Template:Did you know nominations/Befehlsnotstand


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Befehlsnotstand

 * ... that Befehlsnotstand was a reliable defence in war crimes trials in Germany in the 1950s and 1960s but research into the subject since has proven that it did not exist? Source: Hatten SS-Mitglieder damals wirklich „keine Wahl“? SS-Einsatzgruppen: Warum junge Männer im Akkord morden (both in German)
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Udo Zimmermann

Created/expanded by Turismond (talk). Self-nominated at 04:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Needed article, on good sources, no copyvio obvious. Questions for the article:
 * Translation of the term - I see that Langenscheidt comes up with it, but think it's so misleading (as overly simple) that perhaps the source should not be used. You translate ref titles so well (mostly) that I think your translation might be more helpful than that one. You could first explain, and then give a translation.
 * How about moving the "Notstand" = necessity to Etymology. It holds up getting to the key fact.
 * "drastic consequences" - how about mentioning in the lead that this means danger to life or body, nothing less than that?
 * "reliable defense" - is that a legal term that I don't know, or a description that accused could rely on it to be pardoned? In other words: am I the only one who has a question about the meaning?
 * "Crisis created as a result of following orders" - I can't follow even if it's in a source. The crisis is imagined if NOT following orders, no?
 * "Under the circumstances of Befehlsnotstand, within German law, carrying out an unlawful order could not result in the prosecution of the culprit if disobeying would lead to drastic consequences for the person refusing to carry out the order." - Trying: "In German law, the situation Befehlsnotstand arises when a person refusing to carry out an unlawful order would have to face drastic consequences. In this situation, the person would not be prosecuted for carrying out the order."
 * "... that refusing an unlawful order did, in no known case, result in severe punishment" - I think the commas make the phrase wrong, because if we drop the clause we get to "... that refusing an unlawful order did result in severe punishment" which seems the opposite of what is meant. May be my lack of English, though.
 * "a state where the individual mistakenly believes their live is in danger"? - "a state where the individual mistakenly believes that their life is in danger" (if we have to use "their" for one person at all).
 * translate Mauerschürtzenprozesse?
 * Other countries, and then it's only one. How about getting the info about Austria from the German Wikipedia?
 * If it's Befehlsnotstand (I'm never sure about italics) we need italic title.
 * Regarding the hook, I am afraid it's completely uncomprehensible for someone who doesn't know already what it means. Can you put a bit more explanation in? - Tough topic, thank you for tackling it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Pretty amazing review! I will go through the individual points, fix them up at the next opportunity and let you know when I'm done. Thank you. Turismond (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done a rewrite of the article along the line of your suggestions but, to be honest, my understanding of law subjects is to limited to truely achieve a satisfying result. Same goes for the hook, I'm struggling to come up with one that truely makes sense. I will give it some further thought and try to come up with a better hook. Turismond (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I spend a fair bit of time researching and found the best translation of the term yet, Necessity to obey orders. What about the following hook? Its a difficult subject to explain, especially within hook-length requirements! Turismond (talk) 14:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ALT1 ... that, after World War II, Befehlsnotstand, the necessity or compulsion to obey orders, was successfully used as defence in German war crimes trials, but has been proven to not have existed?
 * Thank you, just returned after a day out, will look tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No rush from my side, plenty of time! Turismond (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Some unsoliticited alternate hook suggestions that sidestep the linguistic issue: Catrìona (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ALT2: ... that German soldiers were not forced to commit atrocities during World War II?
 * ALT3: ... that, although German soldiers were not forced to commit atrocities during World War II, many successfully used it as a legal defence at war crimes trials?
 * Thank you, both, returning after a busy day. I think we deal with a legal term, and while a pipe might work, the negative "not" makes it harder to understand. ALT1 is a bit too wordy, and in ALT3, I suggest to get the legal defense upfront. Also, to my knowledge, it concerned not only soldiers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing? Rewording of ALT1, how is this, - too simple?
 * ALT4 ... that in German war crimes trials after World War II, Befehlsnotstand, the necessity to obey orders, was successfully used as defence, but was rarely justified? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I like your hook, Gerda, much better than the ones I could come up with. Turismond (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Thank you! Then let's play it safe and ask someone else to approve it even if I feel that it only says the same thing as others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg ALT4 is approved as interesting, comprehensible, and supported by citations. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)