Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German collective guilt (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Courcelles 23:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

German collective guilt
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is a dab-page-shaped article (and its creator calls it a dab page - see Talk) but it is not a dab page - none of the articles have titles which are ambiguous with "German collective guilt". If anything needs to exist at this title, it is not a dab page. Pam D  22:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination - the article now has real content, thanks to User:Colonel Warden, so there is now no basis for the nomination. The AfD process has been successful in converting a non-article (formatted as a dab page) into an asset to the encyclopedia, by prompting someone to take an interest and re-create the article. Thanks! Pam  D  21:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm, as it turns out there's actually three different versions of the article that people are voting on. Also I take issue with the assertion that the version re-created by Colonel Warden is a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Compared to the original version from a few years ago, it's highly pov.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, my AfD nomination was on the basis that it was a content-free non-dab page (this version), consisting only of a set of links which might be a "See also" section but were insufficient to form an article. I came across it while stub-sorting as it had been tagged as a stub, although described as a dab page. I might have speedied it as "No content" but thought AfD more appropriate for an article which had previously been deleted at AfD. So I now withdraw my nomination because the article has been edited sufficiently to meet the reasons for the nomination.   Pam  D  07:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes sense. We should close this AfD - for a dab page - as irrelevant now, perhaps noting somewhere that the closure of the AfD is not meant as any kind of endorsement of the current version (which I think has serious POV problems). I guess the issue of what the actual article should consist of can be hashed out on the talk page then.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and fix it. An earlier article was deleted several years ago as OR--I do not think it was in fact OR, but rather an extremely non-neutral presentation that would need complete rewriting. I could email  it t  if anyone wants to follow up on it, as was suggested at the AfD--see the earlier AfD for some advice on what would be needed. I see that User:Molobo was blocked as a compromised account in 2008, after previous blocks--there is a long history, part of it at Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Evidence.  Considering the history, I'd rather not restore it even to user space unless someone is willing to promptly use it.   DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete what's there to fix? The term gets virtually no hits, and I find no evidence that "collective guilt", whatever the hell that is, is mentioned anywhere in association with Germans. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your computer has parental controls or some other filter set? I see hundreds of references to the topic. Warden (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - notable topic known by various names, I would support a move to Collective war guilt though to make the topic more encompassing (and thus more likely for a balanced Article). If you dont know what it is, count yourself lucky. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete If it's a notable topic, it should be covered by an encompassing article, not a dab page. I'm not arguing against the existence of a collective guilt associated with wars and particularly WWII, but currently, it's exactly the kind of compilation of related subjects a dab page is not supposed to be. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Highly notable topic. Any defects of the current version should be addressed by ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: the current version is labelled as a dab page: remove all the non-ambiguous entries and it becomes empty and speediable. Perhaps it needs to be renamed as a stub and the links labelled as a "See also" section ... but then it comes under CSD A3 as having no content other than those "See also"s. Such "defects" are pretty fundamental. Deletion of the article at present would not prevent someone from re-creating it as and when they had any actual content to include. Pam  D  21:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article so that it has more content. Deletion was not required for this nor were the defects fundamental: it was just a matter of taking the skeleton and putting flesh upon the bones. Warden (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - highly notable topic. See these sources:, , both of which cover this particular topic in great detail. There is no reason to delete the article now that it has some content, although it needs significant expansion. S Larctia (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a request from Col W. for the earlier history to be restored to his user space, but I do not know how to technically accomplish it while preserving attribution. I've never figured out the more complex merge/unmerge procedures. I have therefore restored the entire history; at the end of the discussion, whatever is decided can be done, and whoever knows how to fix it properly can do so.   DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - the topic itself is notable and has been the subject of several scholarly and popular works. However, the current version is highly POV and frankly embarrassing to the encyclopedia. It pushes the whole "Germans were the real victims of WW2" (because they had to "suffer" de-Nazification, because Germany lost territory as result of the war, etc), which is straight out of far-right literature (in countries, such as modern Germany and most other European countries, where outright Holocaust-denial is illegal, this theme that "Germans were the real victims of WW2" is the way that neo-Nazi parties get around this law). The *real* article should be about to what extent the German public of the 1930's acquiesced or supported Hitler and the Nazis and the implementation of the Final Solution - that is what the sources are actually about, not this extremist right wing propaganda bullshit that currently makes it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For relevant example see also the German wikipedia version .Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on the article and the agreement that it should be kept. I'm afraid there was absolutely no intention to make this a POV piece, and we need to strike a balance in the article between the commonly held viewpoint that German collective responsibility did exist and the commonly held viewpoint that responsibility for Nazi atrocities existed only in much smaller groups of individuals (the armed forces, SS and higher ranks of the Nazi party). Perhaps the article should be moved to German collective responsibility for Nazi atrocities to clarify the subject of the article, as it could also refer to German collective guilt in the fighting of WWI, which is much more dubious. S Larctia (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think those are reasonable suggestions, as are some of the comments by Tomjakobsen at the first AfD . I'm beginning to think that neither the current version (not the dab) nor the old version are/were NPOV, though in very different ways. Perhaps having two articles here would solve some of the problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - It should be noted that Volunteer Marek was caught proxying for then blocked user Molobo. User:Radeksz as he is known as in the findings of of fact of the linked to Arbitration changed his name to "Volunteer Marek" after it. Today Volunteer Marek has, while using the words "restore last neutral version", restored the old version of this article that was deleted after AFD as beeing completely non-neutral. The old version that by the way was originally written by Molobo, mentioned above. Note the AfD date of 2007 October 11 in the version that Volunteer Marek "restored".--Stor stark7 Speak 06:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) What does that have to do with anything? "Your" version is obviously chock-full of weird stuff about how supposedly Germans from Nazi Germany where "the real victim of WWII", which as I noted above - and for which I can provide reliable sources - is a standard far-right tactic in countries where Holocaust denial is illegal. And if you really wanna drag out old stuff I can certainly find some choice comments of yours from the past, like this innocent question about the Holocaust. So I suggest you stick to discussing content rather than editors, lest people get interested in your edit history.
 * However, there is in fact a problem with this AfD. We have one version, which was recently restored by User:Exit2DOS2000, which is all about this supposed "Allied propaganda" and how the British and Americans where oh so mean! to the Germans after world war II, without even a mention of Nazi atrocities, or we have the older version which was about alleged support among Germans for the Nazi party and Hitler. So there's really 2 AfDs that should be taking place here. Like I said above, reliable, scholarly sources, when discussing "German collective guilt" refer to the latter - for example Goldhagen's well known book  (I'm not saying I agree with it, just that this is the subject matter). Hence that should be the subject of the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have restored the Article to the version that This AfD is talking about. Please do not make major revisions without discussion (esp. to previously deleted versions) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 07:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you don't seem to have done that: this AfD was created when the article was in this version, a dab-like article with no appropriate content for a dab page. Pam  D  07:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand stand corrected ... I brought it back to the point of Colonel Warden's edits (and his reply in this AfD of 23:12, 3 September 2011) that addressed your disagreements with the Article. In my mind that was the current state of the Article, that was discussed (or the generally agree'd upon) version. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ummm... ok, theoretically restoring the old version for the purposes of this AfD would be fine. But:
 * 1) Calling that version "npov version" is just ridiculous.
 * 2) When this AfD was made, the article was NOT that version, but rather a disambiguation page. So if you were going to restore it to the proper version, then that would be the disambig version.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @Volunteer Marek: Since you are not an administrator I think it is important that others understand from where you managed to access the text of a deleted article. As for your accusations of "far-right" apparently aimed at the recent editors of the article, I would advice you to be very careful about such personal attacks, given your block history it might result in quite a hefty block.--Stor stark7 Speak 07:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I accessed it from the article's history that's where (here). And I'm not accusing any person of being far-right, what I'm saying is that a particular POV (blaming everything on the Allies instead of a Nazis) is representative of what one usually finds in far-right sources. I don't think anyone reasonable would dispute that. And please stop making threats, I've been on Wikipedia for close to seven years, have my share of bruises and my block log is fine. Quite modest in fact. I also orient myself quite well in these disputes and I know what particular editors are usually up to. I'm not going to be intimidated here so don't try to bully me please (like you tried to do above and like you're trying to do now).[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek] (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, might as well note that the 1st AfD was made by a user who's now indef banned from Wikipedia.
 * Let me clarify also that when I looked at the historical version of the article I thought the AfD notice referred to this particular one. I didn't look close enough to see that the old version was subject of an AfD as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak keep and comment. The subject is notable, as close to 500 Google book hits return results for the topic. At the same time I have not looked at the article in any detail nor its history, which seems complex, and I am certainly not able to say whether it is biased. The article may warrant tagging and rewrite, but that is the matter for article editing and its talk page, not for AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 21:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There have been adequate sources found. The article is fine now.   D r e a m Focus  03:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep subject is clearly notable - content can always be fixed. Agathoclea (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is well known and notable. The content should be extended to provide appropriate background and more recent information about public opinion in Germany. Biophys (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.