. (t · c) buidhe 18:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above looks like a big exercise in cherry-picking. Looking at aggregate data (N-grams), and using a leading "the" to weed out occurrences in title-case titles, shows that lower-case trial overwhelmingly dominates: [17]  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatically disagree that a leading "the" is a fair modifier, but you are entitled to your opinion. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Einsatzgruppen_trial&oldid=1213764937"