This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 8 April 2014, it was proposed that this article be moved from Einsatzgruppen Trial to Einsatzgruppen trial. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/6815?hr=nullWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
Several periods (1986-2201, 1942-1956), the capital T was clearly favoredis 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.
[1] · [2] · [3] · [4] · [5] · [6] · [7] · [8] · [9]
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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 8 April 2014, it was proposed that this article be moved from Einsatzgruppen Trial to Einsatzgruppen trial. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/6815?hr=nullWhen 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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))
Several periods (1986-2201, 1942-1956), the capital T was clearly favoredis 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.
[1] · [2] · [3] · [4] · [5] · [6] · [7] · [8] · [9]
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)