Talk:Wiedergutmachung

Untitled

I would like to see sources for these statements made in the article:

• As of the mid 1980s nearly 5 million claims had been filed and paid.
• Nearly all of the claims were from USA and Israel.
• People have been imprisoned and lost their careers for just bringing up such issues in a public forum.
• Projections were being made that by year 2005 more than 7 million claims will be filed.

I would also like to see sources that verify whether these questions have been raised:

1. The statistics does not add up with the total number of Jews in Europe (or even perhaps in the whole world) at the time of WW-II (for instance, if 6 million perished in WW-II and another 6 million filed for Wiedergutmachungsgeld, that is already 12 million)
2. Why has the number of claims increased instead of decreased?
3. Why are the claims filed in USA and Israeli courts and not in German courts?
4. Why did so many victims wait until now 50 to 60 years after the end of WW-II to file for Widergutmachung (and other claims for reparations)?

Where have these questions been raised, and by whom? Thanks, silsor 20:43, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I was coming to this Talk: page to ask these exact question. As of now, the article is entirely unsourced, and appears to have many POV issues as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with above. These claims seriously need sources. Isomorphic 21:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello to all. Unfortunately in Germany there is a federal law that even discussing, let alone publishing, any such issues instantly constitutes a punishable federal offence, including jail. Indeed a number of people who were most definitely NOT Neo-Nazi's or even Nazi-sympaths, have been severely punished, including cases of imprisonement. I am afraid, the only published sources that I can refer you on this, would be what would immediately put a big label of "neo-nazi", "anit-semite" or "holocaust denier" on my forehead. If you do even a minimum bit of fair and objective search, you can determine if what I wrote contains truth or not. --JoergenF 21:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Usually authors of articles have to provide the sources; others may not know where they are, or how to find them. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are not being labeled, but you'll have to back up your statements (see my concerns below). JFW | T@lk 21:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Surely if people are being put in jail for discussing Wiedergutmachung in Germany, there would be some public records of the court proceedings, convictions, and sentencing of these people. If this were the case, it would surely be a matter of critical importance to this article, and several other articles I can think of (like, say, Censorship). However, it would need to have sources cited. Without that, Wikipedia has to regard the claim as an utterly unproven allegation. --FOo 01:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I point out that if there is indeed a German law that prohibits JoergenF from citing the sources for the questions he had in the article text earlier, that same law likely would also have prohibited him from putting the questions themselves in the article in the first place. This mysterious law seems quite bizarre if it allows one to report in an encyclopedia article that certain questions are being asked about the Wiedergutmachung, but prohibits one from specifying who is asking them, when, where, etc. --BM 02:11, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tone

The original tone of this article was very much that of a conspiracy theory. The four "questions" must have been asked by someone to become encyclopedic. The author cannot use Wikipedia to ask these questions. Therefore, I'm removing them until they are sourced.

A quick Google check did not return a "German federal law" forbidding discussing these four questions. I removed this until the author provides a source (with StB number). JFW | T@lk 21:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is outright censorship. According to your personal page, you are a Dutch doctor. It would be almost impossible then if you are unaware of BRD federal laws on this issue especially if you know what "StB number" is. Therefore, I am afraid, it appears that you are being disingenuous about this and extending the ugly censorship that exists in Germany in this regard, onto Wikipedia. --JoergenF 21:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Disingenuous? Censorship? Please address the real issues, not what you think of other editors. The claim cannot be backed up, so it needs your help in establishing proof. This is an encyclopedia, not a messaging board for free speech policy in Germany. JFW | T@lk 13:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:No original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is completely false. It might be censorship if you added information with a reliable source, and then somebody removed it. Until you provide a source, your information is only as reliable as adding "Hitler was a homosexual" to Adolf Hitler. silsor 21:47, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is not any original research (although I personally used to keep track of the statistics of BEG that used to be publicly avaialbe for some time). The think is that if I give ANY published reference on this I would immediately categorized as one of the labels like "neo-nazi", holocaust denier", anti-semite", "historical revisionist" and the like. That would be enough to delete not only this article, but ban me from this forum. --JoergenF 21:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joergen, I don't know where you've posted before, but Wikipedia is nothing like the site you describe. If you provide sources, your information will be allowed in the article, though there may be some work to compromise over how to present it. A neo-Nazi or holocaust denier who did choose to post here (and I have no interest in labeling you as one....I doubt the other users do either) would not be banned for it as long as they abided by our policies to avoid personal attacks, seek compromise, cite sources, etc. They might find people a bit hostile at times, but they would not be silenced unless they broke policy, and simply having a political viewpoint (however unpopular) is not a violation of policy. Jwrosenzweig 21:54, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you do a search on "BEG wiedergutmachung" you will already find multiple authentic sites without me associating myself with any labels and insinuations. --JoergenF 21:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are completely welcome to edit the page no matter who you are, as long as you adhere to Wikipedia:Wikipedia policy. silsor 21:58, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

The search you suggest gives me no hits in English to support your claims. Can you tell me which of the ones in German I should pipe through a translator to see if they support your claims? - UtherSRG 22:03, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I get some English links from that, by clicking the link at the top of the search results. silsor 22:09, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

If we go as far as page 3 we can find some christian fundermentalists trying t make a point in the same direction as the questions about halfway down the page[1] I future I suggests JoergenF does his own researchGeni 22:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, there are many authentic sources that you can use for comparison. For example, you can use the book "The Holocaust Industry" by Professor Norman G. Finkelstein, who himself is the child of a mother and father who were both Jewish *AND* in Nazi concentration camps. His book is translated in most major langauges of the world, and of course the original is in English. He used to be a professor of the State University of New York, but after the publication of his book, The Holocaust Industry he was harrassed out of his job and now he is a professor at another university. Some of the absolute highest echelons of world-class scholarship have praised his book for accuracy, thoroughness and objectivity. here is his official website: [2] --JoergenF 22:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very good. You're getting closer. Now can you cite where he raises the question you posed? Or does he raise a different set of questions? And, to maintain a NPOV can you provide possible answers to those question from both sides of the arguement? - UtherSRG 22:32, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

I do not have the book here with me at the moment. Is it a Wikipedia requirement to not only provide a book but also page number and chapter number, etc? That would put enough burden and responsibility on volunteer contributors to not be able to controbute in a practical way. That would be the kind of detail you would expect from a well-paid staff such as the major commercial or academic encyclopaedias have (and even in their case, I don't think they provide page numbers or greater details, they just mention the source). At any rate, this book is academic, authentic and well-respected. Naturally, it is deeply hated by its opponents. --JoergenF 22:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Joergen, we do often ask for page numbers -- it is important to remember that volunteering here is very much like being on the staff of a major encyclopedia....since volunteers are our staff, and we are currently a very major encyclopedia (in terms of uses per day). A request for a page number from a fellow editor is seen as a reasonable request, especially on controversial topics (where we want to be especially careful to be accurate). While you may think the request places a heavy burden on contribution, we have many fine editors who do not see it as one, and who have obviously contributed in a practical way, given the size and popularity of this site -- we do place serious demands on contributors, but I think it's fair to say that the quality of Wikipedia's results justifies such high standards. I hope you can understand this reasoning, and that you are willing to comply, Jwrosenzweig 22:51, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not entierly clear what the topic for this article is. Germany seems to have quite a few laws regulating paymets to individuals, states and organisations due to the WWII crimes. Wiedergutmachung is also a German word and no doubt has a translation in English. Palestine-info 00:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Commonsense answers to the questions

1) The statistics does not add up with the total number of Jews in Europe (or even perhaps in the whole world) at the time of WW-II (for instance, if 6 million perished in WW-II and another 6 million filed for Wiedergutmachungsgeld, that is already 12 million)

Wiedergutmachungsgeld is payable to any victim of Nazi persecution -- not just Jewish victims. There are a considerable number of Gentile victims when we include forced labourers and victims of the Gestapo in the occupied countries of Western Europe.

2) Why has the number of claims increased instead of decreased?

These were traumatic events. People have taken years to come to terms with them to the extent that they can actually consider speaking about them to a tribunal or court of law. No doubt there are those who still require more time to do so. Because of this human characteristic, claims would be expected to start slowly and build over the years. In addition many of the claimants were children or young adults during the 1950s and 1960s and would have been unable to decide to claim at the time, or would have had other priorities.

3) Why are the claims filed in USA and Israeli courts and not in German courts?

Because of agreements made between the governments of the three countries to make it easier for victims to sue.

4) Why did so many victims wait until now 50 to 60 years after the end of WW-II to file for Widergutmachung (and other claims for reparations)?

See the answer to question two. Also note that people's self confidence tends to become greater as they become older. They also have more free time after they have retired from working and so can afford to follow up on a claim which they may have been putting off for years.

These are the common sense answers. I don't have any sources for them though so they don't belong in the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:30, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

The (rethoric and secret) questions seem to have originated here Palestine-info 02:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is fine to discuss these questions in articles on Nazism/Holocaust etc. The answers to them are quite straightforward, so they need not be put to the reader as rhetorical questions (don't talk to the camera!), the context can be provided matter-of-factly. As for this article, what is it even about? If you want to discuss Finkelstein, go to Norman Finkelstein. If you want to discuss the Holocaust, go to Holocaust. This is an article about a German term for "reparation"? Fine, let's just summarize the information from the germany-info.org external link. dab (ᛏ) 06:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dab, this is encyclopedic. It is an example of the way Germany addressed the needs of Holocaust survivors, and has gone a long way into improving living conditions for those who had difficulty adapting in Israel/the USA etc. Some survivors have refused Wiedergutmachung, calling it a betrayal and an insult to the memory of lost family members. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Book and page

"Is it a Wikipedia requirement to not only provide a book but also page number and chapter number, etc? That would put enough burden and responsibility on volunteer contributors to not be able to controbute in a practical way."

Often this requirement is not met, but it is easy when reading a book and have that information to also edit Wikipedia. Fred Bauder 01:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It should also be noted that some articles need more precise citation than others. If you are writing on an uncontroversial topic, you may be able to get away without any form of citation, but the more controversial a topic is, the better your citations need to be. When people find it difficult to believe what an article is stating, precise citation becomes essential. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:31, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

File:Begin at Mass.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Begin at Mass.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)