This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Massacre of the Acqui Division appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 7,100 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 21, 2018. |
I reverted two edits by Noclador about a referendum among the Acqui men. It is a really interesting and important detail but unfortunately it is completely uncited. The article is fully cited in every other claim it makes. Introducing these uncited facts will lower the quality of the article and runs against Wikipedia policies WP:RS and WP:V. It would be nice to include them in the article but citations have to be provided. The Italian and German Wikipedias make such referendum claims but they wre also uncited. We cannot refer to other Wikipedia article claims if these claims are not cited. Dr.K. ( talk) 11:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
These facts that are tagged need citations. If no citations are provided they have to be removed because they are in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks. Dr.K. ( talk) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I repeat here my edit summary comments: "I hate doing this but: The "outcome was never in doubt" in whose opinion? Please provide citation. " Hardened veterans" also needs citation)"
The fact remains these are subjective evaluations and uncited speculation. Maybe these troops were professional and hardened but if they were so they would be recognized as such by historians so it wouldn't be so hard to find citations for the fact they were hardened. I also find the comment "Outcome never in doubt" to be WP:OR. So please provide citations for this stuff or do not insert it again. Dr.K. ( talk) 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I never thought I would be in this position with an editor I cooperated with in the past but let's keep in mind the WP:3RR rule. Dr.K. ( talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a rather scandalous statement that "The reason for Lanz’s light sentence was that the court at Nuremberg was deceived by false evidence and did not believe that the massacre took place". Why was this so? Why do we now know that the massacre took place? Or did it? When was the change of view, and why? What is the evidence that there was actually a massacre? The Nuremburg trials were generally backed by comprehensive research. Why no so in this case? Or did the research fail to uncover any evidence, because there was none? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The Nuremberg trials distributed justice and injustice almost at random. It is not surprising that their "research failed to uncover any evidence". In fact, you can assume that the physical evidenced were not searched at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.224.95 ( talk) 17:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In two places the article justified the massacre because the whole 11th Italian army was under superior command of German command in the Balkans, e.g. "before the shooting a German sergeant informed the Italian officers they were to be shot for treason, which was true".
I do not doubt the chain of command or what that sergeant said, but writing that this justified the German actions or "which was true" is false and a dishonest attempt to justify war crime;
Possibly the murderers believed that themselves and used the belief to justify their actions to themselves and the rest of the world; Wikipedia shall not present murderer's motives as truth, The fact that an encyclopedia shall report is: the Italians were under German command because the Italian High Command ordered them so. They did not become German soldiers or pledged allegiance to the Fuhrer; they remained Italian soldiers liable to the Italian King and the Italian military jurisdiction. Once the Italian High Command ordered something contrasting the German orders, it was their duty to go against the German orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.194.4 ( talk) 15:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that this article needs an infobox, as this should count as a WW2 battle given that the Italians were both able and willing to fight the Germans for several days before being over-run. In fact, the Germans lost 300 dead. I would also like to point out other Wiki articles like (for example) The Glencoe Massacre of 1692 (where 78 victims were slain) have an Infobox. best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Massacre of the Acqui Division Cephalonia Massacre | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of Operation Achse | |||||||||
Cephalonia Island | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Belligerents | |||||||||
Italy Greece ( ELAS) | Germany | ||||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||||
Antonio Gandin |
Johannes Barge Harald von Hirschfeld | ||||||||
Strength | |||||||||
12,025 Italian officers and men Small number of Greek Partisans | 2,000 (before 17 September), reinforcements arrived 17 September | ||||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||||
1,315 Italians killed in battle 15 Greek partisans killed [1] 5,155 Italian POWs executed 3,000 Italian POWs drowned at sea |
300 dead 1 landing craft lost 1 aircraft lost |
You are not aware of ELAS's contribution to the battle?First do not insult me. I am the creator of the article and I added the ELAS information in this edit and this one.
Or you don't recognize their contribution?So you want to build an infobox to recognise the contribution of ELAS. I know infoboxes are many things but they are not used as vehicles to recognise contributions of any combatants. With this I bid you adieu. I am done with this discussion which has deteriorated enough. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 14:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
why not the Battle of Cephalonia?Because as you will see when you perform a search there is no information about any such battle name either on the web or in Gbooks. The name of such article is non-existent. Further, the battle and the massacre are linked and should remain in the same article. There is no reason to separate them just for the purpose of using the infobox. In addition, slapping the infobox in the middle of the article in a rather short paragraph describing the battle is overkill. Since you mentioned consensus let's wait for the opinion of other editors on this. But at this time the status quo remains. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 16:47, 25 September 2015 (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.
Should this article have an infobox, in line with articles on other historic massacres like Glencoe, and other WW2 confrontations between the Germans and Italians, like the Battle of Kos? Or should the article remain as it is? Thanks, Sunil060902 ( talk) 14:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. The question fails the guideline because it is very long and very leading. Also, the question as phrased is heavily biased because it unduly highlights the battle component of the article thus effectively prescribing to editors a single course of action namely to add an infobox:
in line with articles on other historic massacres like Glencoe, and other WW2 confrontations between the Germans and Italians, like the Battle of Kos?while completely disregarding the historical WP:WEIGHT of the massacre which gave the name to this article in the reliable sources. This approach to formulating the RfC question is very heavy-handed to the point of being ridiculous. In fact the so-called RfC question is actually two questions, both starting with "should" in complete violation of the RfC rules. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 04:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
an impression of absolute shock? Also what is your comment
Is still allowed to be a human being in Wikipedia?supposed to mean? Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope this Infobox (see below) addresses most or indeed all of User:Dr.K.'s concerns. I hope it solves the issues regarding any POV fork and/or abstraction from the subject of the article. best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 01:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Massacre of the Acqui Division | |
---|---|
Location | Cephalonia, Ionian Islands, Greece |
Coordinates | 38°15′N 20°35′E / 38.25°N 20.59°E |
Date | September 21—26, 1943 |
Attack type | Mass murder |
Deaths | 5,155
Italian
POWs inc. Gen. Antonio Gandin |
Perpetrators |
1st Mountain Division 104th Jäger Division Gen. Hubert Lanz Maj. Harald von Hirschfeld |
The division was not comprised mostly of officers. Yet the article refers to thousands of officers being shot. Obviously the orders and executions extended beyond officers. Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The ships Sinfra and Ardena were sunk in the Adriatic as a result of hitting mines. To say that "These losses and similar ones from the Italian Dodecanese garrisons were also the result of German policy" is overstating the situation. It was not policy to sail into mines. Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Massacre of the Acqui Division. 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:
When 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) 08:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Massacre of the Acqui Division. 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:
When 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) 02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Massacre of the Acqui Division appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 9 September 2008, and was viewed approximately 7,100 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 21, 2018. |
I reverted two edits by Noclador about a referendum among the Acqui men. It is a really interesting and important detail but unfortunately it is completely uncited. The article is fully cited in every other claim it makes. Introducing these uncited facts will lower the quality of the article and runs against Wikipedia policies WP:RS and WP:V. It would be nice to include them in the article but citations have to be provided. The Italian and German Wikipedias make such referendum claims but they wre also uncited. We cannot refer to other Wikipedia article claims if these claims are not cited. Dr.K. ( talk) 11:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
These facts that are tagged need citations. If no citations are provided they have to be removed because they are in violation of WP:V and WP:RS. Thanks. Dr.K. ( talk) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I repeat here my edit summary comments: "I hate doing this but: The "outcome was never in doubt" in whose opinion? Please provide citation. " Hardened veterans" also needs citation)"
The fact remains these are subjective evaluations and uncited speculation. Maybe these troops were professional and hardened but if they were so they would be recognized as such by historians so it wouldn't be so hard to find citations for the fact they were hardened. I also find the comment "Outcome never in doubt" to be WP:OR. So please provide citations for this stuff or do not insert it again. Dr.K. ( talk) 13:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I never thought I would be in this position with an editor I cooperated with in the past but let's keep in mind the WP:3RR rule. Dr.K. ( talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a rather scandalous statement that "The reason for Lanz’s light sentence was that the court at Nuremberg was deceived by false evidence and did not believe that the massacre took place". Why was this so? Why do we now know that the massacre took place? Or did it? When was the change of view, and why? What is the evidence that there was actually a massacre? The Nuremburg trials were generally backed by comprehensive research. Why no so in this case? Or did the research fail to uncover any evidence, because there was none? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The Nuremberg trials distributed justice and injustice almost at random. It is not surprising that their "research failed to uncover any evidence". In fact, you can assume that the physical evidenced were not searched at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.18.224.95 ( talk) 17:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In two places the article justified the massacre because the whole 11th Italian army was under superior command of German command in the Balkans, e.g. "before the shooting a German sergeant informed the Italian officers they were to be shot for treason, which was true".
I do not doubt the chain of command or what that sergeant said, but writing that this justified the German actions or "which was true" is false and a dishonest attempt to justify war crime;
Possibly the murderers believed that themselves and used the belief to justify their actions to themselves and the rest of the world; Wikipedia shall not present murderer's motives as truth, The fact that an encyclopedia shall report is: the Italians were under German command because the Italian High Command ordered them so. They did not become German soldiers or pledged allegiance to the Fuhrer; they remained Italian soldiers liable to the Italian King and the Italian military jurisdiction. Once the Italian High Command ordered something contrasting the German orders, it was their duty to go against the German orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.205.194.4 ( talk) 15:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that this article needs an infobox, as this should count as a WW2 battle given that the Italians were both able and willing to fight the Germans for several days before being over-run. In fact, the Germans lost 300 dead. I would also like to point out other Wiki articles like (for example) The Glencoe Massacre of 1692 (where 78 victims were slain) have an Infobox. best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Massacre of the Acqui Division Cephalonia Massacre | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of Operation Achse | |||||||||
Cephalonia Island | |||||||||
| |||||||||
Belligerents | |||||||||
Italy Greece ( ELAS) | Germany | ||||||||
Commanders and leaders | |||||||||
Antonio Gandin |
Johannes Barge Harald von Hirschfeld | ||||||||
Strength | |||||||||
12,025 Italian officers and men Small number of Greek Partisans | 2,000 (before 17 September), reinforcements arrived 17 September | ||||||||
Casualties and losses | |||||||||
1,315 Italians killed in battle 15 Greek partisans killed [1] 5,155 Italian POWs executed 3,000 Italian POWs drowned at sea |
300 dead 1 landing craft lost 1 aircraft lost |
You are not aware of ELAS's contribution to the battle?First do not insult me. I am the creator of the article and I added the ELAS information in this edit and this one.
Or you don't recognize their contribution?So you want to build an infobox to recognise the contribution of ELAS. I know infoboxes are many things but they are not used as vehicles to recognise contributions of any combatants. With this I bid you adieu. I am done with this discussion which has deteriorated enough. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 14:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
why not the Battle of Cephalonia?Because as you will see when you perform a search there is no information about any such battle name either on the web or in Gbooks. The name of such article is non-existent. Further, the battle and the massacre are linked and should remain in the same article. There is no reason to separate them just for the purpose of using the infobox. In addition, slapping the infobox in the middle of the article in a rather short paragraph describing the battle is overkill. Since you mentioned consensus let's wait for the opinion of other editors on this. But at this time the status quo remains. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 16:47, 25 September 2015 (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.
Should this article have an infobox, in line with articles on other historic massacres like Glencoe, and other WW2 confrontations between the Germans and Italians, like the Battle of Kos? Or should the article remain as it is? Thanks, Sunil060902 ( talk) 14:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue. The question fails the guideline because it is very long and very leading. Also, the question as phrased is heavily biased because it unduly highlights the battle component of the article thus effectively prescribing to editors a single course of action namely to add an infobox:
in line with articles on other historic massacres like Glencoe, and other WW2 confrontations between the Germans and Italians, like the Battle of Kos?while completely disregarding the historical WP:WEIGHT of the massacre which gave the name to this article in the reliable sources. This approach to formulating the RfC question is very heavy-handed to the point of being ridiculous. In fact the so-called RfC question is actually two questions, both starting with "should" in complete violation of the RfC rules. Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 04:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
an impression of absolute shock? Also what is your comment
Is still allowed to be a human being in Wikipedia?supposed to mean? Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 05:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I hope this Infobox (see below) addresses most or indeed all of User:Dr.K.'s concerns. I hope it solves the issues regarding any POV fork and/or abstraction from the subject of the article. best, Sunil060902 ( talk) 01:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Massacre of the Acqui Division | |
---|---|
Location | Cephalonia, Ionian Islands, Greece |
Coordinates | 38°15′N 20°35′E / 38.25°N 20.59°E |
Date | September 21—26, 1943 |
Attack type | Mass murder |
Deaths | 5,155
Italian
POWs inc. Gen. Antonio Gandin |
Perpetrators |
1st Mountain Division 104th Jäger Division Gen. Hubert Lanz Maj. Harald von Hirschfeld |
The division was not comprised mostly of officers. Yet the article refers to thousands of officers being shot. Obviously the orders and executions extended beyond officers. Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The ships Sinfra and Ardena were sunk in the Adriatic as a result of hitting mines. To say that "These losses and similar ones from the Italian Dodecanese garrisons were also the result of German policy" is overstating the situation. It was not policy to sail into mines. Royalcourtier ( talk) 05:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Massacre of the Acqui Division. 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:
When 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) 08:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Massacre of the Acqui Division. 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:
When 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) 02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)