Talk:Windhoek Concentration Camp

Question about deep quoting and analysis within footnotes
Some of the material in the footnotes for this article deals with information that is contested by denialists. Most academics are fully aware of who these denialists are; thus, in the footnotes to this articles, if something was particularly relevant, the quoted material was placed within the relevant footnotes. I feel that this is the proper way to handle "censored" material, while not putting disproportionate emphasis on it within the body of the article itself. (Putting it in the article itself would tend to confuse readers; excluding it altogether would tend to support the denialists.)

Is this a violation of Wikipedia style or policy? If so, how does one handle larger quotes and commentary in footnotes? User:GraemeLeggett and others, please comment.

Thanks,Virago250 (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that generally in regards to quoted sections in footnotes:
 * All quotes need to be adequately sourced
 * Opinions (as opposed to statements of fact) if they are not the majority view of reliable sources need to be attributed as such.
 * There should not be extensive quoting of copyright material


 * Now if it is the case that there are opposing views on a subject it is usual to represent them both in fair proportion as covered by WP:Undue. A minority view is normally given coverage in relation to its "size" (can't think of a better phrase for the moment): so osbscure opinions held by a very small minority would not have much of the article (if any) given over to their point of view. If you have trouble deciding how much material shoud be given over to each side, perhaps it is best to discuss the matter by focussing on specific areas.
 * I have a specific concern that the section linking German activities in SW Africa with latter Nazi activities looks to be largely a collection of facts thrown together rather than stating from reliable sources whether (or not) people and events in German SW Africa had an influence on Nazi Germany, were atypical of other colonial powers, or reflected the German people as whole.
 * In fact its position in the text makes me suspicious from the start. It would be better to tell the story of the camp in this order: background (the events leading up to the establishment of the camp), history of the camp (what happened there over the period, who was involved in what), and aftermath (what happened following the end of the camp and in what way it had an effect on other things). GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Merger
This article (as with all the other GSWA concentration camp articles except Shark Island Concentration Camp contains almost nothing that is not just a general statement about the situation in GSWA at the time. Two of the cmaps have had a proposed merger up since April 2012. I intend to carry out this merger, and include this page in the merger. FOARP (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)