Talk:Omakaitse

Nazi collaborators category

 * Talk duplicated in Talk:3rd_Estonian_SS_Volunteer_Brigade. Timurite (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

collaborators
The category has nothing to do with responsibility. Categories reflect article content. The article, among others, discusses murder of Jews and POW during WWII. Therefore it is placed in the corresponding categories. Timurite (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does not say the organisation as a whole was responsible for the Holocaust in Estonia. Hence, it does not belong to the category, as the only 'crimes against humanity in Estonia'-report by an international commission says: "the Commission does not believe that membership in the cited units, or in any specific unit is, on its own, proof of involvement in crimes." Tagging the organisation Nazi collaborator and Holocaust does exactly the opposite: criminalises every member. Only the members and departments that committed crimes should be tagged. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, the category criminalizes nothing: it categorizes article content. Timurite (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the content does not claim the organisation as a whole was part of the Holocaust nor collaborationist. And adding the category Nazi collaborator to someone's article does criminalise the organisation. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a military organization. Were the members who killed Jews punished by superiors? If not, it shares the responsibility. Timurite (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At the same time I undersdtand your concern. The compromize solution is to separate an article Crimes against humanity committed by Omakaitse (or something like this) and move the corresponding piese, with tags there. Timurite (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, if you bothered to acquaint yourself with the issue, the Omakaitse killed no Jews. As far as your proposal for a new article is concerned, I have no objection. I am just afraid it will be a very short stub. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Second of all, the article says "taking part in...". I admit I was not looking into the issue deeply enough to split hair between "killing" and "taking part in killing". Even if the stub will be short, it will resolve the issue. I will do it in spare time. Meanwhile if you disagree with the categories in this article, please feel free and request a neutral third opinion about rules of categorization. I don't see the disproof of my opinion that categories are to classify all article content, not only introduction. Timurite (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The wp:burden lies on you as the editor who wishes to categorise the page. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article contains referenced description of facts which supprot the category. One cannot give more proof than that. Timurite (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

The article does not say the organisation as a whole was responsible for the Holocaust in Estonia, hence, it does not belong to the categories.
 * Viewpoint by Jaan Pärn:


 * Viewpoint by (name here): ....

Ok, I have read through the article and the talk page and unless I am missing something obvious, it appears fairly clear that the dispute is over whether or not the article should be included in the categories "The Holocaust in Estonia" and "Estonian Nazi collaborators". If I have gotten that wrong, please let me know.
 * Third opinion by Thepm:

On the question of whether the category "The Holocaust in Estonia" should be included, I note that the article states that; "Approximately 1000–1200 men of the Omakaitse (2.5–3%) were directly involved in criminal acts, taking part in the round-up, guarding or killing of 400–1000 Roma people and 6000 Jews in the concentration camps of Pskov region of Russia and Jägala, Vaivara, Klooga, and Lagedi camps in Estonia."

This fairly clearly suggests that the article is relevant for the category "The Holocaust in Estonia".

I note Jaan Pärn's objection on the basis that the whole organisation was not involved (only 2.5 - 3.0% were) but point out that the categorisation indicates the relevance of the article to that category. There is not necessarily any judgement being made on what proportion of the organisation was involved, simply that this article is relevant to the category "The Holocaust in Estonia".

As for the category "Estonian Nazi collaborators", I am less certain. On the one hand I note that the main article on Collaboration with Nazi Germany mentions the Estonian Omakaitse within the section "Estonia". Again, this leads me to hold the opinion that the categorisation of the article is appropriate. On the other hand the text of the article leads me to believe that this was more of a national resistance movement and that any collaboration with Nazi Germany was more a matter of convenience than anything. On the whole, I think it's unnecessary to add the category "Estonian Nazi collaborators".

I'll finish by noting that I don't pretend to have any special expertise in this area, I'm just offering an outsider's opinion. Hope it helps! Thepm (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a middle ground that I would be ready to accept. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I am retracting "collaborators" category
After reading more about wwII history I decided to leave this category only for clearly criminalized collaboration. For example I have read that IBM sold equipment to Nazi Germany, i.e., actually it was helping Nazis. In other words, without clear criterion of inclusion the category may become too vague. Timurite (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why are you edit warring to add this category against your words? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Timurite (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a number of categories and changed one. Rationale: too many catagories/tags/whatever visual effects for one page overwhelm the reader and render the whole categorization stuff meaningless. If you object to any removals, please re-add with an appropriate comment/reason, as I'm no specialist in WW2, but was guided by my general experiences on such technical matters. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

New lead
It disaccords with the wp:lead guidelines right now as it contains mostly material that is not presented in the main body of the article and is overly long in proportion to the rest of the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Improvement
The given references do not provide for the tagged fact. As far as the peacock term is concerned, an organisation cannot be considered as a human person to "share fate" and is not of the same importance as the country. Otherwise, you are welcome to provide a citation for this wording.Rubikonchik (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * RE:The given references do not provide for the tagged fact - Have you even bothered to check the references?
 * RE:an organisation cannot be considered as a human person to "share fate" and is not of the same importance as the country - the fact that you are writing something like that shows that you don't even understand who is claimed to have shared the fate with whom. Otherwise, the reference for this wording is at the end of the statement, as standard. Oh, I am sorry, it slipped my mind that you haven't bothered to check the references. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One more time, the given references do not provide for the tagged fact.Rubikonchik (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but could you please specify the issues what you have with the references. The book (not just conclusions) has the needed material, which is both there and uncontroversial. Perhaps you don't have the paper book? -- Sander Säde 09:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * One more time, Rubikonchik does not have any idea on what she is tagging. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please provide a clear verifiable reference with the exact citation.Rubikonchik (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Common name
I am open for discussion on whether the common name in English is Home Guard or Omakaitse. Sander is right that to start with, the organisation has received very little attention in the English literature. The sources I use (Reports of the Estonian History Commission, Mart Laar) use Omakaitse as the proper noun. If anyone has alternative sources, let's see them. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * According to my copy of Saagpakk's Estonian-English Dictionary, he translates "Omakaitse", as the organisation, to "Self Defence". Many English language books seem to use "Omakaitse", see here. --Martin (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup after move
Hi there, how come, the article is named Omakaitse and the talkpage Home Guard (Estonia)? --92.225.81.227 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)