Talk:Subsequent Nuremberg trials

Start class

Some expansion is needed to get to B class, plus some footnotes. But a great start. Aboutmovies 19:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of torture

There are accusations of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals using torture against the accused. Can anyone verify or debunk those accusations? While I can’t exclude the possibility of some of them being tortured I find widespread torture implausible. Please note that I don’t intend to read any “revisionist” literature. Some details of the Nazi genocide may well be legitimately revisioned. But their industrial killing of millions of defenceless people is so well-documented it is highly unlikely to be disproven.

A guy named Chris asserts there being no doubt about the use of torture during these trials. What do mainstream historians say about that? He also claims that 137 out of 139 examined men had their testes crushed. Supposing not everyone tortured had his testes crushed I find torture that widespread hard to stomach. Did the Americans decide in advance which ones to acquit? I see no sensible reason to think so.

2012-08-01 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.151.180 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Subsequent Nuremberg trials. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101125101211/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/subsequenttrials.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/subsequenttrials.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding Some Extra Content

As part of the Western NC's 3rd Annual Holocaust preservation Edit-A-Thon (https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/campaigns/westernncs3rdannualholocaustpreservationeditathon/overview), I am adding some additional content to this page. Any improvements, revisions or suggestions are welcome! Jnwest (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Move

Compare Ngram result[1] or google scholar [2][3] shows that the name "Nuremberg Military Tribunals" is much more common. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close. Brigade Piron, as the move by Buidhe was undiscussed, Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves is the correct venue for this. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Nuremberg Military Tribunals → Subsequent Nuremberg trials – This page was recently moved from the proposed title by Buidhe on WP:COMMONNAME grounds but I don't believe this to be correct. There are several points:

• Naming an article which essentially deals with a series of trials after the court before which they were heard leads to obvious confusion about the actual subject of the article (this also has implications for the results of a NGRAMS search);
• "Nuremberg Military Tribunals" leads to obvious confusion with the with the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, currently addressed here under the title of "Nuremberg trials"
• The overwhelming majority of links using the NMT terminology appear to be drawn from the legal scholarship and do not reflect the wider historical and political science scholarship which addresses the same subject.

I also note that some variation of the subsequent title is used, among others, by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, Wiener Holocaust Library Nuremberg Trials Museum and US State Department. There is also recent academic usage in legal and non-legal scholarship (cf 1, 2 etc.). —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Nuremberg Military Tribunals ngram.png

Comparison of NGRAM

• Oppose These arguments would be reasonable if the two names were close in commonality, but that's not the case. "Nuremberg Military Tribunals" is about 10x as common in print sources (Ngram result[4] or google scholar [5][6] note that NMT's predominance is consistent across time up to the latest data (2019)) It's unclear to me how Brigade Piron concluded that the term NMT is not the common name in general coverage of the topic, as you would expect given that it is much more common overall. The distinction between the name of the trials and the name of the court is not made in reliable sources on the subject (ex "the twelve war crimes trials held in the American zone of occupation between 1946 and 1949, collectively known as the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMTs)."[7]). I think any risk of confusion is easily dispelled by including background information in the first few sentences of the article. (t · c) buidhe 13:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe:, I think it is worth looking at the data more closely. There seems to be a major distortion in the results caused by the quotation of the full original title of the original judgments which follow the same format, eg "Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10". For precisely this reason, any serious book on international law will have to use the exact words "Nuremberg Military Tribunals" innumerable times in its footnotes. This is why the Ngrams search (always a blunt tool) turns up such an abnormal number of uses of the terms.

In fact, if you look more closely at the actual results you show, there actually seem to be relatively few specialist sources which use the term beyond the monograph by K.J. Heller, The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law (Oxford, 2011) and an edited volume by K.C. Priemel and A. Stiller, Reassessing the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (2012) and the innumerable reviews of these which quote their titles. It lists surprisingly few other journal articles and publications which use the term as a title or in the main body of the text.

I have certainly never denied that the term NMT does have scholarly usage, but I don't think these compare seriously with the official and semi-official sources I cited above. WP:COMMONNAME is about more than just raw data. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

The majority usage of "Nuremberg Military Tribunals" is not coming from the full official name[8] and even if it were, then we would just conclude that the official name was the common name as well. Surely the fact that scholarly books are published under the title "Nuremberg Military Tribunals" indicates that the name is common, while the only book using the title "Subsequent Nuremberg trials" is a Wikipedia book[9] Naturally, the books and book reviews using the name in their title are going to show up first in any search but the claim that some other name is more common ignoring the books isn't supported by your reasoning considering that "Nuremberg Military Tribunals" has always been by far the most common name in print sources, decades before either book was published. As pointed out above, the term "Nuremberg Military Tribunal" is 10x as common in scholarly sources as indicated by Google Scholar results. (t · c) buidhe 23:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I really don't think that follows at all:

• Ngrams is an extremely blunt tool - I note that "International Military Tribunal" technically registers more hits than "Nuremberg trials" (cf 1) but it would be mad to argue that the former would be the common name.
• As for usage, I have already cited prominent usage of "Subsequent Nuremberg trials" but I would note that two of the articles in Reassessing the Nuremberg Military Tribunals actually have "Subsequent (Nuremberg) trials" in the title! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.