Talk:Alfons Rebane

Untitled

Deleted link to the fascism / fascists project. Rebane was not a fascist by any reasonable definition.

Rebane's Legacy section

Hi, Termer. I agree that we should present Estonia's POV in the article, but I don't see anything about Rebane in the "information war" link you provided in your last edit. If Rebane is not actually mentioned, that fails Wikipedia policy per WP:COATRACK. (We cannot assume that Ilves is talking about Rebane or had him in mind at all if Rebane is not actually mentioned in the statement.) Perhaps you could bring in other sources dealing with the subject? If Rebane is somehow in the source and I missed it, please let me know. (I apologize in advance if that is the case.) PasswordUsername (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at Termer's sources, but, PasswordUsername, could you please not omit the most important thing when you use cite or ref template - link to the source in web. -- Sander Säde 08:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't use any kind of template - I actually fully do all of my refs by hand. Which source's link would you be looking for? (If you mean the French language template for the Chairoff-Klarsfeld source, I added that because it's a French-language book.) PasswordUsername (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant "Osborn, Andrew. "Estonia Accused of Anti-Semitism After Memorial is Erected to 'SS Executioner'". The Independent. 26 May 2004. Retrieved 22 June 2009." - and also, if you go to your settings, Gadgets tab and enable refTools gadget, then you get a new icons to edit form, which will help immensely with inserting valid citations. If you have used source once before in the article and gave it a name (<ref name="un"> {{cite...), then you can use the same citation everywhere in the article with just <ref name="un"/>; that avoids artificial increase in references, such as that statement from the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation (completely ignored by UN), which is currently shown twice in the references. -- Sander Säde 08:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi PasswordUsername I don't see the problem nor makes referring to WP:Coatrack any sense to me. One thing I can tell though, a claim like Rebane was identified as a war criminal needs some serious attention. Especially because the people who served in the Estonian division during WWII were not even prosecuted by the Soviets as war criminals, not to mention the US declared the unit not to be hostile to the US, not to mention in the Nuremberg Trials the Estonian division was excluded from the judgment. So the whole "identified as a war criminal" is similar nonsense like claiming Estonians are child molesters. And finally, calling the chapter "legacy" is also a strange attempt to approach such controversial statements, basically claiming among other things that the the UK and later Germany was harboring a war criminal. If anything, the chapter should be called Controversies.--Termer (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Termer, the inclusion of the statements regarding information/propaganda warfare between Russia and Estonia seems to be from 2007, so I take it is related to the 2006-2007 Bronze Soldier controversy between these two countries, rather than Rebane himself. (Although I would be glad to know that I am wrong: does the link in question mention Rebane? I don't seem to have found it. If not, the material is a classic example of a WP:COATRACK because it deals with something not actually related to the subject of the article – Alfons Rebane.) Also, the Soviets did advance claims against Rebane, although he was in Britain and Germany at the time. For example, the Soviet Estonian journalist Erwin Martinson talks about Rebane's World War II actions in his Russian-language book Slugi svastiki (Tallinn: 1962). However, I do think that Western sources may be more trustworthy than Soviet ones about anti-Soviet fighters (still, Soviet sources shouldn't be discounted), so I only included the French book by Pierre Chairoff & Beate Klarsfeld as a source for the early claims. (You can tell by the dates that Martinson's work precedes the French book by at least 15 years.)

I am not sure why you changed the "Legacy" section to "Controversy". A person's legacy can be both positive and negative – and I think both sides need to be presented side-by-side. The inclusion of competing viewpoints alone would let the reader know that Rebane's legacy has been a controversial one. Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Side comment on Russian ministry "documentation"

Involvement of the Estonian SS Legion in War Crimes in 1941-1945 and the Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Estonia"... While I haven't read that one, I have read the equivalent Latvian one and it is replete with errors and misrepresentations. I expect the Estonian one is cut from the same cloth. Just a FYI. Vecrumba       TALK 03:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that the document published by the Russian Foreign Ministry? --Martintg (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a matter of common knowledge that the "Estonian Legion", or rather its training unit, was the unit used to murder ALMOST all the Jews in the Jewish forced labor camps established by the SS in Estonia. Few studies of the holocaust in the Baltic fail to note the fact. It is horrible that the fall of the USSR, instead of clearing the way to the establishment of a dignified civil society in the former Soviet republics spawned communities where a former collaborator with Nazism could be buried with state honors. Heaven help but Stalin - let alone his less vicious successors - are starting to appear as a lesser evil when it comes to what has become of Estonians and Latvians ( Lithuania is a different matter apparently ). The relentless publications of tedious whines about new Russian disinformation cannot explain away the hideous past. An article which cites as its sources such publications is disgraceful. The governments of Estonia and Latvia may forever embarrass themselves with new publications denouncing Russian historiographical plots, but this the English language Wikipedia. Let us all honor the different moral and intellectual requirements.Soz101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Verification failed

I just reviewed the latest change by PasswordUsername: "subsequent public commemmoration of Rebane's war service have been protested by the American Jewish Congress" against the cited source and it doesn't match. Page 66 actually states "The American Jewish Congress protested against the re-burying with state honors of Alfons rebane". --Martintg (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That refers to the Russian Jewish Congress. Also, the general protests of the Russian Mission to the United Nations as far as Rebane being lauded as a freedom fighter by Estonians. The current sentence has ambiguous grammar, but I rewrote it as you objected to the "rehabilitation" wording. (Rebane was obviously not recognized as a positive figure in any way in Soviet Estonia, so why did you feel that it was POV to talk about the rehabilitation of his reputation in post-1991 Estonia?) --PasswordUsername (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Triggered protest

The last line of the lead "and triggered protest against historical revisionism from the Russian Federation." with reference to the document published as a protest by the Russian Federation [1] is synthesis, because there is nothing in that source that states that the reburial actually triggered the publication of this document. It should be removed. --Martintg (talk) 01:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the claim like Involvement of the Estonian SS Legion in War Crimes in 1941-1945 and the Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Estonia can stay as long as it's pointed out that the legion was excluded from the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal as a conscript unit and nobody is seeking to revise such verdict anywhere including in Estonia. In fact many soldiers from the "Estonian legion", that was actually a division, were instead serving as prison guards during Nuremberg Trials. For example Nuremberg Tribunal Guard Company 4221 was entirely put together with soldiers from ex Estonian Waffen-SS division who ended up guarding war criminals in Nuremberg.[2][3][4]--Termer (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is that no where in the document Involvement of the Estonian SS Legion in War Crimes in 1941-1945 and the Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Estonia is it mentioned that Rebane's reburial is historical revisionism. --Martintg (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article clearly refers to Rebane as a "Nazi criminal", it says "Estonia have been seeking to heroize the Nazi criminals since mid 1990s", it complains about the reburial and the entire piece is called "Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Estonia". So it's is clear to me at least that the Russian mission to the UN thinks that the reburial of Rebane is directly linked to general, what they think is "historical revisionism in Estonia". Since all possible relevant POV-s are represented, I can't see any problems having it included even though strictly speaking it's not according to WP:RS but a primary source that would need a conformation to avoid WP:OR concerns.--Termer (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jurado

The article uses cites to Jurado and al. He is known for being a Waffen-SS admirer and has collaborated with Richard Landwehr on his right-wing publication Siegrunen (See Google book preview; source: Smelser, Ronald; Davies, Edward J. (2008). The myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-83365-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

I believe this source is not WP:RS for these statements:

• Alfons Rebane was "the most decorated and probably the most talented and charismatic Baltic soldier during WWII"
• Estonian Rommel (in the infobox)
• He was the most highly decorated Estonian military officer in the course of the Second World War
• Rebane was nicknamed "Estonian Rommel" for his leadership and tactical skills.

I would like to removed these statements as coming from a non WP:RS source. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

While Jurado may well be a fan boy for the SS, the review you posted does acknowledge him to be an expert: "He enhanced his status of an expert on non-German units through publications on foreign volunteers". So while he may well be biased, that does not make him unreliable. WP:BIASED states: "Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context". So in the context of foreign units of the Waffen-SS and their members he is reliable. But in the context of, say, on the topic of Leninism, his is not as reliable due to his fierce anti-Communist bias.

I would also point out that source you think is unreliable was co-authored by Nigel Thomas, an expert on military themes[5], so there would have been a degree of peer review of this particular publication for Thomas to be associated with this book. --Nug (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

IMO, these statements -- "probably the most talented and charismatic" and "Estonian Rommel" -- clearly show bias towards the subject. Also, I believe that WP:Extraordinary applies to these two statements. Are there unbiased WP:RS sources that characterize Rebane as such? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree that "Estonian Rommel" as a nickname seems a bit implausible, it is a bit too long for a nickname, given that his men were nicknamed "fox cubs".

With regard to "the most decorated and probably the most talented and charismatic Baltic soldier during WWII" is properly attributed in the text as the view of authors Jurado and Thomas. Given that Jurado is an acknowledged expert on non-German units, why would it be extraordinary that he would note Rebane as "the most talented and charismatic" out of the hundreds of Baltic soldiers that he may studied. And I'm sure that Thomas would have contributed to that view since he was co-author. If they said all Waffen-SS members were "talented and charismatic", then clearly that would be bias, but they don't, just Rebane. As for Rebane's skill, in the book Between Giants: The Battle for the Baltics in World War II, Prit Buttar writes:[6]

"Rebane had a reputation for tactical skill, and demonstrated this by pulling his men out of their frontline positions immediately before the Soviet bombardment, into a second line of trenches. From here, they defended themselves with determination, and as other German and Estonian forces began to retreat towards he Tannenberg Line, he skilfully moved his men to the west to try to retain contact. Regrouping in the country estate of Olgino, his battalion continued to inflict heavy losses on the pursing Soviet troops."

Also note that MI6 recruited Rebane after the war to lead the Estonian portion of Operation Jungle, so the Brits must have seen Rebane as having some qualities of skill and charisma in order to recruit Estonian refugees to return to the Baltics on secret missions, so Jurado and Thomas' view isn't implausible. --Nug (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Prit Buttar does not appear to be a "reputable historian" either, so I would not consider him to be a WP:RS for MILHIS articles. IMO, the statement "probably the most talented and charismatic Baltic soldier" is coming from a biased source. Are there WP:RS sources that state this? The fact thta MI6 recruited Rebane has no bearing on these statements. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

You still haven't explained how a book co-authored by Nigel Thomas is a "biased source". --Nug (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Nigel Thomas is not a WP:RS source either, as he's not a "reputable historian". He appears to write books which can be described as belonging to the genre of "militaria literature". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Got a WP:RS source that states Nigel Thomas is not a "reputable historian", or is that your own WP:Original research?

Please note that WP:RS is merely a guideline, not policy. A guideline is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. On the otherhand WP:V is policy. It states:

"If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications."

Common sense dictates that in the absence of peer reviewed scholarly sources on the topic of Alfons Rebane, mainstream publications will have to be used. The onus is on you to prove that Osprey Publishing is not a reliable non-academic source, per WP:V. --Nug (talk) 09:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I will remove the "Rommel" references and will also add a citation to Jurado's name to qualify his status as a "guru". K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Jurado, the source doesn't explicitly accuse him of romanticising the German war effort or call him a "guru". It states he is an expert on non-German units and his fierce anti-communism was the common element shared with the gurus and romancers such as Munoz. So I fixed the text accordingly. --Nug (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Jurado is both an expert and a "guru"; Smelser & Davies mention this about others in the chapter, so one does not preclude the other. He appears in the chapter "The Gurus" which opens with this: "Gurus are authors who are popular among the readers who romanticize the German Army and, in particular, the Waffen-SS." (p. 157). P. 184 also includes "Jurado earned his spurs as contributing editor to Siegrunen, where he served in that capacity at least through 2000." (Siegrunen is a publication by Richard Landwehr, whom Jurado worked closely with). So he's definitely a "guru" in Smelser & Davies's view. I will expand the citation to re-add the "guru" statement, along with the "expert". K.e.coffman (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

While Jurado is mentioned in the chapter "The Gurus", it doesn't explicitly say he is one of "the Gurus", it explicitly states he is an expert. The source says he demonstrates a fierce anti-communism similar to the Gurus and Romancers like Munoz. WP:BLP has very strict rules on verifiability, we can't just infer things. --Nug (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I can only interpret the source as calling Jurado a guru. "As with so many gurus and romancers, including Munoz, Jurado demonstrates a fierce anti-Communism." I.e. similar to other gurus and romancers, Jurado is an anti-communist. No? Then why is Jurado discussed in "The Gurus" chapter? If Smelser and Davies did not consider him such, why would he appear in the book? That's a big accusation to make, I don't think they would do so lightly. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Smelser and Davies explicitly discuss Munoz's rise to "Guru status" on page 181: "In his rise to guru status, Munoz profited from his close relationship to the original guru, Richard Landwehr" but instead describes Jurado as an "expert" on page 184: "He enhanced his status as an expert on non-German units through publications on foreign volunteers in the Wehrmacht". So to me it seems that Smelser and Davies is making a distinction between Munoz and Jurado: while the both shared fierce anti-communism, Munoz was a guru in relation to the Waffen SS, while Jurado was an expert in relation to the Wehrmacht. --Nug (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I will rephrase as "an expert on non-German units who is closely associated with Waffen-SS admirer Richard Landwehr..." The latter part is not in dispute. Is that acceptable? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Source states that Jurado "worked closely with Landwehr" on a single book Romanian Volunteers of the Waffen-SS, given that Landwehr wrote many books, that doesn't sound like a particularly "close association" to me. --Nug (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

It also includes: "Jurado earned his spurs as contributing editor to Siegrunen, where he served in that capacity at least through 2000." (Siegrunen is a publication by Richard Landwehr). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Jurado was a contributing editor to Siegrunen in 2000, but that's only two issues out of a total of 81 issues of that journal. I don't think that's enough to warrant "closely associated". --Nug (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox edit

Preserving here by providing this link; pls see edit summary for rationale. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure why you keep removing units from the infobox, or where you got the idea that regimental sized units shouldn't be in an infobox. The infobox doc explicitly allows units down to company size. --Nug (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

August 2019 edits

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "Undue opinion by an expert on SS uniforms". --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)