Talk:Erich Priebke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Garbled assertion, unclear causality

This caused great harm from people who had far from forgotten the incident, and this was the start of a trial which would last more than four years.

What does this mean? Perhaps something like:

This caused outrage amongst <some group or groups, e.g. ADL, relatives of those killed, etc>. <some cause, e.g. Attention from the US media> led to the four year court case against and ultimately the extradition from Argentina of Priebke.

The causual link is not clear in the article. Who put pressure on for his prosecution? One might say "general outcry", but that's just a rhetorical device. Most people don't care about atrocities unless someone shoves them in their face, and sometimes not even then. Mr. Jones 10:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article is translated from Norwegian

Much of this article is based on an article I made on the Norwegian wikipedia. That article was based again on a school project I wrote in 1999. I've included my sources on the Norwegian talk page, and I think it could be of some interest to include them here, too, though some of the links are broken. In addition to these internet articles, I used a couple of history books for more general knowledge about World War II.

[edit] Sources, including pictures of undetermined copyright status

I also included some pictures taken from these articles, in my original work. You can find those on my homepage. The only trouble is that I don't know whether or not these are copyrighted, and they are probably not GNU licensed. But if someone else would care to do the work and find out, it would be nice with more pictures in the article. Mendalus 18:04, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The new ones are copyrighted, most by reuters, but I'd say it's fair to claim fair use. Fuelbottle | Talk 00:07, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding "Italy capitulates"

This section wasn't relevant. I rewrote it before I remembered that this page isn't about Mussolini, or even fascist Italy. Even then, it wasn't exactly informative. So I've removed it. One-dimensional Tangent 03:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The section put the massacre in a historical context. It was necessary in my essay which the original wikipedia article was based upon. But a wikipedia article is different. People reading the article would probably be aquainted with WW2 history, at least to some extent. If not, they could always read up by other articles. I support you in the removal of the section. Mendalus 22:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are there appropriate link in the See Also section? Mr. Jones 10:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorists

Anyone else see the irony in describing convicted communist partisans engaged in acts of terrorism as "civilians"?

By that definition, the execution of Tim McVeigh was a "war crime" because he was a "civilian". LOL —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.10.35.153 (talkcontribs) 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC) JamesMLane t c 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

McVeigh was tried and convicted in a judicial proceeding, with right to counsel and other protections. The scheduling of his execution was also based on established principles, and was not changed to serve a temporary fit of retribution. There is no reason to use any term other than "civilians", because one of the issues was the military involvement in the deaths of non-military personnel. JamesMLane t c 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)