Talk:60th anniversary of Nuremberg trials marked

The big section on Alfried Krupp kinda throws this out of balance. This is up as one of the lead articles at the moment and adding a section like that might be being a bit too bold. I don't know if it needs equal quantities on the others that stodd trial, a reduced quantity on him, or a mixture of the two. Brian McNeil / talk 21:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've looked into this some more, Alfried Krupp doesn't even have a Wikipedia entry. If the sentences of anyone are going to be mentioned, it should be the players who have WP entries.  Even so, it isn't central to the story.  The main issue here is the anniversary.  Anyone who wants to know more about the events that happened sixty years ago can look at the Wikipedia article on the subject.  As to the six degrees of separation between him and GWB, I really don't think it belongs here.  It is POV.  It goes way beyond an insinuation that the President is related to Nazi Germany right over to stating it as fact.  As long as that section remains in I will make no objection to anyone tagging this with  and I hope I have made why clear. Brian McNeil / talk 21:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's a huge wikipedia entry on Alfried Krupp; I will do the link. It is only interesting historical stuff,imo, but if anyone feels it's too upsetting, just edit it out; I will not replace it. Neutralizer 22:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not see this huge entry, I see a Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.
 * Yes, it's a bit hard to get to. I just put up the link to the actual wiki Nuremberg trial of Krupp and here's another one Neutralizer 22:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The wrong Krupp
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach was present at the Nuremburg trials, the Krupp you've put in this article was not, and the article you've linked to states that. He was tried at subsequent trials, see Subsequent_Nuremberg_Trials, not at the trial of the major criminals. These were in the years following the main globally-significant trials held in the city. For this reason I believe no information about Alfried Krupp belongs in the article, particularly as it is suiting a single POV that tries to portray the current US administration as inherently evil. Brian McNeil / talk 22:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is it correct now? The wikim link goes to the trial that begins "The Krupp Trial (or officially, The United States of America vs. Alfried Krupp, et. al.) and includes the sentence "The main defendant Alfried Krupp always denied any guilt." Wow; what an imagination; who is talking about evil? This story is all about history ! Plus; the current administration is not referred to directly or indirectly in any of my edits...but as I said; if the historical facts are too shocking or dejavuish; then bury it back in its long forgotten hole; I won't be surprised or offended or angry at all; just trying to add some meat to the story that we won't find on CNN. Neutralizer 23:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand now, Brian... Not the same trials. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand; wasn't Krupp's trial at Nuremburg? Neutralizer 02:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It was. But when you're refering to "Nuremberg trials" you usually mean the Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal. Gustav Krupp (father of Alfried) was tried there but declared unfit. Alfried was later tried as part of the Subsequent Nuremberg Trials. All very confusing, indeed. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh; ok...yes I see that Krupp's trial was 1948; sorry all; thanks for clarification. Neutralizer 14:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this cleared up now, but I'd like to go back to the point I made in bold above. This was my description of a POV that was being placed in the article, and if you want to do that you have to prove it, as the saying goes, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Based on the comment about not stopping others editing out the bit I flagged as inappropriate I did so before giving up for the night. Deprifry has explained this, but the fact that no useable source gave an article covering the anniversary and the Krupp that you'd added should have set off alarm bells. Brian McNeil / talk 21:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

chomsky quote
This Chomsky quote is very well known - i'm not sure if this is the best way to add it in - please NPOV it if you think it's not NPOV enough.

AFAIK, Chomsky would probably agree with the statement by Whitney R. Harris - at least if the statement were modified to some of the principles of the Nuremberg case have been followed in recent years. So they're not technically contradicting each other. The International Criminal Court is certainly going in the direction of the Nuremberg principles, it just happens that several states (especially the US) do not want it to operate fully according to those principles.

Anyway, we cannot put in the article what Chomsky would probably agree with nor what Whitney R. Harris would probably also agree with as a modification of his statement, so i'm just writing this on the talk page. Boud 13:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it actually brings some balance to an article that otherwise indicates that the nazi war crimes were somehow extreme. Neutralizer 19:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No sarcasm please: this is an extremely serious topic. The nazi war crimes were of course extreme. Nearly everyone in the country where i live (Poland) has someone in their family (grandfather, cousin, ...) who either survived or was exterminated in a concentration camp. You may not believe that the statement by Chomsky is correct - many people do believe that the statement is correct. That's why i put the quote as a citation by Chomsky. This is NPOV. Boud 23:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It isn't sourced, not even in the article on Chomsky himself - who, incidentally, wasn't involved in the commemoration of the anniversary of the Nuremberg trials. Brian McNeil / talk 20:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is an NPOV fact that Chomsky made this statement. It is also an NPOV fact - see Noam Chomsky - that Chomsky is an intellectual highly respected for his research by many people e.g. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index, between 1980 and 1992 Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any living scholar, and the eighth most cited source overall. And it is also an NPOV fact that Chomsky is highly criticised by many people. As far as NPOV is concerned, that makes him neither right nor wrong. However, he is someone much better known around the English-speaking world than Whitney R. Harris, so the fact that he makes such as a statement is itself NPOV following a statement by Whitney R. Harris. Boud 23:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that meant to be funny? Adding a link to a copyright violation which is a piece of news completely unrelated to the story that the article is about?  Chomsky referenced Nuremberg in this apparently contentious quote as an emotive appeal to try and carry his argument.  He wasn't there, he had absolutely nothing to do with the event, and he doesn't belong in this article. Brian McNeil / talk 20:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong: Chomsky referenced Nuremberg because he believes it to be an accurate statement. If we can cite what one person claims are applications of the Nuremberg principles today, then we can cite what another person claims about the applications of those principles. Secondly, this is not a copyright violation, it is a valid citation. And of course this is not funny. Many years ago i would have said that Chomsky's statement was obviously false. Since then i have met many people in different parts of the world, learned a lot more about the world, and now his claim IMHO is quite reasonable. In any case, my personal judgement about the truth of Chomsky's statement is only very marginally relevant: what is more important is the fact that he makes this statement and is well known for having made it. Boud 23:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Brian; it's a matter of programming, in my opinion. We,of western influence, are programmed to immediately accept connections between airplanes hitting buildings and old men in robes afar away in afghan caves....because our government tells us to...solving the biggest crime of the past 100 years in a matter of a few hours to our satisfaction.And we feel quite comfortable reporting that connection as being NPOV.


 * However, when we can actually see,as fact, that the price of a barrel of oil has increased from $16. on Sep/10/01 to $56. today; and we know that people other than the old guy in the robe are the ones benefiting from the price of oil; we simply can not put that 2 + 2 connection together because noone in authority has told us to.


 * Thus, most of us feel comfortable putting a geopolitical quote by someone with no geopolitical expertise into the article but we don't feel comfortable putting a geopolitical quote by a world reknown expert on geoplitical affairs into the article. People like Boud can see the world; but people like us control it. Neutralizer 01:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The quote from Whitney R. Harris belongs, he was "a member of the U.S. prosecution team". As I've tried to point out above, Chomsky doesn't belong unless you want the article to be a piece of US-bashing that belongs in a tabloid.  I have work to get on with, but if this is not resolved by removing the Chomsky quote I will put a NPOV tag on the article and ask for input from others. Brian McNeil / talk 09:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Serious Topic
I agree, you may wish to look back at the parts of this very article that were deleted before you became involved;

http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=60th_anniversary_of_Nuremberg_trials_marked&oldid=166999

and at these articles to see not only how serious the topic still is.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031017-110534-8149r.htm

Neutralizer 01:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * These sections were not deleted before I became involved. I deleted them because, as the discussion above illustrates, this is the wrong Krupp you added into the article.  The Fox article you cite for your crusade to get Wikinews to insinuate GWB is a Nazi is not in the least related to the anniversary of the start of the Nuremberg trials. Brian McNeil / talk 08:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry,Brian, your assumption that my above comment was meant for you is way off base; as I thought was obvious, I meant before Boud became involved. Your other assumptions are way off base as well. Neutralizer 15:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry if this was directed at someone else, I took it personally that you were bringing up something which had been shown to be inappropriate for this article and which I thought was settled. Yes, cementing into law the principles that people today claim were applied at Nuremberg is important, and something the US continues to block citing constitutional reasons.  That, provided other countries who have refused to ratify the court were mentioned, might have been a more appropriate item to use to contrast 60 years ago with now.  However, this is now a past news item and I believe it should go back to what it was without the Chomsky quote.  I've yet to see any good argument why it belongs, Chomsky was using Nuremberg to make a point, not making any particular comment about it that is relevant to the anniversary. Brian McNeil / talk 18:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
As I said, I've tagged this. My opinion is that the Chomsky quote does not belong, and I've made an effort to explain why. Chomsky did not attend the ceremony commemorating the trials, the interview which is used as a source for the quote is a copyright violation of the BBC's Newsnight programme which had absolutely nothing to do with the anniversary of the trials; the quote itself is targetting the US administration and the reference to Nuremberg is just used to elicit an emotional response. I already had a dispute over the inclusion of the Krupp information and, by their own research, those pushing that POV justified it's removal. The Chomsky inclusion brings nothing to the article except the POV of those who wish to include it. I have no opinion on the other quote, so if they both have to go so be it. In the meantime I'd like the tag to stay until a few other people provide input. Brian McNeil / talk 12:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is about the anniversary. The quote would be appropriate, perhaps, for the Nuremberg articles on WP. It's not appropriate here, especially after the article has been published. --Chiacomo (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I concur. The quote is over a year old. It is not related to the commemorations and not a response to the previous quote as it might appear. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Writing any sort of news article about the Nuremberg trials without mentioning what the most cited (Arts and Humanities) author of the whole decade of the 1980s (and 8th most cited ever) says about the relevance of the Nuremberg trials would be ignoring the most basic context.
 * chiacamo and deprify: you are claiming that the news event is the anniversary, the commemorations. Sure. But are you seriously trying to say that any anniversary is important only because it is 10N years since the event, where N is a positive integer? Aren't the event itself and its consequences important? Can we accept wikinews articles about the 60th anniversary of someone's pet parrot catching a bad cold? Isn't the fact that its consequences have been, to a large extent, hypocritically ignored by all the most powerful states, except when its in their interests, an extremely relevant context?  After all, the fact that Whitney R. Harris made a comment about how the principles are being applied recently and that someone thought this is relevant suggests that the consequences of the event are relevant. There are no quotes of what sort of biscuits or tea or coffee Harris drank at the commemorations. Why? Because it's irrelevant. What is relevant? The ways in which the Nuremberg principles are being applied and being ignored in the present is important context. Boud 20:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * First, I was wrong. The quote isn't a year old. It is over 15 years old. Things have changed since then. The ICC has come around for example, something Harris probably was refering to. Chomsky couldn't have known of these things when he made his speech in 1990. Now, I found two article which are relating to the anniversary, and which also include quotes from people who support the ICC and critizise the United States' oppostion to it, something which I believe you were alluding to. First Der Spiegel and then The Times. If you were to include something from these articles, I personally would be fine with that. --Deprifry|+T+ 21:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The quote remains valid - the BBC quote is from 2004. The creation of the ICC doesn't affect the validity of the quote. Boud 13:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The moderator uses the quote in his introduction to highlight the controversial nature of Chomsky. Nuremberg is not talked about once in the entire interview. I'm sure there are quotes from dozens of notable people about the Nuremberg trials. What makes a fifteen year old quote so fundamentally different that it is relevant to articles? --Deprifry|+T+ 14:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I can agree with Deprifry's comments, associating the anniversary with the ICC using recent reports would be quite appropriate. Harris alluded to it with his statement, which was made at the ceremony.
 * As to the copyright violation which you brought up on WN:A, it's the informationclearinghouse source that hosts a copyright violation and we should not be linking to that. Brian McNeil / talk 07:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * NPOV is about getting the facts. informationclearinghouse appears to be a non-commercial website which reproduces information for the public good, under the protection of fair use provisions. Boud 13:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The quote which initially led to me putting a NPOV tag on this article was reintroduced without any consensus. I hope my last edit satisfies those who wish that included without resorting to tagging the article.  However, this was done after the article had initially been published and used as 2nd lead.  My understanding is that edits following publication should be minimal. Brian McNeil / talk 19:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

individuals vs governments
Brian: nice to see we're getting close to NPOV consensus. :).


 * 1) The Nuremberg principles are for individuals, not governments (administrations, in US terminology).


 * 1) Also, failed to live up is very euphemistic and imprecise - Chomsky does not just claim that post-WWII US presidents acted somewhat against the spirit of the principles, he claims that if tried under the same principles with the same penalties, then they would all be condemned and executed. Boud 10:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I did read the Nuremberg principles WP page, but didn't notice the subtle distinction that they applied to individuals. Brian McNeil / talk 10:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)