Talk:Chenogne massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

[edit] Wording "murder" vs "execution"

On 2006-07-04 07:41:05, anonymous editor 203.155.1.246 changed the word "murder", in quotes, to "the execution", in the phrase, "An eyewitness account by John Fague of B Company, 21st Armored Infantry Battalion, of battle near Chenogne describes 'murder' of German prisoners by American soldiers..." There was no edit comment about why the change. I think the word "murder" is appropriate, because that's the word used later in the quotation. I don't see the point of this change. Over on the Malmedy massacre page, there's a lot of debate about political motivations for this or that change, so I'd feel more comfortable knowing what the anonymous editor is seeking to accomplish. For now, I'm reverting the change. --Jdlh | Talk 05:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war over "war crime" phrase in introduction

There seems to be an edit war brewing over the phrasing of the introduction to the Chenogne massacre article, and in particular the use of the phrase "war crime" and of definite rather than tentative wording. User:Markus Becker02 has made the same edit three times in 31 hours between 09:57, December 17, 2006 and 16:52, December 18, with the comment "sugar coating removed". User:WookMuff reverted those changes twice, with the comment "rv ignorant edit". This is very close to violating Wikipedia's three-revert rule.

I'm reverting the change for now. In line with the Wikipedia policy on resolving disputes, I'm asking both of you, and any other interested editors, to discuss the matter here. I'd like to ask that we try to get a consensus here before making any further changes. I don't want this situation to become an edit war that causes problems for either the article or any editors.

The text preferred by User:Markus Becker02 seems to boil down to "was a war crime committed by...", while the pre-existing text which User:WookMuff is preserving seems to boil down to "refers to an alleged war crime".

Please put your comments and opinions below, and sign with ~~~~ (four tildes). --Jdlh | Talk 07:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

My perspective is that I know this article well; I wrote the original version in July 2006, and no-one has substantially improved the body of the article or the references since then. Did this massacre actually happen? The only verification comes from (Sorge 1986), a published book, and (Fague 2006), a web page. I personally checked those sources. (Sorge 1986) cites (Gallagher 1964) as his source. I haven't checked (Gallagher 1964); has anyone else? And was this a "war crime"? What verifiable sources describe it as such? User:Markus Becker02, if you are as confident as your edits seem to indicate, I'd appreciate you identifying some verifiable sources and quoting what they say. User:WookMuff, I think that "rv ignorant edit" isn't a particularly good way to reach consensus with another Wikipedia editor. I'd like to hear why you think the edits are ignorant. Let's take this energy and put it into making the article better researched and written, not fighting about wording. --Jdlh | Talk 07:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, in that i was not being calm and rational, but i find the phrase "Sugar coating" to be highly offensive. I was the person that added the phrase "war crime" to the page and then another user comes along and accuses my use of the word allegedly (which i maintain was perfectly justified due to lack of information about and lack of any form of trials, declassified investigation, or other historical confirmation) as sugar coating is not only offensive, it trully is ignorant. This user appears to have a bias against the US and accuses me of having a pro-US bias, which is ridiculous as I am Australian and try to view things objectively, which i feel thise user does not. To claim that one skewed historical study and a soldiers recollections from over sixty years after the events makes for definitive proof is ridiculous. I am not saying that this is NOT a war crime, it fits the criteria so it quite possibly is, IF IT HAPPENED. I recently approached an administrator for advice about this brewing edit-war (Here) and have not made a third revert. To be honest, i would prefer the word alleged in front of the incedent itself, but to refer to an "alleged war crime, where american soldiers allegedly killed german prisoners" is far too much. WookMuff 11:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Disinterested third opinion: From looking at the sources "alleged" is precisely what this war crime is. There appears to be controversy; the official position is that it did not occur; there is no solid evidence. There is enough weak evidence to take the possibility that this occurred seriously. I concur with Jdlh that "rv ignorant edit" is not the most civil edit summary I have seen, and you may wish to reconsider your edit summary phrasing in the future. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering I asked for your opinion, it would be rather churlish of me to ignore it. I agree that my edit summary was impolite in the extreme, and do apologise for that. Thank you for weighing in. WookMuff 13:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

WookMuff, thank you for your response. I'm glad we're having the discussion. --Jdlh | Talk 02:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"And was this a "war crime"? What verifiable sources describe it as such?"

What the hell is going on here? You have named them yourself. A 1986/1964 book and in 2006 a US veteran(eyewitness) confirms it. What else do you need? An official US Army investigation? Markus Becker02 15:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Markus, please remember WP:CIVIL and moderate your approach. If something is unclear, simply ask for clarification. If you disagree, state so without hyperbole or sarcasm. Thanks much~ KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Markus, "what else do [I] need?" First and foremost, I'd like to see different and more reliable sources about this incident. Was there an official US Army investigation? A news report? Something written in a different book? Find those verifiable sources, and put them in the article. Second, I'd like some source that is an expert on what happened at Chenogne and on war crimes that says, "this act happened and it was a war crime". That would be stronger than one of us editors making the judgement ourselves. Thirdly, I'd like to see some editor say that they read the 1964 book, that it has the phrase that the 1986 book says it has, and that the 1964 book is credible. Fourthly, I'd like to see some editor give evidence that the 2006 web page really is an eyewitness account, and not a fake. I could post a web page saying that I saw purple snow falling at Chenogne in 1945; that wouldn't make it an eyewitness account or true. Can you contribute any sources like these? I hope this helps explain my concerns. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Jdlh | Talk 02:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, beside the sources your have found, this article is almost the only one you can find when browsing the Net. However, I have found a reference to a French written book that could have interesting content on this topic, as the author managed to interview many veterans of the 11th amored division[1]. But I think this is quite logical as it happened in the middle of the Battle of Bulge, just after the Malmedy massacre, and at a place where the must have been numerous Germans killed in action. Moreover, there has never been a trial nor official reports on the case, which explains it remains quite confidential even today. This does however not mean it did not happen. As such, one could wonder whether there is no some understatement in Hugh Cole's when he writes that after Malmedy, the German soldiers might have been more at risk of being killed while trying to surrender (or something like that, sorry I don't remember the precise wording) --Lebob-BE 16:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying that something is quite logical doesn't mean anything. Its possible that, in the furor surrounding Roswell, lots of Aliens decided this were gettng too hot on earth and left the planet. That WOULD be the logical thing to do. But if you find this french source, by all means add it. WookMuff 19:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with this. What I have found so far is a reference to this book written by a Belgian author. However, I didn't actually read this book so that I am absolutely unable to tell you what is written in this book about the massacre, even if I am ready to believe there has actually been a massacre of German POWs. Furthermore, this is the reason why I can hardly quote this book as reference without having at least got the opportunity to read a significant excerpt of it. I will look whether I can find a summary (of more) of this book. --Lebob-BE 19:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, i am heartily willing to believe there was a massacre of german POWs, i just don't want it given as fact in wikipedia if there is very little evidence that it even occured. I am neither denying the possibility nor the believeability, merely the lack of hard factual evidence. If you can get a copy of this book (or a reliable summary perhaps, i don't know about wikipedia's standards on that) then go for it WookMuff 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)