This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndriyK (talk | contribs) at 09:50, 21 May 2009 (→The place of birth). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 09:50, 21 May 2009 by AndriyK (talk | contribs) (→The place of birth)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Start‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Maiden Name?
Wasn't John Demjanjuk's mothers maiden name Marshenko? If that is true, how does that exonerate him?
Please sign comments- and don't add stupid things like "DOuble Yeah," 58.178.25.207 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Marchenko is the name he quoted himself as his mother's maiden name. Turned out to be incorrect. Tabachuk was the real maiden name, the defense proved. He claimed to have forgotten that. But in 1948 he was only 28 - who does not remember his mother's name at that age? And to have chosen "Marchenko" at random. Come on, too good to be true. There may be reasons why his mother might have been known unofficially as Marchenko - her mother (Demjanjuk's grandmother) may have re-married, may have lived together with someone called Marchenko. Or his mother herself lived with a Marchenko before she got married to Demjanjuk's father. (If that sounds funny - look up Garry Kasparov) Or - and that's probably the real answer: Demjanjuk for some reason liked to use the name Marchenko. --193.190.172.92 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Transcripts
Are there transcripts of the trials on line? If so links would be good. Rich Farmbrough 16:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
=>I've read a handful of the court opinions on Westlaw, a legal resource website. Citations to case law certainly would make the article more authoritative, but very few people can access these cases, so it is pointless to include these. However, I did find a transcript on CNN.com of a US Justice Department news conference on Feb 21, 2002 given by then US Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, Criminal Division and Eli Rosenbaum, Director, Office of Special Investigations, to CNN that confirms Judge Matia's ruling and makes mention of Demjanjuk's involvement at Sobibor. Specifically, Director Rosenbaum quotes some of Judge Matia's opinions in the ruling, stating that "contributed to the process by which thousands of Jews were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/21/se.04.html IntegrityCounts 01:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that some people do not have ready access to legal citations is no reason not to include them. There are many people who do have access (e.g. lawyers), and including them will lend credibility to any article that is written. John Paul Parks (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Specifics of the charges
What, exactly, did he allegedly do that was so horrible, even compared to other extermination came guards?
Please sign comments! Ronan.evans 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The judge's decision was that seeing as how he couldn't prove he was not there then he must be guilty. Nothing was ever proved, hardly anything was charge - just implied. His first trial in Israel was embarrassing - a holocaust deniers delight. Hard to believe that the Israeli officials didn't know this was not true before they got egg in their faces.
Maybe so, but from an American perspective, he was found guilty of entering the US and getting citizenship under false pretenses. You cannot hide the fact that you were a concentration camp guard or a member of a Nazi organization. When my father-in-law emigrated to the US in the late 1950s, he had to show his de-nazification certificate to prove he had not been in the Nazi party or the SS (he had been in the Hitler Youth (as all in his generation were) and the Army (as a teenaged conscript toward the end of the war)). Which is why after it was clear he was not Ivan, he was deported back to Ukraine instead of extradicted to Israel. --Amcalabrese 03:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that prehaps we add a link or mention of Demjanjuk's political supporters (such as Pat Buchanan) --Amcalabrese 03:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The whole incident involving Demjanjuk demonstrates the danger of overzealous, revenge-driven, vindictive prosecution and the dire consequences that can result when the leadership of the United States acts merely to appease a foreign government (e.g. deporting Demjanjuk to Israel in the first place). John Paul Parks (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Holocaust box
Holocaust box should be present. Despite the fact Demjanjuk was found innocent his story is very much connected to the Holocaust. The only people who would use this page would be those reseaching the holocaust. If not for the Holcaust this mans story would be un-notewothy and thus not deserving of an article! Besides many Holocaust victims have the Holocaust box on their wikipedia pages. Ronan.evans 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
He was never retried because the first one was so embarassing and revealed things that noone - ie Israel - revealed. Another trial - ie complicity in gassing - could have turned into a true disaster.
- Ronan, you have justified linking to this article from an article on the holocaust. You have not justified dominating this page with a Holocaust box. Anyone on this page who want's to find out about the holocaust can follow the links. The box is inappropriate for someone found innocent of the charge. Akihabara 14:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read my comment before wrting anything... ronan.evans 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
POV
This article, the whole way through, reads as if it is trying to convince the reader that this man is guilty even though he has been found innocent. The problems start in the first paragraph with the multi-line separation between "accused of, tried for, convicted of, and sentenced to death for war crimes" and "he was later exonerated". These should be in the same sentence, or at least adjacent. The intervening text belongs elsewhere.
Another example is the summary given of the Israeli ruling. Ending with "they also contained doubt that he was in fact innocent" is POV and the whole interpretation of the ruling is intended to convey this impression.
It really needs work by someone without preconceived ideas; accordingly I have tagged the article. It should aim to just list facts without trying to sway the reader either way. The article has almost no references for such a controversial and presumably researched subject! There are many examples on Misplaced Pages of controversial subjects handled more sensitively. Akihabara 15:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Renaming the article
It seems some Wikipedians want to rename the article about the Turkmen president Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow because they don't like the spelling of his name. Although Turkmen language is written with Latin alphabet and Turkmen language is the only official language of Turkmenistan, they can't support the idea that his name can be written with a "w" at thee end, because it comes etymologically from a Russian "в" and, in Russian names, we use to translitterate "в" by a "v". I think if this reason is accepted, we can consider that the "ju" of Demjanjuk comes from a Russian "ю" and then this article will have to be renamed "John Demyanyuk"! And the fact that Demjanjuk's name comes from Ukrainian and not from Russian won't be an argument since Berdimuhammedow is Turkmen and not Russian. If you have something to say about the subject, don't hesitate to post it here: Talk:Gurbanguly_Berdimuhammedow#Page_move. Švitrigaila 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- That would be very silly. I've been following the Demjanjuk case, albeit loosely, since the early 1980s. He's always been refered to in the media as "John Demjanjuk". Wikipedians will expect to find him by the name as it is spelled in conventional and historical media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.125.201 (talk) 22:47, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Updated material
Here is the latest news. --Tom (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
His trial showed he was not a Treblinka guard - it also showed ( evidence supplied by the US government ) that Treblinka was a transit site anyhow. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Born in the USSR?
How could he have been born in the USSR in 1920, when it did not exist?/79.136.2.14 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Your right, since he was born during the Polish–Soviet War it is hard to tell who controlled Ukraine when he was born. I made an edit to point this out. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
confused text
The second half of the "trial in Israel" section is confused, with aberrant timelines and misidentified court cases. McKay (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I did some work on it. Note there were 3 court cases in Israel. (1) the trial that convicted him, (2) the appeal that acquitted him, (3) hearing of petitions against his release. The text was mixed up between (2) and (3) before, hopefully it is ok now. McKay (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
He was born not Kiev oblast but in Zaporizss'ka oblast. See his Sobibor ID . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.82.222.114 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Current Event
Shouldn't a current event header be put on? 99.138.180.199 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so. It won't be current for long then we'd have to edit it out again. McKay (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- The way I read the news, it's getting more current by the day. He's about to be deported to Germany, and tried there. Don't Be Evil (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Torture section as OR
All but the first paragraph of the section '"Torture" as basis for reopening the case' seems to be WP:OR, a commentary on the strength of the parties' cases. The first paragraph, given proper cites, looks largely okay, if a bit editorial; it's relating the positions the parties have laid out in their arguments. I'd suggest dropping the analysis of the UN convention and of the prior immigration case that did not involve Demjanjuk. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is a very clear cut case of "Synthesis of published material that advances a position", which is not permitted, see WP:SYNTH. I deleted all but the first paragraph. But the first paragraph is not good either, since it only seemed to be there in order to argue against it. A briefer summary of the cited facts in the first paragraph would be better. This does not need a separate section, either. McKay (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Motion to reopen the case
There's about 1500 words in the section "Motion to reopen the case", primarily because it's grown as editors keep adding the latest news story to it. It's way out of proportion to the article, and could probably be summed up along the lines of
- In April 2009, Demjanjuk moved to reopen his case, but that motion was not granted. When the government attempted to deport him, Demjanjuk moved to halt the deportation, on the ground that he was too old and sick to be removed, and that removal would constitute torture. That motion was also denied.
The attention being given to minutiae of these motions (such as a stay being in effect for a weekend) are way out of proportion to other elements in this article. TJRC (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- He got deported, showing his guilt. Time to shrink this section and expand the section about how he murdered babies, elderly and women in Sobibor. Why are we spending so much time defending a murdered of babies? Meishern (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- "He got deported, showing his guilt" - object. There are plenty of reasonable charges against him, but we need to await the verdict. Innocent until found guilty by an independent judge, that's one of the key elements distinguishing our civilization from regimes like the Nazi one. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don’t want to start a war about this. I am making 0 edits regarding this. However if it walks like a duck and quacks, it’s a duck. There is an SS id card with his photo on it, and notations that he was transferred to Sobibor. I am not sure why the ID card is not present on this page. Face recognition software proved it, witnesses proved it, so I am not sure what else is needed, perhaps a film of him murdering children? He is a mass murderer, who makes Charles Manson seem like a decent guy. Lots of people are in prison on circumstantial evidence. Against him the evidence is strong if not overwhelming. This guy deserves to spend his golden years in prison surrounded by scum, and not on the back porch playing with his grandchildren. There will be no verdict. He will be found too old to stand trial. Germans are fond of releasing SS murderers because they are 'too old'. For some reason they always manage to live another 10-20 years after the German courts declare they are on their death bed. Yet I hope for a couple of years this animal sits behind bars. Meishern (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The place of birth
Dubovi Makharyntsi is presently located in Koziatyn rayon Vinnytsia oblast . Formely it was Kiev gubernia. It never was Kiev oblast.--AndriyK (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Categories: