Talk:Nakam

Correct title

The organization in question was not called "Nakam", but "DIN" (Hebrew for "law" or "justice"). "DIN" stands for "Dam Yehudi Nakam" Ralph Goldenmouth (talk)

This article states that the acronym DIN stood for Dam Yehudi Nakam ("Jewish blood will be avenged") but the article Well poisoning claims it stood for Dam Yisroel Noter ("The blood of Israel avenges"). May we have some reliably sourced clarity on this point? — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 21:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

The sole source for this article's serious allegations is not listed a reference but only as literature. There is only library reported on Worldcat to have a copy, and that is in Berlin at the state library. For this reason, I would consider it difficult or impossible to verify, particularly without a page by page citation to the source.Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

extremism of nakam

To what an extent can it actually be called an extremist organization. In my view the label forbids itself in an encyclopedia without beeing assigned to a relevant point of view. I'll remove it--user:goiken 00:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0g1o2i3k4e5n6 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for publishing this page. It's months I'm asking wikipedia.it to do the same and I always receive the same replay: the tell me that I'm antisemite because I want to add a paragraph about Nakam and their poisoning plan in the page about the Jews brigade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.236.224.132 (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you think about this? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/jewish-brigade-shot-nazi-prisoners-in-revenge-1191139.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.236.224.132 (talk • contribs)

I don't see anything antisemitic about that, but question its relevancy. The Jewish Brigade consisted of hundreds of members and the the group planning the revenge poison attack was a few, as far as I can see. While some members of the Jewish Brigade were involved in revenge attacks after the war, it is unclear if any of them were involved in the poison plot. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Finally I find somebody clever enough to understand my point of view! Unfortunately in wikipedia.it (Italy) I had not found anybody like you. I told them: look at the page that has been published on wikipedia.org! They said: that page (refereeing to this one) is ridiculous. They don't want to have any kind of discussion about it. I brought to them a lot of articles and books talking about this topic and they said that is not enough. They said that this is just a "urban legend". (If there are mistakes in my writing I apologized. I'm Italian and English is not my mother tongue)

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/26/second.world.war) (http://israelstreams.com/?israelinsider.html?http://israelinsider.com/Articles1/Politics/7344.htm) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.244.162.101 (talk) 06:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I rather think that any assassination squad has to be called extremist.101.98.209.132 (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Describe what they did and what they hoped to accomplish by doing it. Describe reactions by contemporaries and qualified historians. If we've done that much, readers can decide for themselves what labels apply. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 21:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Page move

It appears that "Nokmim" is the more prevalent word used in English language sources to describe the article. Anyone supporting or opposing this move please speak up below. Thanks. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a militia

Nakam was founded by members of a militia, amongst other recruits. But it was not "a Jewish partisan militia". It was an assassination squad. There is a difference.101.98.209.132 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Statute of limitations

Why does the German statute of limitations prevent the investigation in 2000 against two Nakam activists, but not the investigation into earlier Nazi war crimes?101.98.209.132 (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly because the Nazis were successful in carrying out mass-murder while the Nakam were stopped before any mass-murder occurred.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ghetto Vilinus.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nakam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 17:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Opening statement

I am reviewing this article as the WikiProject Germany Coordinator, and am on good terms with the article nominator, Buidhe (previously Catrìona).

In reviews I conduct, I may make small copyedits. These will only be limited to spelling and punctuation (removal of double spaces and such). I will only make substantive edits that change the flow and structure of the prose if I previously suggested and it is necessary. For replying to Reviewer comment, please use  Done,  Fixed,  Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or  Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow. —Vami♜_IV♠ 17:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Prose

Having read the whole article over, the only prose issue I was able to find is An attack on nearby The bread for Langwasser came from a single bakery in Nuremberg.

@Vami IV: Fixed. Thanks for the review! buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 21:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

GA progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove History section, upgrade Formation, Plan A and B

I don't think the History section title adds anything as it is all history. I suggest upgrading Formation, Plan A and Plan B to full headings.

As another point Plan A/B could use some more information in the title "Plan A (mass poisoning)" etc. Learned a lot thanks (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)).

'activists'?

in the 'Plan B' paragraph it states '...the activists painted the poison on the bottom of the loaves...' is 'activist' really the right word here? Potholehotline (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

"operative" might be better.Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree, 'operative' or similar seems appropriately weighty, yet neutral. On another note regarding the categories, Icewhiz, I have not read the sources but if they describe these events as vigilantism, instead of terrorism it is not clear from the article. The current version of which implies the opposite. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)).

The goal of Nakam was not to terrorize (an insignificant action by otself, whose main effect is on public morale) - but to enact revenge on a massive scale - an act of war perhaps, but not terror.Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

If that is what the sources on this say, then there is no argument from me, thanks Icewhiz. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)).

I won't comment on "activist" or "terrorist". However, "vigilante" is very wrong. According to my dictionary, a vigilante is "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority". Indeed that is its common meaning. By calling Nakam "vigilantes" we are saying that poisoning POWs or poisoning a civilian population was an example of law enforcement. Zero^talk 01:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Poisoning war criminals who were part of the genocide machine. Classifying Schutzstaffel as POWs is far from straightforward. Various sources do use the vigilante label - e.g. [1][2][3]. Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The courts dropping the case does not mean that the organisation is or is not terrorist. I do not care whether Nakam is to be classified as a vigilante group or not — however, the sources on the article overwhelmingly classify Nakam as a terrorist organisation. --ElKabong888 (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit: Personally, I am indifferent to the use of the word "terrorist" in the article; I'd only like for the article to be placed in the Terrorism in Germany category. --ElKabong888 (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Unlike most terrorist organizations ..., Nakam wanted to kill indiscriminately. - "Unlike"? I don't really understand this phrasing. One of the features of terrorism is specifically that violence is enacted indiscriminately in such a way that others become afraid of the actor. For example, Plan A would mark Nakam as terrorists, but Plan B would merely make them war criminals (as murdering POWs would violate the Geneva Conventions). 97.102.30.205 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is this talk not continued on concluded, as it seems to pose a very important question on the difference between 'paramilitary' and terrorist groups. Of which Nakam is of the latter to any acquainted with the word terrorism. The Polymathian Scholar (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Glaring oversight

The page keeps mentioning they wanted to kill 6 million Germans from the start. How did they already know in 1945 that 6 million Jews had died? I'm pretty sure the 6 million number became common knowledge quite a bit later, and it's really hard to believe they knew the exact number right when they started operating. What's the source on them wanting to kill exactly 6 million Germans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A420:6A:74B0:F8E1:1B7E:F77B:6AAD (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merged. I know I voted here but it's been three months and no one has said anything, feel free to revert if someone thinks this is improper but this shouldn't go on for forever. Proposer agrees book might be notable (and there are already decent sources on the page). Proposed merge target is questionable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Vengeance and Retribution Are Mine into this article. While it could be argued that the book maybe meets the WP:Notability, there is already a paragraph about it in the Historiography section of this article, which gives it better context. Kershatz (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If it is going to be merged somewhere, it would make more sense to merge into the author's article than add details here about the book which are likely UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 16:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Book seems notable from the sources on its page. As said above, this move target is illogical - while a merge into the author could be done I don't see what the benefit of that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.