Jump to content

Talk:Tulle massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Translation request

[edit]

We need to translate the French version to English.--Gen. Bedford his Forest 00:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article, but the French version is to long and complicated for me to translate to English. -- Matthead  Discuß   02:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make an effort to translate this across into English over the next few days. My French isn't perfect, so I encourage everyone to at least glance over the new sections. Hopefully it won't take long translating a section or two per day Robin Paulsen (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished translating the French version of the article into English. It could use a once-over by fresh eyes though, and a check of the formatting. --Nel371 (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

[edit]

In which category do fall the June 1944 Tulle killings of civilians & maquisards:

--Frania W. (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about legal reprisal against partisans and their helpers? --41.151.62.48 (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing 'legal' about the Nazis.

Unfortunately, there was. The NSDAP were a legally constituted political party and that status allowed them to participate in German elections from 1920 to 1933. To suggest otherwise is absurd.

When is a massacre not a massacre? Clearly when it is Germans who are being massacred......." For G. Penaud, (German losses) amount to about 50 dead (including those trying to surrender?), sixty missing, probably taken prisoner, and between 23 and 37 wounded. The majority of the prisoners were probably shot hereafter...." Hmmm. So that's ok then. Move on. Nothing to see here. It's not a massacre if it's Germans who are shot, even if it's upto 60 of them.

Also, see the apparent confusion in that part of the article entitled "Battle of Tulle" when the German are shot down at close range.... but maybe they were waving a white flag.... of course not, they're Germans, they must have been carrying grenades instead, you know, those grenades that look like white flags. And the grenades exploded of course and caused all those terrible injuries. Like blowing off the German's genitals which all ended up in they're mouths. Remarkable. And causing those injuries which made it look like some of the them had been tied to cars or trucks and dragged around Tulle until they were skinned. Shocking what a grenade can do.

Now, to be serious. One-sided history serves no-one. If you can't, or won't, tell the whole truth about an event then, please, don't bother. Telling part-truths warps the historical accuracy of that event and, in the case of Tulle, dishonours the memory of those innocents who were murdered during the reprisals. So, don't do it. Ask somebody else to do it or whatever but don't you do it. 2A00:23C0:504:5800:4DE5:F2DD:32DB:CAA2 (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for role in massacre

[edit]

Isn't the "reason behind the 2nd Panzer Division's role in the massacres" simply that they were ordered to do so?

The division may have had a "heavy belief in the ideology of National Socialism", "battle experience on the Eastern Front", "saw themselves as an elite military unit", but these are all irrelevant. The fact that they had "already participated in engagements with the French Resistance" would be a reason why they would have been happy to kill guerillas. Being a military elite is certainly not a reason to commit war crimes! Nor are belief in National Socialism, or battle experience.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, following the philosophy of National Socialism would result in war crimes, as the desires as illustrated in Hitler's book - later implemented by his regime - was for taking the land away from the Slavs in the East and resettling it with Germans and the annihilation of the Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.29.156 (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harvnb references broken

[edit]

The Harvnb templates are broken.

For example, in the French article, if you go to the References section and find a hyperlinked Harvard style reference, such as Penaud 2005 or Fouché 2001 and click them, they will refer to the Bibliography items

  • Guy Penaud, La "Das Reich", 2° SS Panzer Division, Périgueux, Éditions de La Lauze,‎ 2005 (ISBN 2912032768), and
  • Jean-Jacques Fouché, Oradour, Paris, Liana Lévi,‎ 2001, 283 p. (ISBN 9782867466519)

respectively.

If you try the same thing in the References section of the English article, you will also find (currently, as Footnotes [3] and [4]) the same two references. In the English article, Penaud is linked, Fouché is not. In the case of Penaud, and all other Harvard references which are linked, clicking the link does not go to the corresponding Bibliography item, as it should, and as it does in the French article. This may be a result of misrendering of Harvnb template parameters from the original French article. Mathglot (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Edited by Mathglot (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added section Memorials and commemorations

[edit]

Added new section Memorials and commemorations based on the newly added section Mémoire et commémorations in the French article.

This is not a straight translation, but just an abbreviated summary. The section in the French article is vast overkill--it goes into great detail about what happened at each of these memorials or commemorations, which I find of questionable notability, even if it is verifiable (the French article quotes sources) and the extended quotations about who said what at these long-ago memorials is totally useless. I find it questionable whether there is anything notable about the section at all; but given that this is a translation of the French article, I thought we could start with an abbreviated section, and if it's not notable, we can just get rid of it. I didn't bother bringing over any of the references, which are available in the French version, in case the whole thing just got deleted, so I also stuck a Refimprove section banner template over it. If we decide to keep the section in some form, (some of) the references should be ported over from the French article, and the banner removed. Mathglot (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated xrefs

[edit]

I deleted numerous repeated xrefs, actions that are in accordance with MoS, but these have been twice reverted by User: Beyond My Ken on the basis that "These are not improvements, apparently POV" and "Your edits show a very definite POV". Compliance with MoS by removing multiple repeated xrefs to Milice, 2nd SS Panzer Division etc is not POV. Comments please. Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor's actions show a definite POV, and his removals are, generally speaking, an attempt to minimize the atrocity and the responsibility for it by the Nazis. It is similar to his edits on Oradour-sur-Glane massacre. Such attempts at mitigation cannot be allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not pushing any POV nor seeking to minimize the atrocity or the responsibility for it, quite how you reach that conclusion is incomprehensible. Repeated xrefs are not in accordance with MoS and don't help the reader. Removing repeated xrefs is not the same as deleting the responsible parties which I have not done anywhere in my edits. Mztourist (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not incomprehensible at all, since you persist in trying to remove references which help to make it clear to the reader how horrendous this massacre and that at Oradour-sur-Glane were. I do you the courtesy of assuming that you're not aware of the effects of your editing, but they are real nonetheless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have not removed any relevant information, just numerous repeated xrefs/wikilinks. I do not understand how you believe that this in any way would undermine for any reader "how horrendous this massacre and that at Oradour-sur-Glane were". Mztourist (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copy edit and clean up. Kierzek (talk) 12:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you Kierzek. Beyond My Ken why is it that Kierzek's edits (where he has removed various repeated xrefs) acceptable to you when mine were "not improvements, apparently POV"? Mztourist (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because I trust his judgment, and I don't trust yours Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So this is all purely your POV rather than an objective review of the merits of the changes made. Mztourist (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about conflicting editorial opinions, and I've explained to you my motivation. There's really no such thing as an "objective review" of a subjective matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my edits with spurious claims that I was attempting "to minimize the atrocity and the responsibility for it by the Nazis" and yet you accept the same edits by another editor so your POV/opinion lacks any credibility. Mztourist (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not part of the Holocaust

[edit]

The Tulle Massacre was not part of the Holocaust, so the Holocaust infobox/link shouldn't be there, so why have you reinstated it User:Beyond My Ken? Mztourist (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You see, this is the way it is: Wikipedia works on consensus, and if the consensus of editors thinks it's appropriate to have the Holocaust sidebar in this article, then the Holocaust sidebar is going to be in the article, no matter what you think about it, Mztourist. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have a POV regarding my edits and won't accept any sensible changes. The Tulle Massacre had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Please explain its direct relationship to the Holocaust that justifies retaining the sidebar. Mztourist (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not seeing why you're fighting this in this manner, since your pathway is clear: get a consensus from the editors on this page to remove the Holocaust box and you can do it. You haven't really even tried, just bitched and moaned about my objecting to your removal. I am but one of many, so go get the many to agree with you -- simple. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really want me to start another RfC because of your obstinacy? I have asked you how you think the Tulle Massacre is related to the Holocaust, you refuse to answer and as usual fall back on consensus to justify your untenable position.Mztourist (talk) 15:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What historical Reliable Source places this massacre within the scope of the Holocaust? It was an action against the Resistance, not a killing of Jews per se. 50.111.29.156 (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding Holocaust sidebar

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to remove the sidebar.There appears to be a consensus that no source definitely attributes the crime to Holocaust and in the spirit of WP:NOR, it shall be excluded.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 14:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the Holocaust sidebar from this page because it was an anti-partisan massacre conducted by the 2nd SS Panzer Division, not a massacre of Jews and so the Holocaust sidebar is not relevant. User:Beyond My Ken has reverted this change, but has not explained why the Holocaust sidebar should be retained, instead saying that I need to establish consensus for this change. I have tried to discuss this with Beyond My Ken (see discussion immediately above) but have made no progress. Comments please, should the sidebar be deleted or retained?. Mztourist (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust was not just about Jews, and these were civilians rounded up and murdered.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Remove Holocaust. Holocaust in the narrow sense is only Jews. In the wider sense it refers to the systemic rounding up of certain classes of individuals, and their subsequent killing - these included Romani (Gypsies), Aktion T4 (disabled), homosexuals, and other groups. However this particular massacre was a reprisal against civilians - an action that while cruel, was done by many nations. The killing of said civilians was punitive - not genocidal. This type of massacre is quite distinct and separate from the wholesale genocidal murder of a class of people.Icewhiz (talk) 16:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain sidebar If this were only an on-the-spot reprisal killing of partisans/civilians I would support the removal of the sidebar. Here, though, over a hundred civilians were arrested and processed in Dachau, where the imprisonment and killing of political prisoners falls under the commonly understood meaning of the Holocaust. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain sidebar Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sidebar The Holocaust page discusses the etymology and definition of the term, but the page adopts the narrow approach that the Holocaust refers to the Nazi genocide of Jews and not the wider scope of political prisoners and other "undesirables" murdered by the Nazis. Just because some prisoners were sent to Dachau doesn't make the Tulle Massacre part of the Holocaust.Mztourist (talk) 09:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain sidebar - "The Holocaust" article also states: "A broader definition of the Holocaust includes non-Jewish victims such as the Romani, ethnic Poles, members of other Slavic ethnic groups and Aktion T4 patients who were mentally and physically disabled. An even broader definition includes Soviet citizens and prisoners of war, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, black people, political opponents of the Nazis, and members of other smaller groups." So, it does not just "adopt the narrow approach" it is only to be used in the context of the Jewish people; with that said, it would be fair to say, there is a greater emphasis on Jewish victims and that Jews were certainly a primary focus of the Nazis. Kierzek (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, while the etymology section discusses the broader definition, the rest of the Holocaust page follows the narrower definition of the Nazi genocide against the Jews. Even adopting the wider definition, execution of partisans or deportation of political prisoners or hostages is stretching this too far and takes this too far from the commonly understood meaning of Holocaust. Mztourist (talk) 10:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Snyder is provided in the "Definition" section of the primary Holocaust article for an inclusive understanding of the term. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem like a consensus. – Nihlus (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's a pretty heavy stack of refs to cover broad definitions in the mentioned section. I'm not sure you're going to find an absolute, authoritative statement of meaning that isn't contested to some degree, by someone. Is that your litmus or am I misunderstanding? LargelyRecyclable (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sidebar this is an extremely broad definition of The Holocaust which is not supported by the academic consensus, and essentially incorporates every German war crime of WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sidebar Military barbarism towards civilians is generic and shouldn't be limited to time, place or perpetrator. German reprisals against civilians on the Eastern Front seem more of a precedent to the behaviour of the 2nd SS Pz Div at Oradour and Tulle. Keith-264 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Do reliable sources say that this particular action was part of the Holocaust? If not, there would seem to be no reason to include it. (Hohum @) 16:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My search was admittedly cursory, but I found Tulle referenced twice in the context of the Holocaust, most substantially in Ludivine Broch's Ordinary Workers, Vichy and the Holocaust, the context being the mass shooting and deportation of political enemies in the occupation of France. Also, less substantially, in background info on Wulff and Hoff in André Colombat's The Holocaust in French Film. It's not what I'd consider good enough for an line citation of direct correlation but good enough for the general context suggested by an infobox. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't sound like either source states that the Tulle Massacre was part of the Holocaust. Mztourist (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither seem good enough. Remove. (Hohum @) 16:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sidebar in the discussion preceding this rfc, the only argument put forward was that a consensus was required. That's no reason at all to keep the sidebar. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 20:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sidebar. As per WP:NOR, taking into account the above discussion. Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove sidebar. This appears to stretch the definition of 'Holocaust' to every anti-civilian-Nazi-warcrime. The more usual definition limits the term to 'policy-based elimination of certain groups' (mostly racial groups), rather than 'ad hoc' massacres. Including this event does not appear to be generally supported by historians. 'Holocaust' would be an apt subject for a 'see also', but inluding as sidebar is WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sidebar; not Holocaust-related (though the nom. in incorrect about the Holocaust being limited to Jews).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tulle massacre. 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:

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) 05:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tulle_massacre&oldid=1228201875"