Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nuremberg trials/archive1

Nuremberg trials

 * Nominator(s): (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you probably know what the article is about! This million-level article will likely be the second to last FAC from me for quite a while assuming it meets with your approval. I want to thank Ealdgyth and Dhtwiki for helping get the article FAC ready. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:RIAN_archive_2251_Destroyed_Stalingrad_does_not_give_up.jpg: source link is dead
 * Link is dead for sure, but the licensing should be OK since it was a legit cooperation project: c:Commons:RIA Novosti (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Men_with_an_unidentified_unit_execute_a_group_of_Soviet_civilians_kneeling_by_the_side_of_a_mass_grave.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Monowitz_prisoners_unload_cement_from_trains_for_IG_Farben.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For both of these the source says it's public domain and notes "Source Record ID: 338-Cases Tried--box 514--file 000-21-2"—indicating it was evidence in a case, and therefore published during a trial. (The second one is actually "I.G. Farben Case, Def. Ex. 10", so it was known to be an exhibit in the IG Farben trial). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Evidence in a case" does not typically equate to "published" - is there a reason to believe that was the case here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Brigade Piron
Buidhe has done a great job with this article and has improved it hugely. I do have some comments, however, which I think are worth considering: Many thanks, and well done on the improvements already made! —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there is possibly too much emphasis on the Soviet perspective at the expense of the Americans and, in particular, the British and smaller European allies. I understand the reliance on Hirsch but this does not reflect, as far as I understand it, the scholarly "mainstream" view.
 * I can see how it might seem unbalanced at first glance, but the reality is that the four organizing powers did not play an equal role. I had to cite a second-tier source (Tusa & Tusa) in order to cover basically anything of the British prosecution case due to dearth of sources. I think the French section already covers the main points and other countries played only a negligible role in the trial. If there is a section that needs expanding, it is probably the American one, but I'm not really sure what additional information if any the reader would benefit from in that section. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. If the coverage is imbalanced, that is a problem in its own right isn't it? My understanding of the scholarly consensus is that the Nuremberg trials were, in effect, an Anglo-American project and driven, as you say, by the Americans. It is good that we cover the Soviet aspect in line with revisionist scholarship but this should not distract from the main point. For the British, can you access this? On the contribution of smaller states, see this. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to access the Musa source. None of the general sources that I counsulted indicated a significant role of Poland so I am skeptical of WP:DUE in this article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To add to this, it's not doubted that Poland was important to the UNWCC. Fleming's book would be a good source in that article, but the UNWCC was of limited importance to the Nuremberg trial (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think some detail on the pre-war legal context would be helpful. In particular, there is plenty of discussion of the influence of the Leipzig trial in reliable sources. A basic introduction to the context of the law of war would be helpful (considering the context of 19th century attempts to limit the severity of conflict and, for example, regulate military occupations) - remembering that our readers will be interested in the law as well as the history.
 * Not sure about this. The Leipzig trials had some indirect influence for example pushing some to support an international trial while making the British skeptical of a judicial solution. However, I believe that mentioning the trials without other factors that were more important according to RS would be undue weight. Whereas discussing all the relevant factors would lead the background section to become bloated (see Sellars chapter 2 for the full story). I think I should slightly expand information about law of war + crimes against humanity in the legal basis section, which I will try to do over the next few days. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What other factors do you mean were more important? On the point about the French, the opposition to the common law concept of conspiracy is notable and, unless I have missed it, currently omitted. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * According to Priemel the conspiracy charge was promoted by US and not popular with the other three powers. This is already covered in the article. As for factors that were important, according to Sellars motives behind the British stance included avoiding another fiasco like Leipzig, but above and beyond that concern that trials would impede the process of restoring order in Europe (more specifically, that trials could lead to lynching). Many of their legal advisors believed that existing international law was insufficient to the task. If we cover all of this, that would seem to me to be disproportionate emphasis on the British motives (considering that they were not the primary mover behind the trials anyway). In the whole chapter Leipzig is only mentioned once, in relation to the British motive. Priemel also briefly mentions that some legal experts supported an international trial to avoid having defeated states try their own nationals, but it's a very brief mention among a lot of other factors. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally think the two pictures in the "origins" section could be dispensed with or, at least, reduced to a single image better integrated with the text. At the moment, they merely seem to illustrate themes in the wartime period and the captions do not tie them in. Remember that "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." (MOS:PERTINENCE)
 * I am also strongly against irrelevant images but disagree that these images are irrelevant.
 * Can you explain it? What do they add except as generic depictions of war damage and mass killing? At the least, one is sufficient unless they are tied in explicitly with the text. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it not worth saying something about the conceptual origins of crimes against humanity (as the article currently does about crimes against peace)? Hersch Lauterpacht and Raphael Lemkin probably deserve a mention in a footnote at the very least (it is embarrassing that we do not have an article for Murray C. Bernays!)
 * I also think that Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg (1977) should be cited somewhere (it is old but described as essential reading as recently as 2020).


 * I'm closing this as withdrawn because I really don't have the time to work on it now. The usual 2-week period will apply.
 * (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)