Talk:War criminals in Canada

Article title and lede

I am not even sure this article should exist under this title? The lede is also opinionated so I have added a NPOV template until its resolved - Youreallycan 22:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Explain your statements here, I cannot make any sense of them nor will the editor. I also suggest you remove the NPOV template and challange specific facts BO; talk 23:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't remove article issue templates without resolving the issue . War criminals in Brazil - War criminals in Argentina = this absence of other articles under a similar title makes me wonder if this article should even exist under this title - is the topic sufficiently notable for an article? The other issue is the lede - its a opinionated statement that fails to explain the article title or to clearly report what the article is about. = I am on a mobile device and limited to input but later I will look at asking a couple of experienced article creators what they feel about these points Youreallycan 09:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

In reality Youreallycan did not like the article I started Vladimir Katriuk. He is now wiki-stalking me through my edits. In the case of this article, he was +tag spamming and is now trying to gain support to have the article deleted. If he requires more citations, then he can simply do a google search, I am sure there are plenty around. My final words on the matter. JunoBeach (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps in your reality - I actually couldn't care less about any of that - my only interest is in neutral content - until the issue is resolved please leave the template in position as is normal wiki practice - Youreallycan 19:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement for that +tag, please stop posting it. JunoBeach (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned in my edit comment the article does present two point of view. If you have and so does not merit a POV tag. If you can find a specific issue here please tag it with an inline tag so we can fix it. BO; talk 19:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Thanks

Neither of my stated issues on this page are resolved - I am sick of adding the template and having it removed like this so I won't bother replacing it again - templates are placed in good faith and should be left there until resolved - not edit warred off the article without resolution. Youreallycan 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

JunoBeach - please expand the lede section to about 4 sentences - include any other war criminals from canada. BO; talk

Yes - if the article is to ever "explain itself" and assert enough notability under the title to continue to exist then clearly the lede needs rewriting/expanding and that should have been done before you removed the NPOV template rather than removing it and asking another editor to address the issue - especially when your removal was in response to a talkpage request from the other involved edit reverter - diff - Youreallycan 20:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. The page does look like a bit COATRACK-ish, based largely on one article in the Daily Brew. (It's not clear what that is; is it Yahoo News?) Even that doesn't say anything about an "ongoing stigma" that I can see. So I think the information should be merged into some other article and the title redirected there (e.g. Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act) or else prodded or taken to AfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• As SlimVirgin says above, the article needs more sources to be viable and demonstrate the notability of the topic. The lead needs to be rewritten and give an overview of how many war criminals moved to Canada, what happened to them, and so forth, rather than give an unattributed value judgment. (Youreallycan asked me to have a look at this article.) --JN466 08:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

An article could always use more sources and more content. This article's single source supports all the facts. Thus WP:V is satisfied. My issue is that the use of NPOV has not been done according to Responsible Tagging. Putting up a tag which cannot be supported and providing no backing for its use is not responsible tagging.

There is no coatracking, no POV issues. Youreallycan has made a ugly ad baseless accusation and worse - that there is a conspiracy working against him and that we do not work here in good faith. Examine the edit history and see that his version is inacurate and manipulative and does little but perpetuate a fued from previous articles. Including bringing more people to support his actions. I don't think I should defend all you accusations - ony the NPOV issues, since I removed the notice and this is the only official challange of policy. We are not telephatic - a NPOV notice by it nature should only be used if there are specific NPOV problems. If these exist point them out and we can discuss them. So far the only criticism of note is the lead:

• The lead section summarises the article, without drawing unsupportable conclusion- it does not present a different POV then that of the rest of the Article.

If you don't understand the different POV issues I can break them down for you and justify why I remove the NPOV tag. BO; talk 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"ongoing stigma" in the lede - sorry its a unattributed POV - the title is also an issue - feel free to join in the discussion - as you can see the two very experienced content creators that have commented above both see issues with the articles current state (have you read those comments?) - your edit warring to remove a template was disruptive and pointless - totally pointless - do you think if you remove the template without resolving the issues its all going to be ok, no its not - so rather focus on the content and improving it or deleting/redirecting it .Youreallycan 16:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

p.s. once the protection expires the lead can be augumented with with this reference:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wxDw7y0l0mYC&redir_esc=y It What is in it about war criminals in Canada? I found this in depth review - http://www.soc.duke.edu/~jmoody77/TheoryNotes/mod_hol_1.htm but there is no mention of Canada? Youreallycan 16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Lede

Since it may take some time to resolve whether this article remains at its current title, I would propose the following as an improved lede:

"The Canadian government's record regarding war criminals in Canada has been controversial. It has been estimated that about 2,000 Nazi war criminals obtained Canadian citizenship based on false documentation after World War Two, and the government has been criticized for a lack of speed in pursuing them."

I realize there are several issues with this proposal, but it is much better than what is there now. Given the lack of information in the article, it is as neutral as I can make it, and it does summarize what is in the article, such as it is. The most glaring omission in the article is the lack of any information on what has happened in the 12 years since the current statute was adopted.

I would have "been bold" and changed the lede myself, but it seems the article is fully protected. Neutron (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi - Your lede would suggest changing the title of the article to something like Canadian governments failure to prosecute war criminals - your suggested lede also leaves me asking Q's like (why? and who says it is controversial? )estimated(who by?) has been criticized(by who and where? ) and as the content in your lede is not expanded on in the body of the article, it could use citations to support your lede - yes, lots of issues - the lede needs to be a summary of the article body content not a stand alone isolated paragraph ? - Also - 2000 is a minor number compared to the thousands that went to other countries, is this real a topic worthy of its own article? Its like, War criminals in Canada .... war criminals in Canada what? Why are there no other War criminals in (any other country in the world) wikipedia articles? Is this issue specifically related to Simon_Wiesenthal_Centre and should be a redirect there? Is this issue closely related to and promoted and investigated by that single organization? Youreallycan 15:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

just as inclusion of a (less notable) article does not establish notablity of a new article, non existance of many articles is not ground for establishing non-notablity of new articles. In fact it is completly illogical thinking. The proper criteria is to judge the article by its own merits according to established policy.BO; talk 01:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You (accidentally, I assume) deleted my last sentence and my signature, which I am putting back. As I said, I realize there are issues with what I have proposed, and you identified several of them. It was intended as a temporary improvement while the "fate" of the article is determined. However, what I have written does summarize the body of the article, certainly better than the current (protected) version. It is drawn entirely from what is in the body of the article. Why not accept it as an improvement, and then work on other improvements? I have also created a new heading for your suggestion of a redirect, which is a separate issue from the title and lede. Neutron (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I agree we do need to edit the lede as soon as possible to improve it. - If you fill in the two issues and cite the sentence I could accept it in the lede? It has been estimated (by who) that about 2,000 Nazi war criminals obtained Canadian citizenship based on false documentation after World War Two. The Canadian government has been criticized (by who) for a lack of speed in pursuing them. - The trouble with broad claims in the lede is that it appears to be this specific org/group that is the primary mover in the issue -The Simon Wiesenthal_Centre - as per War_criminals_in_Canada#Simon_Wiesenthal_Centre - so we need to attribute in the lede as well. Youreallycan 16:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The book is not about Canada but does discuss in depth the moral and legal issues related to prosecuting (and non prosecution) of War Criminals who have commited crimes against humanity at this late date. BO; talk 01:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggested redirect

I suggest a redirect to the Simon_Wiesenthal_Centre and a line there, if its not already covered - such as - The Simon_Wiesenthal_Centre claims there are two thousand Nazi's in Canada and is investigating them and requesting/lobbying the Canadian government to bring them to justice. - Youreallycan 15:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - once again an attempt to trivialize this matter. I see censorship under a thin guise of getting a neutral article.

The article presents two points of view which are in conflict.

• International law as embodied in - Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
• Canada's apologetics on the subject, passing a laws but not enforcing it by trying or deporting these criminals.

While Canada took part in the second world war it's record of providing a safe harbour to these war Criminals is an ongoing embarrassment as much to its soldiers who died in as to the international community as outlined by the lead section. A lead section that white washes this fact might cannot be considered an NPOV. The canadian policy is not controversial since the Canadians admit that it is to the problem are simply dragging their feet instead of correcting it.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre activity and point of view is significant but auxiliary thus this information merits mention there but is not the place to host it. It should be separate both from Canada, War Crimes, and SWC.

Other war criminals in Canada from more recent conflicts would also be mentioned here too.

The above reference is a explains the stigma of Canada's action - though reading the cliff notes version.

I have studied this subject over twenty years. I frequently attend lectures on this subject, though more within the scope of Central Europe. I'd be glad to work with any eperienced editors to improve this article - but in the normal frame of wikipedia. We supply articles and evidence to support them, while you point out short coming and how to fix them. I'd be glad to share with you more information, but please don't assume you are knowledgeble about this after reading one newspaper article and a book review - despite long study of this subject — I don't even view myself as one.BO; talk 19:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Oren, the problem is the lack of sources in the article. Can you post some more references about this, either in the article or here on talk, preferably high-quality secondary sources (e.g. high-quality news articles or academic books or papers)? As it stands, the article is largely based on one article in the Daily Brew, which seems to be a Yahoo News blog. We need articles that support the title and the point of the article, namely that there is a particular problem with Canada and war criminals. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The article seems to be based on SWC press release.

I have found one high quality secondary source today:

• Which both indicates that Australia, Austria, Canada, Estonia, Hungary (judiciary), Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine are countires in which war crimes could be prosecuted but whose lack the political will resulted in a partical failue. IMHO Canada is unique since it is the both fought with the Allies and had not suffered a Communist or totaliterian Regime. The document also describes the cases of two Canada based war criminals and the normative situation in Germany and the US during the last 11 years. BO; talk 01:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

- note the section age a factor describing Canada's motivation for not prosecuting these war Criminals.

Here is another article deomstrating that Canada is also a safe-haven to War Criminals from other conflicts. BO; talk 01:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these. The first source, from the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, [1] is a primary source. We can use it (with caution), but we can't use it to determine notability of the topic. What we need for that are secondary sources (see the policy at WP:PSTS). Also, that source mentions several more countries than just Canada, so it actually speaks against the existence of this article as a stand-alone piece. The second source is a Canadian Press story about one individual. [2] The third source is canoe.ca. [3] The latter two are secondary sources, and the second is more comprehensive, but again it doesn't say there's a particular problem with Canada that doesn't exist elsewhere.

What you really need is at least one academic source, or a really high-quality news source, that discusses the issue in Canada being particularly problematic. Otherwise we could create any number of articles -- "Rapists in Canada," "Child molesters in Canada," etc. -- to the point where Canada would sound like the worst place on Earth. So if there are sources that make the point that Canada is particularly awkward when it comes to war-criminal trials or deportations, that would help a lot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is right, BO. JN466 11:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is information (found through Google Scholar) on two books that appear to be about this subject: http://www.getcited.org/pub/102720896 and http://www.getcited.org/pub/102739633. I doubt they are in my local public library in New Jersey, so it isn't going to be me who finds them. Additionally, they are both from the late 80's, whereas our article (such as it is) suggests there have been more recent developments, but at least these would be a start on the "scholarly secondary source" front. Neutron (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Rapists & Child molesters in Canada?

I just wanted to highlight a mistake in the sensationalist argument above by my esteemed coleegue. The article's POV does not claim that the Canada is the worst place on earth. It does not even suggest that Canada is the one of the best place to relocate if one is a war criminal - though the sources do seem to lend credibility to such a conclusion.

What differentiates Canada from other countries mentioned above is that:

• Austria which was an ally of the Axis and never really redressed its part in the travesties of World War II, where war criminals have been provided help by support networks dating back to WWII.
• Hungary a country where WWII war criminals are now celebrated with Street names and Public Statues by a ruling Right wing parliament which has allied with extreme right-wing elements and take the political advantage out of a miscarriage of justice.

Is that Canada is a country with a consistently well-regarded Parliament and no stain of fascist (or communist) policies in its history - quite the opposite. It also has laws that could be used against war criminals and politicians who make bold claims to enforce these laws. Yet the real measure of politicians is in action and not words. This is where Canada (not Austria, Hungary etc) fails - representatives prefer to resign than see international law observed. The clock is ticking and all to soon it will be too late for Canada to correct this stain on its history.

Notability

As to notability. I have reviewed the guidelines

• WP:! points out that Wikipedia should not be censored.
• WP:N advises us that : "if an article fails to cite sufficient sources ... place a {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors." (section 7).

which looks like

I'd like to point out that no such tag is in place and that it seems to me that there are some secondary sources available. Thus for the moment WP:N has been addressed. However if needed I could also use my high beam account to research a hundred more.

NPOV

Reading over this discussion - the reason for the NPOV has been claimed to be WP:N. This is clearly in contradiction to WP:N policy which have Notability tags.

Consider Nazi_human_experimentation - this article might be considered an embarasement to Nazi Germany. However it has no NPOV tag since an embarrassing POV can certainly be the facts of life. In the emperor's new clothes no amount of shame could hide the fact that the emperor was naked. The article may be an embarrassment to Canada but no one has yet stepped up and said "my POV has been ignored" or even "such and such a POV is missing".

The lead

If someone can improve the lead section without white-washing the facts I don't see a problem with accept such a change. The lead however should summarize the information and points of view in the article and it's length should be in proportion to that of the article. I also recommend that the Article be unprotected so that any misconceptions about the neutrality of the lead's section can be resolved.

I also think we should consider the POV/Notability issues in the matter of the Siege_of_Mostar. BO; talk 00:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes - after three four days of discussion, there is no clear assertion on this talkpage in any of the citations provided, that the current article/title is a notable topic for an encyclopedic article - If further discussion fails to assert clear notability - and especially considering the POV in the lede I will nominate it for deletion in the near future Youreallycan 18:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

That this mean that you plan to ignore the two books from google scholar? BO; talk 21:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Vague google searches don't assert notability - What is in the returns - write something here if you assert any worthwhile content additions - otherwise its worthless spout - Write what you want to add to assert notability of the title/topic from any of the provided externals on this talk page.......Youreallycan 21:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Some Biographical Research

Even out of context the sources would only seem vague to someone completely uninitiated with this field - to assuage anyone's doubts the source will indeed be used in differently:

1. The ones which establish notability - books written specifically about the topic this article covered and covering it a long an extended time line - indicating that this is not a fad or passing problem. These include text written by a academics, lawyers and by a nobel prize candidate.
2. The ones which cover war crimes and legal aspects of the article and also are listed here since they will be used to source and expand the article. These sources do demonstrate that the sources in group #1 WP:RS - that they are frequently cited in literature and that they do not represent an island of opinion but are used to support textbooks of an undisputedly NPOV.
3. The rest comprise of specific cases of war criminals who have evaded justice by escaping for decades or years to Canada. They will demonstrate that Canada has the legal aparatus for prosecuting and for deportig its War Criminals. They will show that in practice the Canadian system fails to bring the WWII War Criminals to justice and how this makes it an attractive destination for war ciminals from newer confilcts.

BO; talk 09:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

• a useful link for the lead - Justice delayed is justice denied.
• Irwin_Cotler - chief counsel to the Canadian Jewish Congress at the Deschênes Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals

In the news:

In Print

from highbeam

2. reporting the death of Joseph Nemsila, 83 year old Slovakian who moved to Canada in 1950 to escape his War Crimes conviction in Solvakia
3. how Australian Konrad Kalejs was allowed to escape from Canada - Bernie Farber commented on the rescheduling of Kalejs' deportation hearing: "Granting him this delay without incarcerating him is tantamount to letting him escape."
4. report on Illandaridevage Kulatunga wanted in Sri Lanka who escaped and the peruvian Manuel De La Torre Herrera - a former Peruvian police officer who stayed in Canada for two years.

lots of vague externals

A lot of externals have been posted by User:OrenBochman - I would like to suggest that the user adds 'content as that is all that really matters in regards to notability assertions - what is it that is notable from these links - there are war criminals all over the world - where is the assertion that war criminals in Canada is special - there are almost no convictions and almost not even many accused - would the user consider writing something in his userspace? - as I wrote above - Write what you want to add to assert notability of the title/topic from any of the provided externals on this talk page.Youreallycan 20:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

time to move on

I don't think any demonstration of notability not any level of sourcing nor would be acceptable to the counterparts in this dialogue. I can no longer sanction a view that we are working to create a neutral article — though a consistent evading and ignoring all facts presented, a prolonged strategy of attrition is permitted to continued - one which instigated the protection of this page due to a blatant violation of he three revert rule. On the facts rather than the words I only see a bold attempt to censor Wikipedia. I plan to continue to research this when this dispute has been settled at a better qualified forum. BO; talk 11:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Request edit}} Due to my involvement in the above discussions I am requesting a third-party to perform the following changes - to try to finish this process amicably: Please introduce any undisputed, WP:RS sources I have provided above to improve sourcing, and establish WP:N and demonstrate WP:V, so that the WP:NPOV may be resolved.BO; talk 04:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're requesting general third-party assistance with this topic, please see Wikipedia:Third opinion for help and instructions.

For edit requests, it is better if you list specific additions you are seeking, with proposed wording, and the specific references that you feel back up the request. I've turned off the {{Request edit}} tag for now, please feel free to re-submit when you have a more specific request. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 13:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• - Yes , can you write something you suggest to add to the lede please Oren Bochman , something that will resolve the neutrality issue and something that will be an overview of what the article is all about and please present the supporting citations as well - Youreallycan 19:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll work on this in my user space and post it here when it is ready. BO; talk

Great, thank you - Youreallycan 12:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)