Talk:John Demjanjuk

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

Not Ivan[edit]

As far as i understand, he became acquitted for being Ivan the terrible. I belive that Ivan the terrible should get his own article, since it is unclear who he was. Now Ivan the Terrible is redirected here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulrikrl (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be changed as another man was believed to be Ivan and nowhere has he been convicted of being this man. I question the reasoning of the authors need to label this man as Ivan. Maybe political in nature? 24.101.172.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The article, as it now stands, leaves out crucial details that would change the entire story. I remember following it "live" when Demjanjuk was originally accused and undergoing trial in Israel. He had an Israeli defense lawyer who ripped many of the prosecution's witnesses apart — witnesses who were obviously senile and confused about where they were and how they got there, never mind being able to reliably identify the accused as "Ivan the Terrible", the former camp guard. — QuicksilverT @ 18:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Displaced person claim[edit]

The article currently states in the first paragraph:

This [displaced person] category was reserved mainly for former concentration camp prisoners and forced laborers.

From personal knowledge, I know this is not true, as most persons who arrived in Germany before the end of the war purely as refugees were housed in "DP" camps, not having previously been prisoners or forced laborers. Indeed, once in the DP camps, many became forced laborers before the Nazi regime ended in May 1945. The sentence is misleading, at best. — QuicksilverT @ 18:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" involvement in the Holocaust[edit]

Please stop adding "alleged". The man was a convicted war criminal, as our lead here properly says. His involvement in the Holocaust was not "alleged", it was proven in court resulting in a criminal conviction. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An overturned death sentence, then a double jeopardy (oops, "mistaken identity") conviction regarding which an appeal was pending. The dead can't appeal their conviction, that should be noted in the lead as well. We cannot make any assumptions about what the results of that appeal might have been. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely with Vecrumba on this.--Львівське (говорити) 05:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to say that he was appealing his conviction at the time of his death. Nevertheless, he was convicted and the article must say that. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Nazi war criminal[edit]

I've removed the word "Nazi" from the opening sentence. A Nazi was a member or supporter of the NSDAP, and according to Nazi racial theories had to be a German or at least from "Aryan" stock. A Ukrainian could not be a Nazi. The Ukrainians who joined the auxilliary forces recruited by the Germans did not do so because they were Nazis, but in order to escape from starvation in POW camps. That doesn't excuse the crimes they committed, it's just to be historically accurate. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a conclusion you've arrived at via your own thought processes. As the edit I've just performed makes clear, the sources say otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BBC states he was a Nazi camp guard. I do believe we should stick to labeling Demjanjuk that ( I inserted that into the article here) since the BBC is very likely to be more neutral to this subject then Haaretz (who labeled him a "Former Nazi guard"); the words Nazi camp guard do not indicate he was a member of the Nazi party, which he was not anyway ("Former Nazi guard" does indicate that a bit....). Please let's not Wikipedia:Personal attacks on this talkpage, the tragedy of the Holocaust should not be WP:BATTLEGROUND. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is the BBC "very likely to be more neutral to this subject" than the Daily Telegraph? Who decides? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When reading source 12 in this article one can see he was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison for aiding the Nazis in the murder of at least 28,000 Jews at the Sobibor death camp during World War II. So the Munich court did not state he was a Nazi war criminal (the The Daily Telegraph does that only in the lead (it states nowhere in the article that he was a member of the Nazi party or even sympathetic to Nazi ideas), newspaper leads tend to be less accurate then the rest of the articles). I don't think people should be labeled as Nazi's (as in Nazi party member) on the bases of newspaper headlines. Or is in the worldwide view everybody who helped the Nazi's "A Nazi"? I don't want to be rude but I think not. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're not being rude at all. But I don't think your statement "newspaper leads tend to be less accurate then the rest of the articles" is supported by Wikipedia policy? And thus, although it looks very much like common sense to me, has to count as WP:OR and thus supporting your own POV here? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind that "Nazi" isn't NPOV language anyway. --154.69.6.172 (talk) 11:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My only point is that individuals who where not a member or supporter of the NSDAP should not be labeled as "Nazi's" by Wikipedia just because it can per WP:SYNTHESIS. People similar to Demjanjuk‎ like Feodor Fedorenko, Klaas Carel Faber (and he was a member of the Waffen SS..), Theodor Dannecker, Louis Darquier de Pellepoix, Luise Danz etc are not labeled as "Nazi" on Wikipedia. That (at leasts) suggests that in Wikipedia's practice everybody who helped the Nazi's should not be labeled "A Nazi". Per Wikipedia:Five pillars (the second one) and the same should be for Demjanjuk. How about referring to him as Ukrainian Nazi collaborator? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion seems quite reasonable, were it not for the fact that Wikipedia rates reliability above truth - we must report what the sources say, not what we think they should say. The Telegraph doesn't subscribe to WP:SYNTHESIS, and we can't make it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not going anywhere... I have asked for outside independence input here. To see what others think of my line of reasoning... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A wise move. Although it seems we should have asked there a week ago. But perhaps we should wait just a little longer before deciding that this discussion "isn't going anywhere"? I see also that in the BBC source he's guilty of "28,060 counts of being an accessory to murder", rather than 27,900 counts of actual murder. Is there some reason for this discrepancy? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that; I tend to be impatient on Wikipedia... That is not because of you or this subject. Please don't feel offended (if you do so). The last thing I want is to end up offending people because of person's who worked in a Nazi death camp.... I have no ideas about what could have caused the discrepancy between BBC and other numbers; I have not followed the Demjanjuk case well; WWII in Eastern Europe is confusing for me because all involved in the conflict there seemed involved in War crimes while blaming the other of all war crimes there... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 23:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I think you've summed it all up rather well there in one brief sentence. Being a Ukrainian hardly exonerates Demjanjuk from his hideous war crimes. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not; but Wikipedia saying he is a Nazi while a Nazi would see him as a Untermensch I can not help to find strange..... But I am well aware of Wikipedia:Citing sources. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 00:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if it makes any difference, but newspaper headlines are not written by the reporter; they're written by copy editors and often don't accurately reflect the article's text. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems people here are having trouble differentiating between a Nazi camp-guard and a Nazi-camp guard. He would be the latter, the guard of a Nazi camp; not a camp guard who was a Nazi.--Львівське (говорити) 05:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to have been overlooked here is that the newspapers are using the term "Nazi" as a perjoritive rather than as a description of fact. While we can say he has been accused of it, using perjoritive descriptors is not NPOV and against WP guidelines. For example, if several newspapers run articles calling a notable person a moron we can say he has been accused of moronic behaviour but we cant say he is one. Wayne (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to call someone a Nazi, you have to produce some evidence, from a reputable source, that they were a Nazi - a member or supporter of the NSDAP or its doctrines. Media headlines are not reputable sources on questions of history. They are just evidence of lazy journalism. Where is the evidence that Demjanjuk was a Nazi? Was he a member of the NSDAP? No. Did he espouse the doctrines of National Socialism, such as that Slavs like himself were racially inferior and fit only to be serfs for German Herrenvolk? No. He was a Ukrainian who joined the Hiwis to escape certain death in a POW camp. No doubt he hated communists and Jews, but so did most Ukrainians at that time. Were they all Nazis? No. This is just sloppy language. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are probably quite right. Unfortunately, the common sense approach to headlines, even for those in "respectable" broadsheets, does not seem to be reflected in written wikipedia policy? The danger is that we can pick and choose to omit the words we don’t like by simply saying “it’s lazy journalism.” Wikipedia is more concerned with reliability than with truth, apparently. But I have yet to see the written stricture “Don’t quote headlines as they are unreliable.” I quite agree about Nazi-camp guard vs Nazi camp-guard – even if this is a punctuation nicety that would probably be lost on many readers. I’d be interested to know, however, how many, out of the total, were Nazi Nazi-camp guards. Perhaps the point about Demjanjuk collaborating to avoid the death camps himself, if supportable, might be worthy of inclusion itself. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current lede sums it up quite nicely: "... a Ukrainian-American convicted for war crimes as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 Jews while acting as a guard at the Sobibor Nazi German extermination camp." Very precise and non-ambiguous, IMO. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the least POV lede to date. Please discuss edits before changing and read WP:NOT. The article should reflect what is reported by reliable sources and with the same proportion of weight. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding what you removed: I don't see what was unweighty or unreliable about mentioning the overturned conviction in the opening, or clarifying that his conviction wasn't legally set. The former is well known and a big chunk or the article, and his bio; the latter was sourced (albeit, I'd like a better one, but the writer was reliable in of himself) and a very important fact. At the moment if we're saying he was convicted, and he was never truly 'convicted' legally, then that's a pretty big snafu to start the article off with.--Львівське (говорити) 23:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're splitting hairs. What was he appealing? His conviction. If he had not been convicted there would be no need of an appeal. The rest of the material is further down in the lede already; no need to be redundant. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The major trial in which he was wrongfully accused was for many years the gist of this guy's notoriety, I don't think something so fundamentally crucial is "redundant". Regarding "appealing the conviction", this constitutes original research if it's not a fact. If I am understanding this correctly, he was convicted and upon appealing the conviction itself became void pending the results of the appeals process. If he wasn't convicted at the time of his death, then we can't just be calling him a 'convicted war criminal' now, can we?--Львівське (говорити) 23:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the cited sources. A presumption of innocence during the appeal process does not void a conviction.
"Munich state court spokeswoman Margarete Noetzel said Tuesday that under German law, because Demjanjuk died before his final appeal could be heard and because a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, he is still technically presumed innocent.
"But, she said, that doesn't mean the conviction is somehow wiped from the record. "The verdict exists - it is not voided. It was pronounced and based in fact." John Demjanjuk's body's burial site sparks fears of Nazi shrine in Cleveland suburb, Nydailynews.com (20 March 2012).
Okay Tom, this is what I wanted to verify, thanks--Львівське (говорити) 04:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as this article reflects the cited sources in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint it does not need to become a battleground. The lede is already too long and too detailed; the finer points should be treated neutrally in the body. And his past notability has been superseded.
I'm as leery as anyone at how this case went, but our job is to report, not advocate by choice of language, placement, organization, or weight. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:WEIGHT: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."
I think this policy explanation is particularly relevant to this article and we should try to keep it in mind. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably throwing the cat among the pidgeons here but the lead states convicted for war crimes as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 Jews while acting as a guard. From what I have read of the judges ruling Demjanjuk was convicted solely on the basis of serving as a camp guard, not for being an accessory to murder. Yehuda Bauer even supported this when he said that the conviction served as a moral lesson, indicating that even just being present requires that you take some responsibility. Is a "moral lesson" a war crime?. Is there a full copy of the ruling available that shows that he was actually convicted of a war crime rather than just newspaper reports claiming that he was? Wayne (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Though, I think by being a guard that made him the accessory to all of this. Clarifying the 'war crimes' legality would be a good move.--Львівське (говорити) 05:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, under German Law there will be a specific crime (or crimes) of which he was convicted. The name of that crime(s), translated into English, should form the basis of the description here. The text of the judge's ruling sounds a very good idea - but would that be seen as a "primary source" and all of the press reports as "secondary sources"? It would be very surprising to see the word "Nazi" in any judge's ruling, of course, but perhaps equally surprising to see "war crime" or "moral lesson"). Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a primary source, and usable as long as we don't synthesize or interpret it in any way. Per policy, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify"--Львівське (говорити) 17:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Nazi war criminal's citizenship case tossed Associated Press – Wed, Sep 12, 2012

http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-nazi-war-criminals-citizenship-case-tossed-003006097.html?_esi=1

CINCINNATI (AP) — An effort to posthumously restore the U.S. citizenship of a former Ohio autoworker convicted of Nazi war crimes has been dismissed.

Ukrainian-born John Demjanjuk (dem-YAHN'-yuk) lived in suburban Cleveland. He was convicted in Germany on 28,000 counts of being an accessory to murder at a Polish [sic] death camp. He died in March at age 91.74.239.209.92 (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Categories[edit]

Categories currently include "Ukrainian Nazi collaborators", "Soviet Nazi collaborators" and "Loss of United States citizenship by prior Nazi affiliation" , in contrast to more notable Nazis who get, e.g. "Austrian Nazis", "Holocaust perpetrators", "Nazi leaders" "Nazis who committed suicide", "German Nazi politicians" etc. Not sure what adjustments, it any, need to be made here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sloppy language. Does it mean he was a Ukrainian Nazi who was a collaborator (false), or a Ukrainian who collaborated with the Nazis (correct)?
(above unsigned by Intelligent Mr Toad 10:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)) Mr Toad: not just sloppy language this time, it seems, but sloppy Categories? I think these are a bit more difficult to change. Not even sure they allow for hyphens. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Category "Sobibor extermination camp personnel" is a part of the Category "Holocaust perpetrators". Although I never objected to over-categorizing in Wikipedia I think that putting both in this article is redundant.... The Category "Ukrainian Nazi" does not exist... We could create it to annoy Neo-Nazi's...... but I would rather reserve that Category for people who (at least) bonded with the Nazi party (that seems to be the practice in Category "Hungarian Nazis" etc.). Other Categories seem not possible here since that would go to much into detail.... (I think nobody wants to see a Category "Nazi's who later became auto mechanics"). — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about Nazis from Ohio? American Red Army soldiers? --Львівське (говорити) 20:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With his appeal pending at time of death, everything he is accused of is, legally speaking, alleged. I won't even start with the forensic evidence that his original identification document "produced for the OSI by the Soviets was either prepared at different times or was not authentic." (Zumbakis). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. See my reply above. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vecrumba, in the above content dispute between him being convicted or not, do you know of any reliable sources that clarify the his final legal standing?--Львівське (говорити) 01:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The conviction not being final (as in not final until all appeals exhausted) was per the Ukrainian source which content and citation someone deleted. Since then, I have read through the German criminal code; while it talks about "final judgment" of cases, it does not address the appeal process, so more research to do. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found a proper source for the prior content (Munich court spokesperson), here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asked by Haaretz if that means there is no record of Demjanjuk's conviction, Noetzel replied, "Yes, it means Mr. Demjanjuk has no criminal record."
That statement is just bizarre. If he has no criminal record, then this article should be deleted because everything went down the memory-hole.
Since Demjanjuk's conviction cannot be validated legally, due to his death, the conviction remains "merely as an historic fact," Noetzel said.
Ah! So now his conviction is "an historic fact"! Stop the AfD!
Busch said he demanded the legal authorities in Germany issue a clarification saying his client "died innocent and without conviction," and that his conviction by a lower court "is invalid."
Uh, I thought that was the job of the appeals court to determine?
"Why is this important?" Nestler asked. "On the one hand he's presumed innocent, on the other, there's the conviction, which established that he served as a wachman [guard] in Sobibor and therefore was accessory to murder."
This content dispute is not concerned with establishing his innocence, which is not up to Wikipedia to decide, but whether he was convicted. Unfortunately, even a "mere" historic fact remains a fact.
The purpose of this entire conversation is to find a way to subvert the preponderance of source coverage, all of which—even those sympathetic to Demjanjuk—agree that he was convicted. So how about we just edit in the manner that we agreed to do when we opened our Wikipedia accounts—per policy and without POV or tendentiousness. The body of the article is the place to dispassionately recite the facts of the case. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's a "historic fact" then it should be written in a way that is presented neutrally and accurately to convey the fact as it currently stands. If he's essentially an honorary convict ten we need to rethink this opening lede.--Львівське (говорити) 00:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(I think these last five comments and this one belong in the section immediately above - perhaps one of the other commenters could move?) The statement by Munich state court spokeswoman Margarete Noetzel now seems to be being used to support a different viewpoint to that offered by Tom Reedy. Or is it just matter of WP:WEIGHT? Alternatively, just ignore me and carry on here, above. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear from news reports this is a polarizing event. On the one hand, the demand for justice for Holocaust victims looks at this as technicality only. On the other, those who have maintained for Djemjanuk's innocence, per other current news accounts, in the face of Soviet-produced evidence which is clearly suspect and that he was never accused of any crime against any individual (the news also wonders what happened to all the Germans who did do the killing) see this as a continuation of the saga of the KGB's campaign manufacturing evidence and witnesses (sometimes producing depositions from people known to be dead) to defame Ukrainians and other troublesome nationalities as Nazis. If editors are looking for NPOV, it is the presentation of both sides without offensive accusations of "subverting" a preponderance of sources. There are also a preponderance of sources on the Soviet's manufacture of evidence which was then passed to the U.S. Justice Department and taken verbatim, and, by the OSI introducing it in deportation proceedings, stripping the accused of their right to a trial and of their right to examine evidence. The same sort of things being said about Demjanjuk here were said about others who ultimately had the resources to clear their good name—people whose names appeared in newspapers and books as "Nazis" on the basis of false evidence. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

The Lede is too long and has too much detail. It should b shortened with the detail in the body of the article. Ivan444 (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I will cut it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Ivan, should Ivan have an article[edit]

Since it's mostly agreed that Demjanjuk was probably not Ivan the Terrible, should there be an article about Ivan? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it say that's "mostly agreed" in this article? Maybe you could try and establish that first? Good luck. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I say that based on his Israeli conviction being overturned due to lack of evidence and that the German conviction was for being some other cruel guard, not Ivan. This at least provides enough uncertainly that we shouldn't treat Demjanjuk and Ivan as the same person. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I say that based on what I can read in this article. I think you'll find that this article is the start point for anything else you, or anyone else, may wish to add. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about adding, I'm talking about a new article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's adding, isn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody, apart from some journalists who haven't been paying attention, still thinks that Demjanjuk was Ivan the Terrible. A separate article is indeed a good idea. Zerotalk 04:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is Ivan the Terrible's real name known? Wasn't there a suggestion that he was also called Demjanjuk, a cousin of this one? And if there is to be an article, it should not be called Ivan the Terrible (Nazi). To categorise Ukrainian auxilliaries as "Nazis" is an opinion, not a fact. It should be "Ivan the Terrible" (Treblinka guard). Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons for his acquittal in Israel was evidence that "Ivan the Terrible" was someone called Ivan Marchenko. However, I over-spoke with my phrase "some journalists who haven't been paying attention"; apparently one of the original Israeli judges thinks so too. [1] It doesn't say how she reconciles this with the German court finding that he was a Sobibor rather than Treblinka. Zerotalk 06:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, is it clear in this article, and agreed by all parties through consensus, that John Demjanjuk was definitely not Ivan the Terrible? We don't want two articles about the same person. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is definite, but we shouldn't have a single article on two people who only a minority of experts consider to be the same. Of course both articles should mention the issue of identification. Zerotalk 09:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to establish in this article that this person was not Ivan the Terrible before you create a new article. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not Wikipedia's job to establish things - that's original research. What Wikipedia can do is to point out that Demjanjuk was tried twice, and both trials found (eventually) that he was not at Treblinka, and that therefore he was not "Ivan the Terrible." Since he was not, someone else was. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does this article say that? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that his Israeli conviction for being Ivan the Terrible was overturned when it was proved that he had not been at Treblinka. It also says that he was convicted by the German court for having been at Sobibor, which means he wasn't at Treblinka. Since two judicial processes have found that Demjanjuk was not Ivan the Terrible, it must follow that someone else was. If it is felt that Ivan the Terrible is a historically notable person, like for example Ilse Koch or Franz Stangl, then that would merit a new article. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new Ivan the Terrible article would treat him as any other unidentified person, such as The man in the iron mask or Banksy. In all three cases, there was speculation and accusations as to who the person was/is and and that speculation is noted in the article without saying that the person's identity is known. So the Ivan article would have a section mentioning the accusations against Demjanjuk, but not saying it was him, like the two other examples given. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did he die a convicted man or an innocent man? Which of these outcomes proved that he was not at Treblinka? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summary: He was tried in the 80s in an Israeli court for being Ivan, but the conviction was overturned due to weak evidence. A German court convicted him of being a DIFFERENT guard at a different concentration camp, and he was convicted. When he died, the conviction was under appeal, so technically under German law, he is considered innocent. However, even his guilty conviction isn't for being Ivan, but for being someone else. But creating an Ivan the Terrible article doesn't require proof. Treating Demjanjuk and Ivan as the same person does. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That summary seems quite fair. I am still unsure how much can be put into a new article that's not contained in this one. But it might help to make the situation clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this article rightly doesn't describe Ivan's crimes, in fact, all it really says is that he was a notorious guard. There is plenty to say about the guy about his role in the Holocaust, stuff that doesn't belong in this article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As long as that "plenty to say" can be sourced, then a new article would seem quite feasible. As we know, Wikipedia values verifiabilty above truth. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a stub for it at Ivan the Terrible (Treblinka guard) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time to put a stop to this "Bob"?[edit]

Is it just me or are there other editors who think too that Bob Sergeant really stept over some Wikipedia's don'ts with with this edit? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bob" should read WP:SOAPBOX... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gewalt[edit]

The paragraph starting "Demjanjuk was represented by Israeli trial lawyer, Yoram Sheftel" and ending "John Demjanjuk had no response to "gewalt" and had no significant fluency in German." has as its supporting reference a YouTube video. I don't think this is permitted. So I think it needs a "cn" tag. But was this argument seriously used as "evidence" in Demjanjuk's defence? And if so, how exactly was that claim tested in court? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was not (AFAIK) ever used as evidence at trial, but it personally convinced his defense lawyer of his innocence. I think it is permitted. This article should be about more than what was said at a trial. Rwflammang (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

footnote[edit]

I don't see them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.209.92 (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

page needed[edit]

I would agree with some of the previous writers, that they need to put up a separate page for "Ivan the Terrible," the guard at Treblinka. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was someone else, namely Ivan Marchenko. If they put it under "Marchenko," then "Ivan the Terrible," should redirect there.

John (Ivan) Demjanjuk was accused and found guilty in a German court of being a Ukrainian "Helper," in other words, a guard at a Nazi death camp. Unfortunately the article's tone is not neutral at all. The author of it makes it seem that he was an innocent man accused of a crime he did not commit , when in fact he was convicted and died during his appeal. The fact of his deportation from the US on the basis of numerous pieces of evidence -NOT merely the contested ID Card- indicates that the allegation of a conspiracy against an innocent man is sheer fiction. 74.239.209.92 (talk) 07:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

edit[edit]

John Demjanjuk

You inserted text inside of a link which 'broke' it. The original link was Stroop Report which is good blue: Stroop Report. Your edit was according to the 'Stroop Report' which is a red, or non-functioning link: according to the 'Stroop Report'.

-- Thanks for the attention. The way it's posted still doesn't make sense to me. I can see the } at the end of 'Stroop Report,' which doesn't serve any purpose to the reader, but since I don't know how to fix it,I will leave it as is [stet]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.209.92 (talk) 08:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Voluntary soldiers[edit]

I've added a citation needed tag to the Background chapter, as it states there, that Soviet POW's joined the German army mainly because of lack of nutrition. The reference cited does not have such statement. Additionally this contradicts with the last sentence of the paragraph, which gives political reasons for volunteering. 88.195.195.54 (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Demjanjuk. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

metamizole / no wrongdoing?[edit]

Hi! In the section "Death and posthumous appeal to restore US citizenship" we state, that "no evidence emerged", that could prove Busch's allegations. But: Metamizole is banned in the US; and in germany it shall not be given to people with certain kidney malfunction or hematosis disorders (D. had both according to Busch...)... I wonder if the german state attorney did his investigation properly (even though misuse of Metamizole seems to be a common practice in germany since the German Medical Association published several papers about misuse of Metamizole ([2]))... Is there some other source that claims that the german state attorney did it right? Bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

since the use of Metamizole is common medical practice in Germany I believe that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies. I think the burden of proof is not to show that a very common medication was used correctly or that a state attorney did their job. Contrarily, any claim that the opposite is true needs to provide evidence. 01:05 05/08/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.191.144.11 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Demjanjuk. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Demjanjuk. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Developments[edit]

Early 2019 legal actions in Europe dealt with John Demjanjuk family member's requesting reimbursement for certain expenses and their concerns that judicial rulings had impuned his presumption of innocence. The European Court of Human Rights's judicial rulings are available in its judgement of 24 January 2019 CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY (Application no. 24247/15). These legal actions did not change Demjanjuk's status before the law:

"CASE OF DEMJANJUK v. GERMANY (Application no. 24247/15) On 12 May 2011 the Munich Regional Court II, after 91 days of trial, convicted John Demjanjuk on 16 counts as an accessory to the murder of atleast 28,060 persons. It found it established that he had, in his capacity as a guard in the Sobibór extermination camp, aided and abetted the systematic murder of persons who had been deported to the said camp in 16 convoys between 27 March 1943 and September 1943. It sentenced him to a total of five years’ imprisonment for these crimes. The judgment ran to 220 pages plus appendices … By decision of 5 April 2012 the Munich Regional Court II discontinued the proceedings in accordance with Article 206a § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the death of the accused." Bryantbob (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link: [3]; my rationale was: "rm uncited / undue opinion by an immigration attorney who appears to have been a supporter / non RS blog". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoram Sheftel[edit]

(moved from my talk page) Hello Ermenrich. You state that Yoram Sheftel is an unreliable source. While he is controversial, given his defense of John Demjanjuk, is he specifically unreliable? He presents his case with zeal, but that doesn't make his statements unreliable. His defense before the Israeli courts ultimately proved successful. So they, at least, found information he presented as credible, or (in the alternative) the information presented by the prosecution as lacking credibility. The articles I have read concerning Sheftel are quick to point out that he has legions of detractors, but being hated and being wrong are two separate issues. Can you point me to something in Wikipedia which has determined that Sheftel has been determined to be unreliable? Gulbenk (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gulbenk, His defense in Israel was successful, but we cannot take his statements on the authenticity of the Trawniki card at face value or present them as fact in the article. Only if independent reliable soruces call it into question can we state that its authenticity is questionable, etc.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. Unfortunately, I don't see that as the standard practiced at Wikipedia. Applying that metric, you would find fertile ground for revision at O. J. Simpson murder case and others. I think you might be clouding the difference between a statement of fact, in the voice of Wikipedia, and a statement of learned opinion - properly attributed to a source (for the ultimate determination of weight by the reader). There are few people in the world more informed about the facts of the John Demjanjuk trial (and that ID card) than the defense attorney. His reliability is underscored by the ultimate resolution of this issue in Israel. Gulbenk (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're mistaken. He was acquitted in Israel because there was doubt that he was at Treblinka and was "Ivan the Terrible", not because there was any doubt about the authenticity of the Trawniki card. The Israeli Supreme Court even stated that he appeared to have been in the SS and had probably committed other war crimes than he was accused of. The fact that the US took away his citizenship for being in the SS and he was convicted of being a guard in a German court indicates that any doubts about the authenticity of the card were not largely shared outside of the conspiracy theories peddled by Sheftel and Ukrainian nationalists that this was a KGB frame-job.
And contrary to your assertion, this is very much the sort of standard we apply across Wikipedia. If there are problems at the OJ Simpson trial, take it up there, this article is under special sourcing restrictions that aren't applicable there because it deals with the Holocaust in Poland.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that more than the defense attorney and crackpot conspiracy types believe that the ID card was a forgery [4]. Do you know if the FBI, or the particular agent quoted in this article have repudiated the statements? Otherwise it would support my edits that were deleted as unsupported by credible sources.Gulbenk (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a much better source than a book by the extremely biased defense attorney or Ukrainian regional council - it's by the AP. Surely you recognize the difference. It doesn't answer the question of why he was nevertheless convicted, however, if everyone was so sure he was innocent. If your goal is to sow doubt about the case that's not what Wikipedia is here for. Clearly the German court did not buy this FBI report, and I suspect we need to use sources that were published after the conclusion of the trial to get a full picture.
Compare this from the NY times:

Defense lawyers argued that the Soviets had falsified Mr. Demjanjuk’s identity card and other documents, but a judge found a clear trail of evidence showing his path from Soviet prisoner to Sobibor guard.

. Or compare this from Spiegel:

But the notion that the ID might be a fake has circulated for years. Soviet authorities first displayed the card to US Justice Department officials in the early 1980s without handing it over for scrutiny. Since then, both Israeli and German experts have examined the card. In 2009, Bavarian state police declared it was probably real. The photo had likely dropped off and had to be re-glued, the Bavarians said, but the Nazi stamp on the photo and paper matched up. The card would be "hard to reproduce," they argued. Their examination was conducted in the presence of Demjanjuk's lawyer. "Now it has been determined to have been genuine, so for us 1985 is relatively uninteresting," the prosecutor, Lutz, told the Associated Press.

This from the Guardian:

In February, his lawyers asked the judge to stop the trial after a declassified FBI file emerged which suggested the ID card might have been forged by the KGB. The case continued after prosecutors argued that subsequent examinations had proved its authenticity.

It seems clear that the report cannot be given that much weight, given the judgment of other experts. At most we can mention that the argument was made by the defense and that there was an FBI report that supported it, but that this argument was rejected by the court. We can't put it out there as a way to suggest Demjanjuk is innocence or his conviction unjust.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

− Your first argument is a weak one, in that it does not say that the card is authentic, but rather that the judge found other evidence presented (not the card) as compelling. The second argument goes directly to the card, but starts from the standpoint that the authenticity of the card is genuinely challenged and only states that it is "probably" real. Then the German prosecutor (no doubt as honest and unbiased as the defense attorney) takes the leap from "probably" to "genuine" without further support. Doesn't change the fact that the FBI believed it to be a likely Soviet forgery, and that the Denver Post is a credible source. I'll go with that, and you can counter in the card section with the Spiegle. Gulbenk (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC) source.[reply]

Your missing the important point that analyses undertaken after 1985 found the card to be authentic. The FBI, once, in 1985, during the Cold War, came to the conclusion. That can and probably should be mentioned, but not in the two paragraph manner it was before, with a blow-by-blow of the FBI's process. That is WP:UNDUE. It can be mentioned as a defense argument and with its counter - obviously (despite your claim above) the judge was not swayed by the defense, otherwise the trial would have been stopped as the defense requested.
At any rate, I think other editors should comment before any editing is done, including K.e.coffman who made the original removal and has been doing an excellent job of cleaning this page up.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1985 FBI report is a bit of a red herring. See how it's treated in the section on the suit to restore Demjanjuk's citizenship:

On 12 April 2012, Demjanjuk's attorneys filed a suit to posthumously restore his US citizenship. The suit alleged that the US government withheld a key FBI document that could have helped him in his bid to keep his citizenship. In 2011 the Associated Press had uncovered a secret 1985 FBI report which indicated that a Nazi ID card showing that Demjanjuk had served as a death camp guard could have been a Soviet-made fake. The judge in the case ruled that the FBI document was based on speculation and unfounded beliefs.

See more in John Demjanjuk#Death and posthumous efforts to restore US citizenship, including the source for this statement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported text[edit]

The following text

On 24 February 2010, a witness for the prosecution, Alex Nagorny, who agreed to serve the Nazi Germans after his capture, raised doubts about the case against Demjanjuk, telling the court the man on trial in Munich state court didn't look like his fellow guard at the Flossenbürg camp. (There were three different former guards named Nagorny and it was not immediately clear whether the man who testified in the Demjanjuk trial was the same who allegedly served in Treblinka.)[1] Nagorny told the Munich state court that he knew Demjanjuk from the Flossenbürg camp. "We were brought there and Ivan was already there", the 92 year-old testified, referring to Demjanjuk by his birth name. "He was a guard there. He did the same thing I did. I did not know him before Flossenbürg." Nagorny has previously told investigators he arrived at Flossenbürg with Demjanjuk. Nagorny testified he lived with Demjanjuk in a barracks room in Flossenbürg and then shared an apartment with him in Landshut, Germany, after the war. When asked to identify Demjanjuk in the courtroom, Nagorny could not. Nagorny walked over to the bed where Demjanjuk lay and looked at him closely. When Demjanjuk removed the sunglasses that he was wearing, Nagorny said quickly: "That's definitely not him – no resemblance."[2] Nagorny also cast doubt on the provenance of the Trawniki card testifying that in the final days of the war the Trawniki guards destroyed their cards before being taken prisoner by the Americans.[2]

is currently partially cited to an article not available on the Guardian website. The first article cited, however, at Haaretz, says absolutely nothing about Nagorny "raising doubts". It simply says But when asked to identify Demjanjuk in the courtroom, he could not.. The text needs to be rewritten so as not to overtly support the defense case.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Witness in alleged Nazi Demjanjuk trial under investigation for murder". Haaretz. Associated Press. 18 February 2011.
  2. ^ a b Rising, David (24 February 2010). "Former guard says Demjanjuk was at Nazi camp". The Guardian. Associated Press. Retrieved 4 July 2012.

Length of Second Round of Charges in the US[edit]

The section "Second Round of Charges in the US" currently gives the impression of having been written in a breaking news style while it occurred. There's no reason, for instance, to have so many words and two separate subsections describing the issuance and lifting of the stay of Demjanjuk's deportation by the 6th circuit court. I will try to work on shortening it myself, but I don't necessarily have a lot of time.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: the blow-by-blow account was unnecessary. Thank you for reducing the length of this section. --K.e.coffman (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Day Month Year format[edit]

Why is this article written using DMY format? Demjanjuk lived most of his life in the United States, where MDY is the normal format for dates. The fact that Israel and Germany use DMY is not really an argument, given that neither speak English natively. I believe that format should be changed, and that the article should be noted as written in American English as well, given Demjanjuk's inherent connection to the US.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume convention. There are certainly other options. François Robere (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Born in 1920[edit]

Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

How could he have been "Ivan the Terrible", who was born in March 1911? (86.160.157.144 (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

You're assuming that Ivan the Terrible is a specific person with a specific birth date. (We think) we know that now but the identity of Ivan the Terrible wasn't known when Demjanjuk was charged. Anyway, the article does not say Demjanjuk was Ivan the Terrible, so there's no reason to prove he couldn't be without a source stating the information.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demjanjuk Photos[edit]

The three photos that "inconclusively identify" Demjanjuk are all available at the The US Holocaust Museum's website. They are specifically [5], [6], [7]. The website mentions that it's possible to get permission to use their materials. Does anyone have any experience doing this, and if so, what do people think about adding one or two of the photos to the article? They are not super clear, although the faces become more obvious if you use the zoom function.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, assuming the current title photo has to go, do you know anything about how we can get our hands on these or else use one of the photos from here [8]?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are sources identified as donations, not museum copyright, so it's unlikely that USHMM could give permission to release under a free license. The Sobibor perpetrator album is stated to have unclear copyright status, but many of the photographs are on Commons already. (Commons:Category:Sobibor perpetrator album) However, since it's very recent I'm not sure the identification of Demjanjuk in the album is conclusive. I would suggest uploading a fair use image which is unquestionably him. buidhe 00:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, one of the provisionally identified pix of Demjanjuk is on commons here [9]. Since we talk about the picture, I think we can include it somewhere in the body with a statement such as "Demjanjuk has been provisionally identified as guard x by y".
This would appear to be the only other picture of Demjanjuk on commons (already in the article) [10].--Ermenrich (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sovet Union[edit]

He cannot have been born in 1920 in the Soviet Union since there was no Soviet Union in 1920. 83.249.166.23 (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I've removed the term "Soviet Union" on my understanding that this area would have been part of the independent Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic at that point. But I might be misunderstanding, so somebody with better knowledge of Ukrainian history should probably have a look.Botterweg14 (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Douglas[edit]

This article is locked, so I can't make correction. Lawrence Douglas is not a historian. He is a lecturer in law at Amherst College. Historiaantiqua (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. He's not a lecturer though, he's a professor.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2020[edit]

Please correct spelling “prosection” to “prosecution”. 2603:6080:650B:C800:E4D5:C5A5:9474:7936 (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small spelling mistake[edit]

There is a small spelling mistake in Demjanjuk's last name, section "Defense case and Demjanjuk's testimony", first word of the third paragraph. It says "Demjnajuk", and should say "Demjanjuk".

Angelusgutmann (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! --Angelusgutmann (talk) 14:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Deemed innocent by both German and Israeli courts[edit]

He was deemed innoccent by both German and Israeli courts, so why does this article state he was a camp guard when both times he was tried he was deemed innoccent (Yes, I am aware the he died before appeals where heard in the german case, but that results in a innoccent verdict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:2100:EF7F:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was not "deemed innocent" by a German court, he was found guilty. Even the Israeli supreme court that said there was reasonable doubt about him being Ivan the Terrible said he was probably a guard. He's "innocent" only in the most technical, legalistic sense. Besides, historians have concluded he was a guard, and we follow what WP:RS say.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That this is a disgraceful page is beyond doubt. It demonstrates blatantly the total Left-wing bias that the co-founder of Wikipedia spoke of recently. The photocard with the picture was proved in Israel to be a NKVD forgery. In addition it gives "Ivan" as being about 5 inches taller than Demjanjuk and with dark brown eyes. Demjanjuk's eyes were a very pale blue/grey. It is a scandal that this fictitious and blatant forgery is up on this page as fact. In addition, a 'single judge in Germany decided Demjanjuk was guilty but his decision was then appealed. Under German Law the guilty verdict then goes into abeyance until the appeal. If you die in the meantime, as Demjanjuk did, then you die without the guilty verdict. 2A00:23C4:B607:CB01:3015:7852:7E06:42E9 (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The status "into abeyance" does not mean someone was "innocent". There are other sources. Where are your good historical sources that he was "innocent"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly haven’t read the article, IP. And if Wikipedia is biased against Nazis then I’m proud of Wikipedia.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 July 2021[edit]

Senator Jacob Javits was a Republican. A very liberal one, but he should have an "R" after his name, not a "D." 2601:249:1000:4D00:ACBC:2C06:333E:426F (talk) 04:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 August 2021[edit]

Please change

Demjanjuk appealed his extradition with the case heard on 8 July 1985. Demjanjuk's defense attorneys claimed that the evidence against him had been manufactured by the KGB,

to

Demjanjuk appealed his extradition. In a hearing on 8 July 1985, Demjanjuk's defense attorneys claimed that the evidence against him had been manufactured by the KGB,

I know what it means, but "with the case heard" doesn't sound right at all. 64.203.186.98 (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I have also joined the two sentences with a semi-colon. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background info update[edit]

In the "Background" sections, second paragraph, Sobibor is stated as being a "concentration camp", when in fact it was one of the Operation Reinhard "Extermination Camps". The link directs to the article "Sobibor Extermination Camp", so this language should be changed to reflect the true nature of the camp. Maxq32 (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burial site[edit]

The article gives "Brooklyn Heights cemetery in Parma, Ohio" as his (formerly undisclosed) burial site. No source is given. I have tagged the sentence as dubious, as a Google search provides conflicting evidence. For example, the burial site is given as "Saint Andrew Cemetery, South Bound Brook, Somerset County, New Jersey" by FindaGrave, with photos of the alleged burial site, taken in 2020 and 2021. The photos show his name and correct days of birth and death on the stone. I can't verify that the photos were taken where they are claimed to be (New Jersey, rather than Ohio), or that they are genuine. A reliable source is needed, ideally one that is recent and refutes the alternative sites. Renerpho (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just remove the info - it’s not very important and if there are reliable sources that say where it is we can add it again.—Ermenrich (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2022[edit]

This page states that he was misidentified as a matter of fact. His family members also say that he was exonerated. His conviction was overturned by the supreme courts of Israel because newly revealed Soviet documents identified Ivan the Treblinka guard as Ivan Machenko. It is worth noting that John demjanjuk wrote his mother's maiden name is Machenko on his visa application. Strangely his mother's maiden name was not Machenko. The supreme court of Israel overturned his conviction because of doubt they said. So as a matter of fact it cannot be said the witnesses misidentified John demjanjuk only that they possibly misidentified him.

I believe to be factually correct the article here shoul be corrected to say A. that witnesses possibly misidentified John demjanjuk after new documents showed Ivan the Treblinka guard is Ivan Machenko.

B. As well as mention johnn demjanjuks connection to the name Machenko 2600:1002:B008:61C4:0:4D:40A6:1B01 (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We follow RS which say he was wrongfully convicted the first time. And we already mention the connection to the name Marchenko.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2023[edit]

Move the portal bar to the bottom of the page. It does not belong in See also. Changing it to a regular portal template is not possible space-wise. SeeAlsoPolice (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Lightoil (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2023 (2)[edit]

  • Change Bibliography to Works cited. The word "Bibliography" implies the books were written by the subject.
  • Remove Rashke from the section; his book is only cited once.
  • Use the sfn template for refs to Douglas's book.
  • Move Wagenaar to a new section "Further reading" or add his book to a ref. SeeAlsoPolice (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SeeAlsoPolice:
  1. Bibliography implies no such thing;
  2. There is no reason to remove Rashke from that section. That is not how citation on WP works.
I suggest you self-revert now, and discuss here per WP:BRD.--00:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

KGB[edit]

Ermenrich has reverted my edit adding additional context, arguing that it's unnecessary: "Unnecessary parenthetical - INS's suspicions that the list was from the KGB are already in the article"

I disagree. I added it because, having never heard of Demjanjuk before, I was completely baffled as a reader by this sudden insertion of 'INS thought the list might've been manufactured by the KGB'. Er, what?! That's quite a thing to just leave as a minor remark... Why would the INS think that? Why on earth would the KGB be manufacturing lists of Nazi war criminals 30+ years later, what possible good could that do them? Is this credible at all, or was it some sort of wacko McCarthyism which sees Communist conspiracies under every rock? Was the KGB doing anything else, which taints other evidence such as witness statements or official documents (which come up repeatedly in the rest of the article)? Was this part of some broader KGB active measures or disinformation project? Is this book source trustworthy, or has it been ripped out of some sort of context, and is perhaps just speculation in 2013 by Raschke, or based on some untrustworthy fabulist or unverifiable defector claims? And so on. If you are thinking critically, a bland 'Hanusiak may have received the list from the KGB' raises a boatload of Cold War questions.

So I went and checked Raschke out from Libgen and ch22 is a good discussion of the context, listing Hanusiak's deep connections and sponsorship by the KGB, access to documents only in secret USSR archives, the KGB's attack on emigres (and why those groups then supported & funded Demjanjuk's defense, explicitly citing it as a precedent that if successful, the KGB would repeat, and why it could a conservative cause celebre), discussions of how witnesses were coached to lie, the political motivation in suppressing dissident movements overseas in classic Russian intelligence fashion dating back to the Okhrana in Paris and driving wedges between various groups, and creating a big distraction for Westerners away from the USSR's own ongoing crimes. This helped answer all my questions: the INS thought that because there was quite a lot of obvious disinfo and forgery going on, the KGB had sensible political motives, it was highly credible, the KGB may well have been screwing with a lot of the supposed evidence for Demjanjuk being Ivan, it was all part of a general campaign before & after, and the book seems sensible and sourced (quite aside from its pre-existing use in this page, which I take as endorsement by Ermenrich & other editors).

I didn't want to write a whole section on it, even though it would be amply justified as major context completely lacking from this article and of substantial historical interest in its own right, so I added a parenthetical and left it at that. I suggest that it be restored and at some point, a good section added about the KGB's various activities & interventions related to Demjanjuk & other emigres. --Gwern (contribs) 01:34 15 February 2023 (GMT)

Denjanjuk WAS a concentration camp guard. We don’t need to feed conspiracy theories about him not having been one by implying that the KGB framed him. They were involved in getting the information to the US (they had the files) but there’s no reason to overstate this. Raschke’s book is subtitled “America’s open door policy to Nazi war criminals” (roughly) and it would not be representative of his work to suggest Denjanjuk was not a war criminal. Neither he nor the article say that the KGB “manufactured” the list, merely that they were the source.
As another note, actually providing page numbers would be useful rather than citing an entire chapter.—Ermenrich (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You imply I am trying to whitewash Demjanjuk, but I never suggested he wasn't a guard, or not a war criminal; ironically, this demonstrates why it served the KGB's purposes to use him in their disinfo campaign to either frame him as Ivan or bring him to public attention. (It is a truism of propaganda that the best propaganda is mostly true - or ideally, entirely true and simply selective in its truths.)
It's not a 'conspiracy theory' when their involvement is as extensive and well-documented as Raschke shows, and a major reason that anyone heard of Demjanjuk in the first place, and it is representative of his work to point out that he repeatedly refers to the KGB's involvement and dedicates an entire chapter to answering what my questions were (as rather obvious ones if you are thinking about the subject), and he does in fact describe the list as KGB manufactured, saying "The Soviet Politburo saw America’s sudden interest in Nazi collaborators as an opportunity and quickly seized it. It ordered the KGB to blitz the West with phony documents like Michael Hanusiak’s Ukrainian list" and then describing extensive Congressional hearings including dossiers of forged documents from the KGB directorate in charge of manufacturing them (as well as references to him as a 'conduit for the Soviets' or 'directly or indirectly helped' or 'Assuming the documents were not KGB forgeries...' or explaining why the KGB likely prepared it and didn't just permit it, and concluding, "Either the KGB gave the list to Hanusiak, or it helped him compile it, or it fed the information to the newspapers, editors, and journalists Hanusiak consulted. Simply put, the Ukrainian list had KGB fingerprints all over it."). KGB involvement went far beyond some handwaving 'they were involved', and it seems hard to 'overstate' that involvement when they may have made it lock stock and barrel. Seems... relevant. (Perhaps you should read Raschke's book beyond the subtitle. If it was worth citing in the article before, then it's worth describing its claims accurately.)
As for page numbers, as I was not consulting a physical edition, I cannot provide them. (The Google Books scan also omitted them when I tried to check that. Oh well.) The citation is to the chapter as a whole, anyway. --Gwern (contribs) 15:32 15 February 2023 (GMT)
Why don't you suggest a wording and we'll see if we can agree?--Ermenrich (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article[edit]

To add to the text of this article (in order to help make it more properly encyclopedic): exactly where Demjanjuk was from. The current text reads as follows:

Demjanjuk was born in Dubovi Makharyntsi, a farming village in the western part of Soviet Ukraine.

But this isn't specific enough. Can't we add exactly where Dubovi Makharyntsi was located? Isn't it actually in central Ukraine, near Kyiv?

173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Demjanjuk&oldid=1206929098"