Talk:Riom Trial

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Broken English 2 French source 3 Civility and removal of sources & content 4 International context

[edit] Broken English

All right, cool down! If you're not satisfied with the translation, the least you could do is review the changes made. There was a factual error (which you restablished), which I tried to point out in the article (apparently not as well as I should have). Mainly the distinction between Pétain's decree which absolved Reynaud & Daladier in 1941, and that the trial itself was supposed only to judge the persons, and not the politicians (already "judged" by Pétain). Furthermore, I added of course the interwiki to the French version which you forgot to do. I'm certainly not going to reverse your move just now, but please read again cautiously fr:Procès de Riom and you will see where your factual mistake was. "If you can translate correctly than I can also", but if I can read correctly than you can also! No, sincerely, calm down, review the mistakes and correct them, or correct my grammar mistakes. Furthermore, why did you removed the different sections? And finally, why did you remove additions such as Eleonor Roosevelt's telegram? (I understand that you get angry since you just created the article and a "dumb editor" is ruining it up - the same thing just happenned to me at Anti-Sacrilege Act...) Tazmaniacs 13:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: The introduction in particular is problematic. The trial was made by Vichy, you make it sound like the Germans had asked for it. Tazmaniacs 14:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even talking about details such as linking Blum to the Socialist Party (he should be linked to the SFIO) and other likewise stuff. Tazmaniacs 14:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I did revert, too many factual mistakes and deletion of relevant information. Please chill out and discuss the matter here. Regards, Tazmaniacs 14:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am supposed to accept edits such as "Marshall Pétain wanting to reject the responsibility of the defeat on politicians rather than on militaries" and "Marshal Pétain announced to the radio that he would himself condemned the guilty parties after having heard the advise of the Conseil de justice politique (Political Justice Council) which he had instaured," am I? I don't think so. If there is a franglais Wikipedia I suggest you go and edit at it and leave the English Wikipedia to people who can write basic English. As I said on your Talk page, if there are errors in the article or material missing from it, anyone is free to add material to it. But I won't accept rubbish like this. Adam 14:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would first advise you to be civil even though humility might not be your preferred word. Now, concerning the article itself, I'm sorry but on this kind of subject, I think historically inaccurate statements are worst than a few grammar mistakes, easily corrected & which find their causes in a quickly done translation. I won't accept your version, because it is false, in particular concerning the points above mentionned, and your translation of the French Wiki article was incomplete. Tazmaniacs 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I have done your work for you and fixed your subliterate editing. I have also deleted various irrelevancies which you introduced. Adam 01:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Next time do not delete the international context (wikilink to invasion of Russia, which prompted Pétain to take his decision), nor to the Le Monde article which is the only reference for the article (and, by the way, since you translated it from the French Wiki, the only ref for "your" article). Another personal attack and you will be reported. A bit of judgment on your part would see that being civil would help us both and certainly dispose me to understand better the reasons which push you to delete HISTORICAL INFORMATION. Tazmaniacs 12:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I did not translate this article from fr.Wikipedia - I translated that article and then wrote my own. That is why my article is in English and not pidgin French.
• I am unaware of any connection between the start of Barbarossa (June 1941) and the Riom Trial in 1942, and you have not provided any connection. What possible connection could there have been?
• Your edits were subliterate - do you really think "instaured" is an English word? I am not trying to be uncivil, but three years editing here has taught me that frankness is necessary to get things done. Adam 12:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Before the opening of the trial, Pétain announced that he had himself condemn the defendants after having heard the advice of the Political Justice Council) which he had created" Is that what you call "fixing my subliterate editing". In the meanwhile, you've still removed historical information included in the French Wiki. This is content dispute, not simple copy-editing. And your personal attacks are going nowhere towards a resolution of a content dispute. Strange, I thought you had been editing here since a while: is it the first time you meet such a "dumb-ass" as me? (let me call myself names, I'm perfectly able to do it without you). If this is the case, I advise you to read a book, and come back when you've chilled out. Tazmaniacs 12:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It took me about 3 seconds to change "instaured" to "set up". Thanks for pointing out the mistakes. Any others? Tazmaniacs 14:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French source

Also, the external link is to an article in French, which is both useless to English readers and contrary to policy. I agree the article needs references, but this is not a valid one. Adam 12:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in arguing these matters with you further. I will work on improving the article, and I will continue to revert substandard edits, from any source. Adam 12:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to policy? Are you joking? Please show me that "policy", because if you won't find it in WP:RS, especially when dealing with a French subject. This is a valid reference~, and is useless to readers who are only able to read English. Which is not the case of many "subliterate editors". Tazmaniacs 12:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

See Sources in languages other than English. Tazmaniacs 14:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility and removal of sources & content

OK. Three years of editing, and you are not aware of Wikipedia:Be civil and of how to solve NPOV dispute (according to you, no need in "arguing these matters"). 3 years of editing, and you consider that you can write a history article without any dates, removing dates (although this might lead to think that Hitler's statements was in April or June rather than in March, but hey! this was half a century ago? who cares?). I'm sorry, but the first thing to do on a history article is inserting the revelant dates immediately after the title. Second, bland sentences like "The trial was held in Riom" (really?), gain by being replaced by sentences such as "Held in Riom, the trial..." (but, I know, your "highly literate level" doesn't entail writing style, only grammar and spelling). Third, removing relevance to international context, especially when dealing with WWII, is paramount to vandalism. You don't see any link between them? Although you translated this from fr:Procès de Riom? Maybe you should make yourself familiar with the article you're translating before actually translating it, as you seem to share with me some "subliterate" skills. You don't see any links with Operation Barbarossa and Pétain's speeding-up the trials? But maybe you shouldn't be editing articles about WWII? You repeatedly removed Blum's sentence concerning Jean-Pierre Timbaud, although it is of course in the fr:Procès de Riom. Why that? Is it that you translate only extracts that fit your ideological understanding of events? You removed French source on external link, although it's the only one, claiming - without proof - that Wikipedia policies do not tolerate them. See WP:RS, and please be aware that removing source (especially when it's the only provided) may be considered vandalism. If you're troubled by the French, find an English one to add to it. I think that's about it. Contrary to you, I've tried to improve the article, both by taking into account the left-over extracts from the French version, and your helpful (although agressive) language corrections. I hope you will look at the difference before reverting, especially since it seems that what differs your version from mine is not any more any language problems. Cheers, have a nice day (or shall I say a good evening?) Tazmaniacs 12:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I will return to this article tomorrow. I have already fixed up your mess once so I dare say I can do so again. In the meantime I will consult some English references.
• This article is not merely a translation of the fr.Wikipedia article. Not everything which is considered relevant to French readers will be relevant to English readers. Who for example was Jean-Pierre Timbaud? Why is he relevant to this article?
• English article require English references, not articles in French. As I said before, I will find some.

See Sources in languages other than English. Tazmaniacs 14:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• No, I do not see any link between Barbarossa and the Riom trial, and until you can explain what it is I will delete the reference, which merely mystifies readers.
• I am entirely unimpressed by (a) heavyhanded irony (b) cheap sarcasm and (c) threats to report me. I have played both sides of these games many times. Adam 12:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Enough. You don't know who was Jean-Pierre Timbaud? Well, that's not because you don't know it that it doesn't interest "English readers". You claim law retroactivity is a principle contrary to French law, although in fact it is a principle contrary to almost any juridic system, and you remove the link to the according principle Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege poenali. You do not see that Barbarossa was a shifting point in the Second war, and that it may have changed people's actions? You're not serious, are you? Tazmaniacs 13:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Another statement you "forget" to translate (close to JPTimbaud's case): "On the other hand, he (Léon Blum) showed that the Popular Front had made the greatest war efforts since 1918." Why? Tazmaniacs 14:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International context

You do not see the link between Barbarossa and Pétain's speeding up of the trial? On August 12, 1941, Pétain sees a "bad wind" lifting up (sentence from history textbook: "L'opinion bascule entre 1942 et 1943. Déjà le maréchal Pétain voit se lever le "vent mauvais" (12 août 1941). Il est vrai que le pillage organisé au profit de l'Allemagne multiplie les difficultés d'approvisionnement et de vie, notamment dans les villes, et que la ligne de démarcation taille dans la chair des familles et du pays jusqu'au 11 novembre 1942.") Pétain is afraid, and wants to finish with this trial (which hasn't even started: Blum & co were first detained, and then it was decided to judge them). Tazmaniacs 14:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"Toute une série d'actions mettent en évidence la fin du consensus que Vichy avait tenté de promouvoir en 1940 et au début de 1941. En mars 1941 ont lieu à Marseille des manifestations en l'honneur du roi Pierre II de Yougoslavie qui vient de chasser le germanophile régent Paul. En mai 1941, les mineurs du Nord et du Pas-de-Calais se mettent en grève pour obtenir hausses de salaires et meilleur ravitaillement, à la grande colère des Allemands qui comptent sur la production des houillères. Les "V", symboles de la victoire alliée, apparaissent sur les murs des grandes villes. Les mouvements de résistance, jusque-là embryonnaires, se développent et leurs tracts et la presse clandestine font connaître aux Français leur existence et leurs objectifs. Enfin, après l'attentat du métro Barbès [by colonel Fabien ], la résistance communiste, bientôt suivie des autres organisations, passe à l'action directe contre l'ennemi." (p.349, Serge Berstein et Pierre Milza - see fr:Serge Berstein et fr:Pierre Milza -, Histoire de la France au XXe siècle, t.II (1930-1945), Ed. Complexes, 1991.

If you don't understand what changed in France between 1940 and 1942, and in particular in 1941, you might want to review the history of Vichy France, instead of making personal attacks on my "subliterate" skills. Tazmaniacs 14:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)