Talk:Trial of Neumann and Sass

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Court hearing of the trial of Neumann and Sass in Kaunas, Lithuania in 1935

• ... that in 1934–1935 Lithuania held the first mass trial of the Nazis in Europe (pictured), the convicted were sentenced to imprisonments in a heavy labor prison and capital punishments? Source: The hook is written in the header of the article. Quote from the Lithuanian source: "Nacių masinis teismas Europoje vyko pirmą kartą, tuo susidomėjo didžiosios valstybės." (English: The mass trial of the Nazis in Europe was held for the first time, it drew the attention of the great powers); link to the reference with this claim.
  • Comment: In the past I created three DYK nominations: Lithuania women's national basketball team, Kurier Litewski, and Lithuanian People's Army. I believe that the photo of the trial should be included in the DYK as well because it is a very historically significant, extraordinary event.

Created by Pofka (talk). Self-nominated at 21:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC).

• Comment: the article has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2022 February 14, so that needs to be resolved before the article can pass a DYK review. TSventon (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
• Pofka, review follows.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral: -
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: -

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: The article is new enough, long enough, and cited inline throughout. You are QPQ exempt as this is your fourth nomination. However the article is currently listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems as it incorporates large amounts of translated text from at least two cited sources. The article also inherits a pro-Lithuanian point of view from its sources as explained on the talk page. The copyright status of the picture also needs to be checked. If it is anonymous and over 70 years old it would be public domain. However it comes from MLE and says "Iš Lietuvos centrinio valstybės archyvo" (From the Central State Archive of Lithuania), so I don’t know when it was first published. TSventon (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The suggested hook ALT0 is mentioned in the article and supported by several sources.I didn’t find the claim in the ‘’Annaberger Annalen’’ reference, however that is a multi-page PDF in German. I don’t think the hook satisfies NPOV, as according to Alvydas Nikžentaitis on page 777 of Germany and the Memel Germans in the 1930s "Lithuanian historians often allege (without evidence) that this was the first anti-Nazi trial, a 'Little Nuremburg' ". I would suggest something like

• • ALT0a: ... that the trial of Neumann and Sass (pictured), held in Lithuania in 1934–1935, has been described as the first mass trial of the Nazis in Europe?

Quote from the Lithuanian source: "Nacių masinis teismas Europoje vyko pirmą kartą" "The Nazi mass trial took place in Europe for the first time" link to the reference with this claim. TSventon (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Update: copyright problems were resolved on 21 February so checklist updated. TSventon (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Update: the MLE has a general list of illustrators, so I don't think we can assume that the photo of the trial is anonymous. TSventon (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The copyright note on anonymous/unknown photographer is that they never claimed authorship of the photo. We can guess it had to be one of the people on that list, but with no attribution and none of them having come forward to claim any copyright, it is free and fine until such a claim is made. Kingsif (talk) 09:51, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Kingsif the photo comes from MLE and says "Iš Lietuvos centrinio valstybės archyvo" (From the Central State Archive of Lithuania). As no name is mentioned, can we treat it as anonymous? TSventon (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Having recently been focusing on central archive works (though not from Lithuania), I think it is safe to do so. I would check that it is appropriately licensed for use in Lithuania and the United States, though. Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I notice the image says it's public domain in the EU (which includes the country of origin), but it would also need a tag to explain why it's public domain in the US (if it is), as Commons images need to be PD in both country of origin and US. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Pofka, please could you check US PD status for the image and add a tag on Commons as suggested above? TSventon (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: @TSventon: It is a PD Lithuanian image, so it qualifies under the same license as PD-Poland (e.g. Polish photo with this license template), but I believe there is no equivalent Commons template for Lithuania (maybe it should be created now?). This Lithuanian image qualifies all these three requirements (added information about that in this file's license section):

1) it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days),

2) it was first published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice or before 1964 without copyright renewal or before the source country established copyright relations with the United States,

3) it was in the public domain in its home country (Lithuania) on the URAA date (1 January 1996). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pofka (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging TSventon and Joseph2302, who wouldn't have been pinged by Pofka's prior post since they forgot to sign it. (Pings don't work without a four-tilde sig.) Also, TSventon, you shouldn't use a status of "no" in {{DYK checklist}} unless the nomination is completely hopeless and almost certainly won't pass even if work is done; if there are solvable issues, then "maybe" is the way to go, and if there's only a minor issue or two, then "?". BlueMoonset (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me (I wasn't sure enough about US copyright, which was why I asked). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• Update:BlueMoonset I followed the Did you know/Reviewing guide and put no because I believe that the article requires considerable work before becoming eligible. I have taken your advice and changed to may be.

Joseph2302, Kingsif thank you for your comments, I have changed the photo to eligible. TSventon (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• Update I have reset the review status to request a second opinion as I believe the article needs more work to achieve a neutral point of view, see Talk:Trial of Neumann and Sass. As I am a fairly new reviewer I am not sure what level of NPOV issues are acceptable at DYK (and want to learn). I am also busy IRL. The nominator is currently topic banned from Poland and Lithuania, so they may not be able to get further involved. TSventon (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I did some copyediting for tone and neutrality (but did not add balancing sources). I feel like it's passable now, but since I've directly edited the article someone else should check my changes. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I spent some time with this today. I think it passes muster. It's far from perfect. The prose can be clunky, but I think this passes muster for DYK. I like Alt0a. I stripped the tags out of the article. Someone else can add them again after this passes review and gets featured. Good luck. --evrik ^(talk) 14:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
• for some reason, this wasn't moved... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• @Evrik and TSventon: looks like the article still calls it the "first mass trial" unequivocally—want to change the article to match the hook, or the hook to match the article? your call... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• @Theleekycauldron:, I have updated the article. I still don't think the article is a good example of NPOV, but I don'want to hold it up further as I don't have much time to spend on it at the moment. TSventon (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • sounds good, thanks! :) to the promoter, if they ain't me: might be worth it to do a double-check on NPOV and skewed language. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
    • @Pofka, TSventon, and Evrik: There's a neutrality disputed tag next to the statement, "Lithuania acquired the region" (referring to the Klaipėda Region). Does this still need to be resolved? Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think evrik meant to remove all the tags. I don't have a problem with that sentence as it is, I was concerned that an earlier version did not mention that the revolt was carried out by Lithuanians not Klaipėdans. The tag was added by @Reidgreg:. Pofka is topic banned so he can't comment at present. TSventon (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• The langauge seems to match that found at Klaipėda Revolt, though the word acquire may not be the best choice of word. --evrik ^(talk) 18:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm okay with acquired. I think I was tending toward annex, but the situation is a bit more complicated than that. The tag has been removed. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

ALT0a to T:DYK/P4 without image

Article name and neutral point of view

Pofka, en Wikipedia articles should use the common name of the subject in English sources. I suggest "Trial of Neumann and Sass" as used on page 301 of Antanas Smetona and His Lithuania (Alfonsas Eidintas, 2015). Neumann-Sass could be mistaken for a hyphenated surname in English, particularly as the individuals are not well known. The lead should also have a sentence explaining who Neumann and Sass were. TSventon (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: Thanks for pointing that out. Done. One question: should the name start in capital letter T in the rest of the text? -- Pofka (talk) 13:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka:, in the middle of a sentence, including the first sentence, the T in trial is not capitalised. See Trial of Oscar Pistorius as the first random example I checked, also the book page I linked to. I have also created a redirect at Neumann–Sass case, which was already wikilinked in several articles.

I don't know much about the period, but I also think that the article and hook will need to be reviewed for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The article is mainly based on Lithuanian language sources, and "naturally enough, evaluations of this period differ markedly in German and Lithuanian scholarship" (according to Alvydas Nikžentaitis on page 774 of Germany and the Memel Germans in the 1930s). TSventon (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: Thanks, I also checked your provided source and in Eidintas' book it is written in a lower letter in the middle of the sentence. Neumann, Sass, and their accomplices undoubtedly were Hitlerites. -- Pofka (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka:, I don't know the detail myself, I am only saying that the NPOV of the article will need checking. Nikžentaitis says that "Lithuanian historians often allege (without evidence) that this was the first anti-Nazi trial" on page 777 of the paper above. In footnote 36 on the same page he discusses various opinions. TSventon (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka:, as explained on your talk page there seems to be a problem with copyvio as well.

Neutral point of view examples

Pofka, to explain my concern about NPOV I have picked out some examples. Several sentences in the Background section have inherited a non-neutral POV from their sources and could be removed.

• "60% of the region's population was waiting for an uprising" is unlikely as most votes went to German parties
• "the ethnic composition of the population changed little" according to page 96 of Population Displacement in Lithuania in the Twentieth Century (Tomas Balkelis, ‎Violeta Davoliūtė, 2016) there were an estimated 15,000 Lithuanian Catholic migrants and 3-5,000 Lithuanian Jewish migrants to Klaipėda city in the late 20s and 30s. Klaipėda Region says that Jakai and Smeltė were built for Lithuanian settlers, but without a citation.
• "The Klaipėdians (Memellanders) national indecision" indecision seems to mean voting for the wrong parties
• "destructive anti-Lithuanian activities" this means destructive from a Lithuanian POV and the context was anti-German activities by the Lithuanian government

Also the section does not explain

• that the Klaipėda Revolt was an incursion by Lithuania
• why the case was tried in the Court of the Lithuanian Armed Forces rather than a civilian court. TSventon (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: I will reply according to your points so that it would be easier:

1) This data is according to the Lithuanian intelligence agencies. They did research before this operation. The numbers are not really shocking as the region belonged to no one and half of the population was Lithuanian. Moreover, there were chances that the Poles will grab the region as well, so it does not necessarily mean that some kind of uprising must have been only pro-Lithuanian (e.g. see: Żeligowski's Mutiny). By the way, the Poles sent a warship to help the French defend the region, but the warship arrived too late.

2) But according to another sentence the Germans from East Prussia came fleeing from Hitler's regime, so it is likely that they compensated that Lithuanian influx. A few thousand of Jews surely qualifies as "little". Anyway, if the data provided by Mle.lt is really incorrect, I will accept changes according to reliable sources.

3) No. It means that the Lithuanian language speakers of the region were unable to decide if they are Lithuanians or some kind of partly Germans. The Memellander means something between these two. This statement is important because it explains why it was difficult to Lithuanize the region.

4) If it is really necessary, then probably we can remove word "destructive" and keep only "anti-Lithuanian activities".

Last two points:

5) Part of the local population supported it as well, but yes it is also a fact that some Lithuanian soldiers invaded the region without military uniforms. A sentence or two about these soldiers can be surely added.

6) I do not know the answer to this as well. It is probably because the committed crimes were against the state (inviolability of the territory), not the individuals. -- Pofka (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka:, I have delayed my reponse until the copyright issue was resolved. I think you are explaining why the statements 1-4 are correct, not why they are NPOV. To take 3 as an example, saying that people who identified as a Memellanders were confused or "unable to decide if they are Lithuanians or some kind of partly Germans" seems to be based on the idea that the Memellanders were "really" Lithuanian and should vote for Lithuanian parties, which is a Lithuanian POV. The German POV would be that the Memellanders were "really" German. Neither is the neutral POV required by Wikipedia. Incidentally the phrase is sourced to Open Klaipeda, but that is quoting an article by Kazys Blaževičius.

I have done some research into the background to the use of a military court and it included martial law in Lithuania from 1926 to 1938 and a law "for the protection of the state and the nation" passed in 8 February 1934. Pages 83–84 of the Annaberger Annalen reference analyse the laws involved.

By the way I have done some copy editing, hopefully nothing controversial. I removed some Wikipedia:OVERLINKs, such as those to country articles. TSventon (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: "seems to be based on the idea that the Memellanders were "really" Lithuanian and should vote for Lithuanian parties, which is a Lithuanian POV." where did you found anything about political parties? I'm sorry, but this is your own interpretation. Lithuanian language speakers are Lithuanians. Memellanders who spoke German language were Germans. I think there is no NPOV violation in that. Even the pro-German politicians who attempted to unify the region's population used phrases such as "we are two nations united under one culture". This sentence is important to explain the situation because these Lithuanian-speaking Memellanders identified themselves as Lithuanians of Lithuania Minor, but had doubts whenever the region should be part of Germany (as it was for hundreds of years) or Lithuania (Lithuania proper). Maybe I used wrong phrasing in my previous response. Lithuanians of Lithuania Minor identified themselves something as "different Lithuanians" (from Lithuanians of Lithuania proper), but not as Germans. Lithuania Minor was an important source of Lithuanian culture revival and preservation (e.g. see Catechism of Martynas Mažvydas; nobody doubts that Martynas Mažvydas was not a Lithuanian).

Thanks for copyediting. -- Pofka (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka:, the article now mentions "the Klaipėdians (Memellanders) national indecision and support for the pro-German parties", linking the two topics. Its source is Kazys Blaževičius, quoted in the Open Klaipėda article, who writes "the national indecision of Klaipėda residents has greatly complicated the activities of the Lithuanian government and the Klaipėda governorate in the Lithuanianization of the region" and then "Elections to the Seimas were always overwhelmingly won by the Germans". That seems to describe people who were regarded as Lithuanian, but voted for German parties as undecided, which is not a neutral POV. Also a detailed description of Memellander identity fits better into Klaipėda Region than here.

I agree that language was regarded as a shorthand for nationality in the 19th and 20th centuries, but the situation in Klaipėda was complicated, hence the choice of so many not to identify as German or Lithuanian. Vasilijus Safronovas wrote that "those who during the 1925 census declared themselves Memellanders could in another scenario, without any major difficulty, publicly demonstrate their being German (Lithuanians, Jews, etc.)" (see Researchgate link, page 231), which was obviously a useful option in a 1930s dictatorship. Safronovas also discusses choice of ethnic parties in relation to ethnicity. TSventon (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: Well it explains the reasons why it was difficult for Lithuania to Lithuanize the region. This is not a violation of NPOV but an explanation. It does not say that they did wrong, but it simply explains why it was difficult to integrate the region. -- Pofka (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka:, the problem for Lithuania in Klaipėda was that around 80% of the voting population opposed the government. It is not NPOV to call that indecision, opposition would be better, and opposition is implied by support for German parties. TSventon (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: I will welcome paraphrasing if it is really necessary, but we should keep that sentence somehow. Please paraphrase if you know how. -- Pofka (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka:, I have explained that the idea of national indecision is not NPOV. My concern is that several sources represent a Lithuanian POV as fact, rather than one of at least two POVs. Klaipėdan identity is a central question, so I have rewritten three sentences based on the existing Vareikis reference and a new Safronovas reference to explain that Klaipėdan identity was disputed. More detail could be added, but that probably belongs in the Klaipėda Region article. TSventon (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: Fixed the "national indecision" phrase, thanks for additional fixes. -- Pofka (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka: thank you, I think we are making progress, one more detail is that the section on German organisations looks confused as it mentions the Lithuania Kulturverband which did not operate in the region but not the Memelländischer Kulturbund and later Memeldeutscher Kulturverband, which did. The similar names don't help. TSventon (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: Fixed name of the Kulturverband. -- Pofka (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka:, please could you check the references, the article still confuses the Memelländischer Kulturbund (1923–1934) see VLE article, the Memeldeutscher Kulturverband (1938–1939) and the Lithuania Kulturverband (1924–1940). TSventon (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: Ahh, yes, that's confusing. I checked the references again and it was the Kulturverband der Deutschen Litauens (see: this reference). The 1938-1939 organization is clearly not related with this trial as it is much later. -- Pofka (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

More NPOV examples

@Pofka: The general POV is based on Lithuanian sources especially MLE, which I understand is produced by the Lithuanian state encyclopedia company without giving the same weight to material from more academic or non Lithuianian sources such as Nikžentaitis or Jenkis I don't have time to rewrite the whole article, but think the following opinions do not give a neutral POV and should be removed.

• German nationalists began to take advantage of the situation and with their activity only worsened it.[2]
  • changed → which worsened over time
• According to Antanas Merkys, the Governor of Klaipėda in 1927–1932, the deteriorating situation of the region was dangerous already in 1927, and in 1930 the Lithuanian language was taught as a foreign language to most of the region's pupils.[2]
  • Rephrased for encyclopedic tone, but with inline attribution I felt this was OK for neutrality.
• Despite the principled position of the Lithuanian courts in sentencing the convicts
  • Removed that sentence
• The trial of Neumann and Sass did not receive the attention it deserved from the Triple Entente.[1] Consequently, Hitlerism was further developed by the Nazis and caused World War II.[1] TSventon (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Rewrote: While the trial of Neumann and Sass exposed Nazi ambitions and methods, adequate measures were not taken to quell the development of Hitlerism, and the resultant outbreak of the Second World War.

@TSventon: I really do not see any violations of NPOV in these. Maybe only the first one and second one should be modified by adding explanation that it worsened the situation for the Government of Lithuania and that it was dangerous for the Lithuanian rule. -- Pofka (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Pofka:, I have asked for advice on how to proceed at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. TSventon (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: thanks for your detailed notes above. I agree, there were serious tone and neutrality issues in the language without even getting into sourcing. I've tried to copyedit the article for neutrality and address your points as noted above. I haven't added any more sources, but I hope this will be enough for the article to move on with its DYK nomination. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I think the problem starts with the sourcing, as the nominated version used large proportions of sources which presented a Lithuanian point of view. The author also clearly had a Lithuanian POV (and can't contribute currently as they are topic banned). I still think it needs work to reflect both Lithuanian and German viewpoints neutrally, but DYK may be able to accept a lower standard of NPOV than that. Thank you for your copy editing, but that has largely preserved the original meaning and thus the original POV. I have asked for a second opinion as this was my first attempt at dealing with copyright and NPOV issues at DYK and I am sure that I have made mistakes. I asked for advice on NPOV at DYK talk, but did not get a response. I am also now busy in real life and my contributions to the article should probably be checked. TSventon (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to search for sources, either. The article doesn't mention the effects of increasing authoritarianism (banning of opposition parties, censorship, disenfranchisement of minorities) in Lithuania following the 1926 Lithuanian coup d'état. I'll try to tag a few places in the article to attract editor attention. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Useful information

@Pofka:, I found a couple of relevant MA theses, so I have linked them here for future reference and in case you are interested.

• 1975 MA thesis for background, only an MA thesis so not a WP:RELIABLE source and quite old.
• 2021 MA thesis for background, only an MA thesis but very recent. TSventon (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

What was the opinion of the Entente?

In the introduction it is claimed that Russia/UK/France (and Germany of course) wanted a secret trial. In the "Trial" section, however, it's "Nevertheless, Lithuania, being urged by the Triple Entente, held a partly public trial". Which is it? I don't speak Lithuanian and don't trust deepl enough to be able to look it up from the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.201.114.36 (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, I have looked at the source using Google translate and tried to clarify the "Trial" section. Thank you for reporting the problem and do ask if you find any more. Pinging Pofka as well. TSventon (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@2.201.114.36: @TSventon: It is explained in the header: "The trial with 69 hearings was held as a partly public trial (upon invitation)". I made this conclusion myself after summarizing the article. We cannot say that it was a secret trial because international journalists were allowed to participate in the trial upon invitation. Nevertheless, not everyone from the streets were allowed to attend the trial, so it was not a fully public trial. -- Pofka (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The Triple Entente that is alluded to did not exist in 1934. The Russian Empire had become the Soviet Union and was not - at this point - in any kind of alliance with Great Britain or French Republic.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 22:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Unbalanced

To a limited extent, the article tells the German side of the story. It does not give enough weight to the fundamental issue that the trial was part of the Lithuanian agenda of suppressing the democratically elected leadership of the region. Sass and Neumann may or may not have been “Nazis”, but it is absurd to say (cited from two Lithuanian sources) “It is currently evaluated as a forerunner to the Nuremberg trials” and to give that a prominent place in the lead. Most defendants were acquitted, even by a Lithuanian military court. No one was accused of war crimes or genocide. Some defendants were accused and convicted of murder and attempted murder, but there are no details given of what exactly Sass and Neumann were accused of. Perhaps “subversive activities” against Lithuania, which for all practical purposes was an occupying power?

Just one example of bias: “They claimed that the Nazi parties were legal…” Whether the two parties were “Nazi”, in the sense we understand by that now, is arguable, but as a matter of plain fact they were indeed lawful. Moonraker (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Moonraker, I agree the article is not neutral and have argued that in several threads on this page and at Template:Did you know nominations/Trial of Neumann and Sass, however it was my first controversial article review and was busy IRL, so I left the review open for anotherv reviewer to take the final decision. I added several mentions of the German side of the argument, but the bulk of the article was still based on one-sided Lithuanian sources. If you think the problem is serious enough you could report it at WP:ERRORS. It was rereviewed by evrik by and promoted by Theleekycauldron. TSventon (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi TSventon, we are on the same side, but I just think more work was needed on it before being featured on the Main Page. But never mind, it can still be improved. I have started a page for Theodor von Sass, which may help a little to put this one in context. Moonraker (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Moonraker, I agree that there is plenty of scope for improvement of the POV of the article. The most detailed coverage of the trial I have seen is in reference 5, "Der Neumann-Sass-Kriegsgerichtsprozess in Kaunas 1934/1935 Aus deutscher Sicht". The current article doesn't make it clear what the defendants were accused of and found guilty of. Ideally the article should be rewritten based on NPOV sources, which I don;t have the time or inclination to do.

I am interested in any suggestions about how I could have handled the article differently. Perhaps I should have tagged the article with Template:POV? I am somewhat sceptical of the value of tagging articles, if I can't fix the problems with an article, it is unlikely that adding a template will persuade someone else to do so. TSventon (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

My point TSventon was only that this shouldn’t have been approved by the DYK process, which requires articles to be neutrally written, and this one is not. It could have been put on hold until fixed. Yes, some more input aus deutscher Sicht is what is needed, that sounds as if it should be a good source. It’s no surprise that no one supported the Lithuanians over this at the time. They have a mighty nerve to say now that the trial of Sass and Neumann by a military court was a forerunner of Nuremberg. Moonraker (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)