Talk:Nuremberg trials/Archive 2

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nuremberg trials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150107092036/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judlawch.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judlawch.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Variety of English and formatting
The spelling and date formatting seem to be a mixture of US and European conventions. I was intending to do some minor copy-editing to fix other problems (commas, etc.). Any objections to standardising on British/European spelling and date conventions? --Boson (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd support that standardisation. The activity took place in Europe, where British English would be the nearest geographical "standard" for English, and the non-American date format prevails. Although some of the references cite American sources, which of course use American spelling and date formats. Nick in syd (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Witnesses
The article has sections on the accused, judges, prosecutors and defence counsel, just like we have sub-categories for most of the before mentioned in Category:International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg but it is almost completely missing any information on the witnesses and has no category for those either. Some of the witnesses were high-ranking or prominent Nazis, among them Rudolf Höss and Karl Wahl, to name just two. Would a Category:Witnesses at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg be a good idea? Calistemon (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography (addition of Brennecke)
This was recently added to the bibliography, but doesn't seem to be referenced. Was it used as a source, or does it belong under ==Further reading==? --Boson (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Brennecke, Gerhard. Die Nürnberger Geschichtsentstellung.  Quellen zur Vorgeschichte und Geschichte des 2. Weltkriegs aus den Akten der deutschen Verteidigung.  Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für deutsche Nachkriegsgeschichte, Vol. V.  2nd Ed.  Tübingen: Verlag der Deutschen Hochschullehrer-Zeitung, 1970.
 * it should be dropped. it is very old; it was not used; it is almost impossible for English language users to obtain. Rjensen (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not only "very old", it's revisionist. It has been published by Herbert Grabert, who named his publishing house after himself Grabert Verlag in 1974. The "Institut für deutsche Nachkrieggeschichte" is also one of Grabert's creations. He founded that when he published David Hoggan's Der erzwungene Krieg. Is there noone who follows up on these things? --Assayer (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism
There should be more mention of the fact that the trials were widely criticized as the Allies - especially the Soviets - were guilty of many of the same war crimes for which former high-ranking Nazi officials were being tried. (AnatoleTremso (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC))


 * True. The charges of anti-Semitism were regarded as hypocritical as many of the British, French, American and Soviet officials and commanders held the same views. (2A00:23C4:6393:E500:20B5:4881:D006:D247 (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC))
 * Our Nuremberg trials section already mentions the fact that while in 1939 Nazi-Germany and the USSR attacked Poland in coordination with each other, no one from the USSR was charged with this crime of aggression. Our article also mentions how the USSR attempted but failed to shift to Germany the blame for the Katyn massacre, and that the trial failed to serve justice for this crime, and that in 1990 the Soviet government admitted that this atrocity was carried out by the USSR. As for additional criticism, please make specific suggestions for improvements and make sure to back them with a WP:RS. Lklundin (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Criticism" section is largely original research
I took a look at the "Criticism" section, and it's overwhelmingly WP:OR.

It needs considerable modification to meet Wikipedia standards against original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keybarb (talk • contribs) 11:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nuremberg trials. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016203552/http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/1950.htm to http://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/1950.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614212436/http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/SpecialCollections/Donovan/index.cfm to http://library.lawschool.cornell.edu/WhatWeHave/SpecialCollections/Donovan/index.cfm
 * Added tag to http://www.law.wisc.edu/gls/documents/francine_nuremberg.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nuremberg trials. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430153120/http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/1/1/4/pages251148/p251148-1.php to http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/1/1/4/pages251148/p251148-1.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125101211/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/subsequenttrials.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/subsequenttrials.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130912122915/http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/warcrimetrials/ to http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/focus/warcrimetrials/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Added citation
Hello,

I added a citation (number 97) in the section "Introduction of extempore simultaneous interpretation".

CheersAngadea (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC).

Wiglessness of British lawmen at the Nuremberg show trials?
Since the statue adopted for the war-crime proceedings was drawn-up mostly by the Americans in collaboration with the world Jewish Congress under the guidance of the Robinson brothers, guessing the great British 'insularwear' of the court wig got itself vorboten as not to outshine, overshadow, 'uber it' over the weaker-looking in-house court clothes of both the Americans and French. Or mayhap, without an wig to doff, it was British lawmenry's deft yet straightfordward way of flagging to the world that Nuremberg was nowt but a showtrial? Nevertherless, at least the Russians turnt up rightfully clad in high millitarywear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:411:1600:5599:345D:C259:EFBC (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not a showtrial; this is proven, if by nothing else, than certainly by the fact that Franz von Papen got an acquittal as "not guilty as charged" and that Fritzsche got not much less than a "we shouldn't even have accused you, at least on this level" acquittal. To prove Papen's political responsibility for what happened would have been an easier task. To prove that Fritzsche did do propaganda for Goebbels would have been a quite easy task. "Hence guilty and hanging" is precisely what the Court did not say.--2001:A61:260C:C01:E4A4:7E30:5DF6:3F7E (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the Americans and French, why didn't the British don their full court kit esp. their signature wigs?
Even if unknown as to why haps still worthy of a byword? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.183.116 (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Who proposed execution and who proposed trials?
There is conflict in sources.

In current edition in EN article it states: "In late 1943, during the Tripartite Dinner Meeting at the Tehran Conference, the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, proposed executing 50,000–100,000 German staff officers. US President Franklin D. Roosevelt joked that perhaps 49,000 would do. Churchill, believing them to be serious, denounced the idea of "the cold blooded execution of soldiers who fought for their country" and that he would rather be "taken out in the courtyard and shot" himself than partake in any such action."

Where the RU article states: "Во время Крымской конференции руководителей трёх союзных держав — СССР, США и Великобритании (4—11 февр. 1945 г.) премьер-министр Великобритании Черчилль сказал, «что лучше всего было бы расстрелять главных преступников, как только они будут пойманы». В ходе беседы Сталин настоял, «что перед расстрелом главные преступники должны быть судимы»." = During Crimean conference Churchill claimed that "it would be better to execute the main criminals as soon as they are captured. During the discussion, Stalin insisted that they should be put to trial before that."

So who's idea was the trial and which source gives reliable information?89.1.171.104 (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are free to use the Russian source to improve this article. I caution you that the publisher in question is Politizdat (Госполитиздат), earlier name "Publishing House for Party Literature" that is likely biased pro-USSR in historical matters. 2.247.243.66 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A possible result could be a statement like "Regarding possible mass executions of German officers, official Soviet historiography tells the same story but in reverse: Churchill demanded summary executions at Yalta while Stalin insisted on trials before that." Good luck. 2.247.243.66 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

IMT were a "set of trials", or just "trial" singular?
The IMT trial(s) is/are referred to both as a trial, and as a "set of trials". This is confusing. Is it a single trial, or multiple trials? Uglemat (talk) 16:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it, the IMT was meant to conduct several trials, but because of the beginning of the Cold War it could only conduct one trial. Instead, the US took charge with the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT), which conducted 12 trials. It therefore seems that there were 13 Nuremberg trials in total. It follows that the term "Nuremberg trials" cannot refer just to the IMT trial, it needs the NMT trials included to be plural. Uglemat (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

One source refers to the IMT trial as the "Nuremberg Trial". Maybe this page should be moved to that name, it would make things less confusing. Uglemat (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Instead, the Tribunal proclaimed the Secret Protocols of the Non-Aggression Pact to be a forgery but they never did say that
Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume 2 Chapter XVI Part 3

(8) The U. S. S. R. On 23 August 1939 Ribbentrop signed the German-Soviet non-aggression Pact (TC-25). The first point at which Ribbentrop seems to have considered special problems of aggression against the Soviet Union was just after 20 April 1941, when Rosenberg and Ribbentrop met or communicated to consider problems expected to arise in the Eastern occupied territory. Ribbentrop appointed his Counsellor, Grosskopf, to be his liaison man with Rosenberg and also assigned a Consul General, Brauetigam, who had many years experience in the USSR, as a collaborator with Rosenberg (1039-PS).

The following month, on 18 May 1941, the German Foreign Office prepared a declaration setting forth operational zones in the Arctic Ocean and the Baltic and Black Seas to be used by the German Navy and Air force in the coming invasion of the Soviet Union:

"The Foreign Office has prepared for use in Barbarossa the attached draft of a declaration of operational zones. The Foreign Office has, however, reserved its decision as to the date when the declaration will be issued, as well as discussion of particulars." (C-77)

Thus, it is clear that Ribbentrop was again fully involved in the preparation for this act of aggression. Finally, on 22 June 1941, Ribbentrop announced to the world that the German armies were invading the USSR (3054-PS).

How untrue were the reasons given by Ribbentrop is shown by the report of his own Ambassador in Moscow on 7 June 1941, who said that everything was being done by the Russians to avoid a conflict.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/chap16_part03.aspJack90s15 (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

They had also accepted Soviet insistence that only Axis aggression was covered by the new court
They had also accepted Soviet insistence that only Axis aggression was covered by the new court - otherwise the Soviet authorities would have been in the dock as well for carving up Poland in 1939 and attacking Finland three months later. what was posted on this page was not In the linkJack90s15 (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/20/newsid_4356000/4356166.stm

There's no need to have half of the charter in a box they already are listed those charters in this page
There's no need to have half of the charter in a box they already are listed those charters in this pageJack90s15 (talk) 05:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel.jpg

going to add part of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal
IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS to the Criticism part of the page Jack90s15 (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is obviously no support from multiple editors to include this. It is not appropriate to copy and paste sections of primary sources into articles, and it is totally unclear what the relevance of the material is. Please stop edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Just added 14 Members of the High Command were tried has Criminals at the high command trial case 12 of the Subsequent Nuremberg Proceedings
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/subsequent-nuremberg-proceedings-case-12-the-high-command-case https://libguides.law.uga.edu/c.php?g=177170&p=1164759 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/high-command-trial-1947-1948 Jack90s15 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ostbau Justizpalast Nürnberg.jpg

Walther Funk
The article states, or appears to state that Walther Funk acted as defence attorney to Buldar Von Schirach. This seems unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.153.52.83 (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyone on planet earth know why the British Judges (unlike the USA and French) did not don their full court kit, especially the well-known British court wigs?
Betwixt telling and conspircacy methinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.191.127 (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

This question and its corresponding non answer are completely imbecilic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.18.11 (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this could be of importance
https://twitter.com/guywalters/status/1267459153586503681 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4i3fTlyLMM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:80AB:7B24:8C76:4863 (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Julius Streicher above average intelligence ?
William L Shirer wrote "all but Streicher had a decent IQ" (Streicher was below average). Albert Speer comments these tests as he enjoyed them. (And states "Schacht won only due to the age-related balance, the actual score gave Seyss-Inquart most points", he wrote in 1969. He further states that he himself got "a good middle position". (ISBN-13: 978-0684829494). Speer (or translator) is rather dull to read (unless one is interested in architecture perhaps). Boeing720 (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Does this question have a point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.18.11 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2016/09/15/nuremberg-trials-several-nazi-leaders-achieved-genius-level-scores-iq-test-highest-result-143/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:80AB:7B24:8C76:4863 (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Edward Francis Carter ?
In the judges section, it indicates that each country put 2 judges on the panel, but then the US is listed as having three. My attention was drawn to Edward Francis Carter, as the only judge without a WL. Per https://history.nebraska.gov/collections/edward-francis-carter-1897-1981-rg4231am, Carter "served as one of three judges at the Nuremberg Trials, Case VII." Does that mean his role was limited to a single case? Assuming someone knows the answer, I think we should put an explanation on the page, as currently it seems to contradict itself. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk  13:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Criticism tag
I don't agree that the criticism is overstated, or unbalances the article. I will restructure the section where it is repetitive and remove the tag. If somebody feels that praise of the trials is not sufficiently present in the article, it should be added to the 'Legacy' section (which is already highly positive). I have never heard of a Praise section on an article.

Incidentally, I have removed a line of praise from the introduction as the quote is from one of the presiding judges and does not provide any insight. If restored it should be added back to the 'Legacy' section. Even then, I don't think it's significant that a judge thought a trial he presided over was well-run, no more significant that me saying my opinions and edits are tremendous and exemplary.

--81.111.45.250 (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I have done this now. It could be abbreviated further, in particular on the "hypocrisy of allied nations" subsection, in which I have linked to a main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.45.250 (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe,

Thanks for contributing and for the significant work you had already done on the section. I don't have time for an edit war so I won't remove the tag again. However, I don't think you have made a good argument for adding it back so I think you should also leave it to others to add the tag if they see fit.

The WP page you allude to in the edit note only refers to the length of the whole article, it does not concern exaggerated length of certain sections. If criticism of something is significant then it should take up a significant part of the article, even 1/6 of the article. Again, if you think the rest of the article is relatively short, please add a tag to say that other sections require expansion (again, the legacy section is there to counterbalance any criticism).

All of the material I looked at is material and particular to the Trials themselves. If you want to reword it more succinctly than I have, please go ahead. However I don't think that the weight given to the criticisms is "undue" and so the tag is inappropriate.

Thanks

--81.111.45.250 (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Use of the phrase "normally inadmissible 'evidence'" in
I think the following part of needs to be clarified:

"The Charter of the International Military Tribunal permitted the use of normally inadmissible "evidence". Article 19 specified that "The Tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence ... and shall admit any evidence which it deems to have probative value"."

What does "normally inadmissible" mean in this context? Does "normal" refer to the evidence standards of international courts, of which only one permanent one (the PCIJ) existed at the time, or does it refer to national rules for the admission of evidence, in which case it should be noted that those vary widely between jurisdictions, from formalistic and strict exclusionary rules in the US, to the more lax rules of evidence found in states like Denmark, and the many different variations in between.

As far as I can see, there is no source attached which contains the origin of this criticism, which is a problem in itself. In case such a source exists, it might elucidate what is meant here. For example, it might be that the author of the criticism was comparing the tribunal's rules of those of his own jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the section was inserted by an IP adress in 2008, so asking the person who inserted it is out of the question.

tl;dr: If a source exists for this criticism, it should be used to specify what is meant by "normally inadmissible 'evidence'." If no source exists, the paragraph probably shouldn't be in the article per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 18:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess one could read the quoted segment as connected with the following paragraphs about fake evidence, somewhat alleviating the POV attribution problem, but that still leaves the question of what "normally inadmissible" means. According to Chester Brown, 'Aspects of Evidence in International Adjudication' in A Common Law of International Adjudication (OUP 2009) pp. 90–92, the PCIJ had quite liberal admissibility rules, an aspect which is also found in later international courts and in prior international arbitration. Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 15:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be culled. Reading between the lines, I think the comparison is with the US which is taken as a normative case. I doubt Soviet judges shared the same opinion. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Albert Speer headshot.jpg

Tu Quoque and Donitz
In the criticism section under allied hypocrisy it states that the allies permitted tu quoque evidence in the case of submarine conduct and did not prosecute Donitz because of these. From my understanding and reading of both the case summaries themselves and much of the scholarship surrounding the trials, that the legal argument here was more nuanced. That rather than seeking to have the charges struck in that they were crimes that the allies had also committed, Donitz's counsel argued that they were in fact not crimes under international law and asked for evidence from Nimitz to try and clarify what conduct was or was not legal under international law. The US Admiralty response was that the specific charges relating to unrestricted submarine war were not war crimes according to their understanding of the Hauge convention and standing international law and that charges were not perused on this ground.

This is separate from a true tu quoque argument such as that used by the army officers who argued that the Russians and even at points Americans had executed German prisoners and that therefore their conduct towards Soviet prisoners was justified. This was rejected as while the allies acknowledged that the crime had been committed on both sides this itself did not confer legality.

I would appreciate any editors working on this article, which I understand the sensitivity of, who have a better understanding of the trial and of international law than me to chime in on this point, but from my perspective implying that the Judges accepted tu quoque evidence in contradiction to the charter in the case of Donitz and the submarine charges is not strictly accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awnman (talk • contribs) 10:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Amerocentrism
There is no justification for an "American involvement in the trial" section. It should be either balanced by similar sections for the other participants or included in the general narrative. The American involvement was integral to the process but not especially distinctive to the extent that a separate section is required. If this statement is not agreed with then the American section should contain an explanation as to why American involvement was unique or outstanding to that extent. 195.166.212.200 (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Photographs in the origins section
The Soviet prosecution specifically introduced films depicting the German destruction of Soviet cities and German atrocities in the USSR. Although I'm unable to confirm if these exact photographs were entered into evidence, similar ones surely were. There are other photographs that can be confirmed to be among the 25,000 entered into evidence at the IMT, including c:Category:Deportation_of_Jews_from_Würzburg and the entire Stroop Report. However, these photographs are less relevant to why the trial was launched in the first place, for which the #1 reason is probably the war destruction and atrocities in the USSR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with separating "background" and "origins" since every RS says that the trial was launched specifically because of the wars of aggression and other crimes of Nazi Germany, therefore this is the origin of the trial. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Charges: War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
Thanks for attempting to improve the article, but
 * Terms such as "aggressive war", "crimes against peace" etc. are somewhat technical terms that we can't expect all readers to understand. That's why I went with "invasions" in the first sentence, since it's fully accurate and more understandable.
 * The "Nuremberg trials" refers especially to the first Nuremberg trial (the IMT) but is inclusive of the NMTs. There were more than 21 defendants all told.
 * The phrasing "The Nuremberg trials were held by the Allies, who brought charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and instigating a war of aggression against 21 leaders of Nazi Germany after World War II." is difficult to parse.
 * It could be misleading to talk about one war of aggression, when the Nazi defendants were charged with several aggressions launched against different countries. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:LEAD the lead must summarize the entire article, including background info. The world is a big place and not all readers will know much about WWII. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Just putting in my two cents that while Jaredscribe's edits were good faith and understandable, I do find the current (i.e. buidhe's) version easier to read. Endwise (talk) 04:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The lede sentences ought to state the charges and the name the accused. The accused are "21 representatives of...", this is more accurate than the indefinite "representatives of..¨  The charges were: war crimes, crimes against humanity, and starting a war of aggression.  By omitting this article is currently burying the lede.   If you can change the phrasing to make it easier to verbally parse, then please do.  We must find a way to state the salient facts in summary in the lede sentence and paragraph.   Jaredscribe (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * starting Wars of aggression (by military invasion). put it in the plural to address Buidheś point that there were multiple invasions. Jaredscribe (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Jaredscribe, please read what I wrote again. The subject of this article is NOT just the first Nuremberg trial, it's in the plural and in total there were more than 21 defendants. The exact charges (technical legal terms that few readers know the exact meaning of) are not necessarily the most important or salient aspect of the topic, so I don't see why they have to be in the first sentence. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The accused were charged with war crimes, and with crimes against humanity. Is @Buidhe denying this?    Jaredscribe (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What? I added this to the article with specific explanation of what these charges mean, in the article body. I don't think the average reader of the article could define either of these terms, so I'm not convinced it's something that should be highlighted in the first sentence without any explanation. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Auschwitz trial which affects this page. The thread is Talk:Auschwitz trial. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
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 17:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Conspiracy anent British judges not donning their trademark court wigs?
Has I understand it, the Soviets had it right in turning up in military wear - since the Nuremberg trials were some kind of ‘military tribunal’, yet it is still markworthy that (unlike the USA and Fr that turn’t up fully kitted out in their traditional courtwear) that the British Nuremberg trial judges courtwear lacked it’s wig - the most distinctivelooking courtwear known to mankind. Could it be that the British judges kit lacked it’s characteristic wig as not to upstage the rather bland (by comparison) French and American court dress at the aforesaid worldwide Nuremberg spectacle. WHY DID NOT THE BRITISH NUREMBERG JUDGES WEAR THEIR TRADEMARK WIGS AT THE AFORESAID SPECTACLE?
 * Hi IP, the IMT was called a military tribunal, but one of the sources (I believe Hirsch) points out it functionally wasn't, since almost everyone involved was a civilian. I don't know why the British judges didn't wear wigs but I don't think that's one of the details that needs to be covered in this particular article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

table of verdicts
This article used to have a table of defendants and verdicts similar to the one at High Command Trial. I thought it was useful. Could we bring it back? Adoring nanny (talk) 23:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No. The exact breakdown of sentences and verdicts for the IMT is not the focus of coverage in RS, making a giant table is certainly UNDUE. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, hmm. What would you think of a sub-article "Verdicts of the Nuremberg Trial" or similar? Adoring nanny (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I restored that section. There are several clear reasons to do so. First, with 24 people indicted, a plain-text description of the results is always going to be slower to read. Second, it is highly reasonable to assume that a reader of the article might have a particular interest in the results. Three, arguing that it is undue is highly dubious. The Nuremberg trials were trials. Trials are most fundamentally about establishing guilt. That is the whole reason that they exist. Eliding a clean summary of the verdicts doesn't make the article clearer or more informative, and it eliminates a source of information that it is reasonable to expect many readers would want. I appreciate that use Buidhe has invested a great deal of time and effort into the article, but I believe the user is wrong on this matter, and I call for discussion on the talk page before doing so. Sacxpert (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources (I read them) do not place much emphasis on the exact breakdown of sentences. Readers searching for such details can consult the List of defendants at the International Military Tribunal, where it is covered. Furthermore, the article is not about a singular trial but actually thirteen of them; including results for all of them would overwhelm any other content in the article. There is still no consensus for the inclusion of this content. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but I fundamentally disagree. There is also no consensus to remove the content. I am assuming good faith on your part, but you do not own the article, and neither do I. As such, I'm willing to accept a decision by the community, but this clearly needs discussion; your opinion alone is not decisive. At a bare minimum, a prominent 'See also under the verdict heading is necessary, but I think an inline table is more useful, since the main trial clearly is prominent in most readers' understanding of the Nuremberg trials. As I said, I prioritize civility. I have added an RfC. Sacxpert (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

[Canceled] RfC on verdicts table
The debate here is about the inclusion of a table summarizing the verdicts of the Nuremberg trials. Does the table add to the article in a meaningful way, or not, is the issue. Sacxpert (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate RfC; the matter has not been discussed sufficiently prior to starting it and contributors to the article have not been consulted first.
 * The table is far too large for the article, causes excessive length, and overwhelms other content that receives more coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, it is duplicative; the verdicts for individual defendants are already covered in the text. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I concede that I should have used 3O or a similar process first. It's been a long time since I've been involved in such a dispute. That's my error. This definitely needs more viewpoints, though. Sacxpert (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * and who have provided significant commentary on the article in the past. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to weigh in that I think the table merits inclusion and adds quite a bit to the article. I benefited from reading it and thought it summarized content nicely. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The table doesn't summarize anything though. It duplicates some content that's already in the article while adding additional content that would clearly be UNDUE in the article text, as it is not even mentioned in the high-quality secondary sources used. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The table adds length to an already lengthy article. It might be better in a standalone subarticle List of Nuremberg trial verdicts. A more serious problem is that the table isn't either written or sourced to GA standards and contains many completely unsourced statements, several broken references (what is "avalon"?) as well as MOS:SEAOFBLUE violations and irrelevant / inconsistent amounts of detail especially about Dönitz, Fritzsche, Krupp, Ribbentrop, Streicher. If it isn't fixed, it should definitely stay out. —Kusma (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be interested in a subarticle, that seems like a good solution. I'll go ahead and create and we can ongoing collaborate on improving it. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've created it and removed the avalon citations which are not verifiable. I will start looking for better sources for the content, feel free to CN anything you think really needs to be cited, but I will start trying for everything, in order. Feel free to also tag things that are UNDUE and I will probably agree, for the most part. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 01:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Shibbolethink, when I suggested this, I overlooked that we already have this table at List of defendants at the International Military Tribunal (and there the avalon citations are included). So your new article should probably be a redirect (and of course the table needs to be removed from the present article). —Kusma (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I think I'd agree there should be a redirect and merge of anything not currently included in that article. I went ahead and converted it to a redirect, after a quick look-through I didn't see anything that wasn't already in the list of defendants. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This would clearly be a problem, to quote Buidhe: "The table doesn't summarize anything though. It duplicates some content that's already in the article while adding additional content that would clearly be UNDUE in the article text, as it is not even mentioned in the high-quality secondary sources used."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

How to incorporate Alfred Seidl's German Wikipedia Article?
Location: Defense Section Bnzzer (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems wp:undue in this article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Name of film
Buidhe While Nazi Concentration Camps is also known by the title Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps, and a version of the film available on the Internet displays a title card with this alternate title, when this film was entered into evidence during the Nuremberg Trials, prosecutors certified that, "The film entitled 'Nazi Concentration Camps' was introduced in evidence before the International Military Tribunal in Case Number 1, as USA Exhibit No. 79." Moreover, the The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration's catalog entry for the film entitles it, "Nazi Concentration Camps". Christopher Rath (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that maybe Nazi Concentration Camps is shorthand? I don't know of any "other version" of the film than the one titled Nazi Concentration and Prison Camps. TarkusAB talk / contrib 23:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * TarkusAB See the citations on the film's WP page. Christopher Rath (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Why exactly did the British judges not wear their distinctive court wigs?
Notwithstanding rather lesser to behold, the Americans and French seemingly both wore their full court regalia. The Russians (rightly) wore military uniforms since Nuremberg was meant to be a military court. It is definitely worth bywording why the British court dress was supressed at the Nurembergtrials. 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:5820:F46F:D753:6E40 (talk) 07:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * See previous thread (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Legal system ambiguity
Analogous to the section I opened on the talk page about the Nuremberg Charter (Talk:Nuremberg Charter), both articles are in contradiction whether the legal system governing the court were more like common or more like civil law (this article states common law, the article about the Nuremberg Charter states civil law). This should be cleared up. Amp2001 (talk) 07:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The claim in this article has a good source but the other article does not have any source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

What does "per FAC" mean?
Buidhe What does "per FAC" mean? Thanks. Christopher Rath (talk) 01:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Addressing comments made here (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Very helpful. Christopher Rath (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2023 (UTC)