Jump to content

Talk:Erich Priebke

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

Unsourced 'reporting'

[edit]

The sentence "Adolf Hitler is reported, but never confirmed, to have ordered that within 24 hours, ten condemned Italians were to be shot for each dead German." - should this be removed in light of 'reported to' =/= a credible source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff24 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garbled assertion, unclear causality

[edit]
This caused great harm from people who had far from forgotten the incident, and this was the start of a trial which would last more than four years.

What does this mean? Perhaps something like:

This caused outrage amongst <some group or groups, e.g. ADL, relatives of those killed, etc>. <some cause, e.g. Attention from the US media> led to the four year court case against and ultimately the extradition from Argentina of Priebke.

The causual link is not clear in the article. Who put pressure on for his prosecution? One might say "general outcry", but that's just a rhetorical device. Most people don't care about atrocities unless someone shoves them in their face, and sometimes not even then. Mr. Jones 10:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is translated from Norwegian

[edit]

Much of this article is based on an article I made on the Norwegian wikipedia. That article was based again on a school project I wrote in 1999. I've included my sources on the Norwegian talk page, and I think it could be of some interest to include them here, too, though some of the links are broken. In addition to these internet articles, I used a couple of history books for more general knowledge about World War II.

[edit]

I also included some pictures taken from these articles, in my original work. You can find those on my homepage. The only trouble is that I don't know whether or not these are copyrighted, and they are probably not GNU licensed. But if someone else would care to do the work and find out, it would be nice with more pictures in the article. Mendalus 18:04, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

The new ones are copyrighted, most by reuters, but I'd say it's fair to claim fair use. Fuelbottle | Talk 00:07, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Italy capitulates"

[edit]

This section wasn't relevant. I rewrote it before I remembered that this page isn't about Mussolini, or even fascist Italy. Even then, it wasn't exactly informative. So I've removed it. One-dimensional Tangent 03:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The section put the massacre in a historical context. It was necessary in my essay which the original wikipedia article was based upon. But a wikipedia article is different. People reading the article would probably be aquainted with WW2 history, at least to some extent. If not, they could always read up by other articles. I support you in the removal of the section. Mendalus 22:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are there appropriate link in the See Also section? Mr. Jones 10:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists

[edit]

Anyone else see the irony in describing convicted communist partisans engaged in acts of terrorism as "civilians"?

By that definition, the execution of Tim McVeigh was a "war crime" because he was a "civilian". LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.35.153 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 December 2006 JamesMLane t c 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McVeigh was tried and convicted in a judicial proceeding, with right to counsel and other protections. The scheduling of his execution was also based on established principles, and was not changed to serve a temporary fit of retribution. There is no reason to use any term other than "civilians", because one of the issues was the military involvement in the deaths of non-military personnel. JamesMLane t c 02:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
McVeagh was a civilian, and his act of terrorism was not part of a "legitimate" war. These partisans were guerillas rather than terrorists, although their killing of parading police is more an act of murder than an act of war.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the term citizens for some of these victims is valid, regardless of your semantics. Not all of those killed in the massacre were prisoners and not all of the prisoners were convicted of anything. In fact, some of them had just been picked up the night before because they were near the Via Rasella bombing area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meme37 (talk • contribs) 06:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Priebke2.jpg

[edit]

Image:Priebke2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Breaking News 6/18/97

[edit]

Could someone who knows how add this to the article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6765127.stm

teneriff 01:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

[edit]

The prose in this article is badly lacking and not becoming of an encyclopedia. I'm guessing a lot of it was written by a non-native speaker of English, in which case their efforts are very welcome, but someone really needs to go through this correcting the elementary mistakes and rewording the muddled passages. 01:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

cut "-- all of them already facing death sentences for partisan activities -- "

[edit]

Not all of them were partisans, not all of them were already death sentenced: the actual inaccuracy, wording and the place of this sentence make it constructed to just ease the responsibility of Kappler about deciding that 320 people were to die "hurriedly". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.34.126 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

statute of limitations

[edit]

This article is apparently a translation of the Norwegian WP's article. That seems to also (apparently) incorrectly claim that Argentina has a statute of limitations for murder. This is at least not true in most countries. --Espoo (talk) 08:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Priebke.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Priebke.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 24 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More information on Priebke's career

[edit]

I think it would be interesting if the article had more information about Priebke's wartime activites not just his involvement in the Italian massacre; also was he really in the Gestapo (as the caption states)? Very few SS were in the Gestapo percentage-wise. Historian932 (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was not the Gestapo under the umbrella of the SS 'system'? Amt IV (Dept. IV)and the SIPO (to which Priebke belonged) of the Reichsicherheitshauptamt (RSHA) was a part of the SS. Therefore anyone serving in the Gestapo came under the SS. The Daily Telegraph (UK) obituary to him the other day had him down as a Waffen SS officer. Is that right? I wonder, does anyone know if Priebke was at any time under the jurisdiction of the Waffen SS?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.66.75 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing; the Gestapo was part of the RSHA but Priebke was in the SiPo not the Gestapo, the Wiki article on the Sicherheitspolizei gives their corresponding rank(s) in the SS almost as if they are different organizations (but both clearly under the aegis of the NS Party).Historian932 (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erich Priebke. 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) 16:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Responsibility for list

[edit]

If Kappler was responsible for compiling the list, how could Priebke have been responsible for it? Isn't it clear who drafted the list?Royalcourtier (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Erich Priebke. 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) 17:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erich_Priebke&oldid=1207524928"