This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The category has nothing to do with responsibility. Categories reflect article content. The article, among others, discusses murder of Jews and POW during WWII. Therefore it is placed in the corresponding categories. Timurite (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Thepm (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
The article does not say the organisation as a whole was responsible for the Holocaust in Estonia, hence, it does not belong to the categories.
Ok, I have read through the article and the talk page and unless I am missing something obvious, it appears fairly clear that the dispute is over whether or not the article should be included in the categories "The Holocaust in Estonia" and "Estonian Nazi collaborators". If I have gotten that wrong, please let me know.
On the question of whether the category "The Holocaust in Estonia" should be included, I note that the article states that;
Approximately 1000–1200 men of the Omakaitse (2.5–3%) were directly involved in criminal acts, taking part in the round-up, guarding or killing of 400–1000 Roma people and 6000 Jews in the concentration camps of Pskov region of Russia and Jägala, Vaivara, Klooga, and Lagedi camps in Estonia.
This fairly clearly suggests that the article is relevant for the category "The Holocaust in Estonia".
I note Jaan Pärn's objection on the basis that the whole organisation was not involved (only 2.5 - 3.0% were) but point out that the categorisation indicates the relevance of the article to that category. There is not necessarily any judgement being made on what proportion of the organisation was involved, simply that this article is relevant to the category "The Holocaust in Estonia".
As for the category "Estonian Nazi collaborators", I am less certain. On the one hand I note that the main article on Collaboration with Nazi Germany mentions the Estonian Omakaitse within the section "Estonia". Again, this leads me to hold the opinion that the categorisation of the article is appropriate. On the other hand the text of the article leads me to believe that this was more of a national resistance movement and that any collaboration with Nazi Germany was more a matter of convenience than anything. On the whole, I think it's unnecessary to add the category "Estonian Nazi collaborators".
I'll finish by noting that I don't pretend to have any special expertise in this area, I'm just offering an outsider's opinion. Hope it helps! Thepm (talk) 11:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
After reading more about wwII history I decided to leave this category only for clearly criminalized collaboration. For example I have read that IBM sold equipment to Nazi Germany, i.e., actually it was helping Nazis. In other words, without clear criterion of inclusion the category may become too vague. Timurite (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a number of categories and changed one. Rationale: too many catagories/tags/whatever visual effects for one page overwhelm the reader and render the whole categorization stuff meaningless. If you object to any removals, please re-add with an appropriate comment/reason, as I'm no specialist in WW2, but was guided by my general experiences on such technical matters. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
It disaccords with the wp:lead guidelines right now as it contains mostly material that is not presented in the main body of the article and is overly long in proportion to the rest of the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The given references do not provide for the tagged fact. As far as the peacock term is concerned, an organisation cannot be considered as a human person to "share fate" and is not of the same importance as the country. Otherwise, you are welcome to provide a citation for this wording.Rubikonchik (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I am open for discussion on whether the common name in English is Home Guard or Omakaitse. Sander is right that to start with, the organisation has received very little attention in the English literature. The sources I use (Reports of the Estonian History Commission, Mart Laar) use Omakaitse as the proper noun. If anyone has alternative sources, let's see them. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, how come, the article is named Omakaitse and the talkpage Home Guard (Estonia)? --92.225.81.227 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)