Talk:Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law

Omar Khadr

I found the following journal article online, and finished populating the {{cite journal}} template:

• Drumbl, Mark A. (2016). "Victims who victimise". London Review of International Law. 4 (2): 217–246. doi:10.1093/lril/lrw015. Archived from the original on 2020-11-06.

It explicitly mentions Dominic Ongwen but does not mention Omar Khadr. Geo Swan (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Two sources are cited. The other source does mention him. (t · c) buidhe 15:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is nothing but left-wing crap.

The vast majority of Jews agree that kapos were pure evil traitors who deserved to be hanged. They weren't bullied into betraying and murdering their own; rather, they were psychopaths who got a power trip out of it. Describing them in the introduction to this article and on the Main Page of the entire site itself as "Holocaust survivors" when they were in fact perpetrators is typical of the leftist trash and lies that infest this Marxist, anti-Semitic cesspit of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.144.178.223 (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Danielyng (talk · contribs) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I am notifying you of my intentions to start reviewing this Article for Good Article status. Expect a full review to be out in a week at most, probably either tomorrow or Friday. Danielyng (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Danielyng, Hi, thanks for your review. But redlinks are not part of the GA criteria. The ones in this article meet the requirement in WP:REDYES. (t · c) buidhe 22:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Passed, then. Thanks! Danielyng (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

REVIEW ON NAZIS AND NAZI COLLABORATORS (PUNISHMENT)

INITIAL THOUGHTS

My initial thoughts are that this is a well-written article, including ample citations w/o original research, but there are a lot of Red Links, which I would recommend clearing up.

INITIAL SUGGESTIONS:

1. Clear up the Red Links

CRITERIA

Well written:

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[

Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;

it contains no original research; and

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral:

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable:

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated: if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

CRITERIA REVIEW

Well Written: The prose of the Article is clear, and well written. It is understandable for a broad audience.

VERIFIABLE WITH NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The information is sourced from reputable institutions. There is no original research.

BROAD IN ITS COVERAGE

The article addresses the main aspects of the topic and stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

STABLE

No edit warring going on.

ILLUSTRATED =

Illustrated with ample amount of media.

NEUTRAL

The article is Neutral.

FINAL RESULT =

Danielyng (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Notes

‘The law is not enacted only for practical purposes,’’ said Knesset Member Yosef Lamm, who was soon to sit on the bench in several of the trials, but ‘‘as a teaching device and cultural document. I don’t want people in 50–60 years’ time to go looking for the text of Section 214 [on the murder of Jews]. This is a unique law which I believe should be studied in every country, and they should know what it refers to.’’ —Zertal p. 65

(t · c) buidhe 02:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

"Mandatory" death sentence

Please cite the claim that death sentence is "mandatory"; see Article 35 of חוק העונשין. 79.177.70.1 (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The law does not have 35 articles. Please cite your claim. Article 1 says "is liable to the death penalty" with no other options given. The other articles don't. I don't know if legislation has changed since the 1950 original. Zero^talk 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

I only write what it says in reliable secondary sources. The cited sources do say that there is a mandatory death sentence. I suppose it is possible that they are wrong, but you would need to find equally reliable sources contradicting the point. (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)