# Talk:Jud Süß

After disambiguation, the history is now at [1]. Inwind (talk) 11:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I was given a message that my talk on jud sus was too personal and it was removed. I read the rules how could it be too personal? Well I'll start agains. the article accurate .the explanation of the story outline was rigth on the dot. Is this unpersonal enough? mrthinky may 19 2010Mrthinky (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The movie is available here at the internet archive:
http://www.archive.org/details/1940-Jud-Suess
But is it really public domain? if not, the link shouldn't appear in the main article.
--Tcheh (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not available there anymore. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 07:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
As of May, 2011, it's available on YouTube with English subtitles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIvaBOxHDj0&bpctr=1361219757).  Is there a problem with adding this to the external links in the article?  I'm not an expert on the relevant policies... Eleuther (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jud Süß (1940 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) 13:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Review
Well, the only thing I thought of after reading this article is WOW. I mean, this article is fabulous. This review has very little to talk about, as the article is near-perfect for GA and requires nothing extra in terms of prose, grammar and verification. 
There are only two problems that I can see in this article, and one of them is significant. The first, the article is on a touch and controversial subject related to Nazi propaganda, and hence I am surprised to see the article so well-intact. While I am not German and hence not familiar to in-depth Nazi history, I am well aware of the effect of Hitler's name on Jews even today. Hence, the issue of neutrality automatically comes. While we may not be able to do much, the article seems to have a slight bend towards excessive anti-Nazi feelings. While such feelings are justified in life, Wikipedia is strictly neutral. Hence, this is a problem. 
The second is regarding images. I don't understand why all the images are at the right. It is giving the article a weird look, and the presence of the first photo just below the infobox is disconcerting. I suggest you do this:-

For the cast members, apply a multiple image template. For example, I suggest this:-

You can continue for others. However, DO NOT use the Soderbaum image as it has a copyright tag, and hence is strictly ineligible for a GA article.

Delete the image regarding the execution of Oppenheimer. It's not necessary.
Apply alternating image distribution upon all the photos except the cast ones, which you should put in the multiple image template.
In view of such minor changes, I am putting this article on hold for a week. I hope you can quickly fix the matters up. Looking forward to welcoming a new GA into WP:Film. Cheers! AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 13:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well done for such prompt changes. i made a few minor corrections. In view of all this, I think I will pass this article. Congratulations! Keep up the great work, and hope to see you succeed in many other efforts for GA-promotion. AnkitBhattTalk to me!!LifEnjoy 16:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review the article and thank you for the good words of praise and encouragement.  --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there are two different ways of citing multiple pages in Wikipedia.  The "ibid", "op. cit.", "loc cit." convention seems to be discouraged.  Until recently, I have usually created a separate citation for each page or set of pages using the "page" or "pages" parameters of the {{cite}} template.  However, I recently discovered the {{rp}} template which allows there to be only one citation for each source with the different page numbers provided in-line.  This article currently uses both approaches and I would like to pick a single approach and make it consistent for all citations but I wanted to ask for suggestions on which one is preferred. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

In article is missing that actress Lida Baarova helped arrange meeting Goebles and Harlan. She told in czech newspaper Lidove Noviny. "Ten film byl opravdu strašný, ale tehdy jsem si tu hrůzu neuvědomila."
Zdroj: http://www.lidovky.cz/lida-baarova-zid-suss-a-vycitky-herecky-d96-/lide.aspx?c=A110712_211342_lide_mpr in Czech.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.9.6 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC) 

According to the article, the pronunciation of the German title of the film is [juːd sys]. However, I believe this is inaccurate. Word-final "d" in German is pronounced [t] due to terminal devoicing, and initial "s" is pronounced [z]. The correct pronunciation should therefore be [juːt zys].
AviJacobson (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

An RfC of possible interest to the editors of this article can be found here.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

In the main article for Joseph Oppenheimer it is stated "While some Jews tried to help him during the trial, others gave incriminatory testimonies against him." 
Yet in this article in the background section it is stated "After a heavily publicized trial during which no proofs of his guilt were produced, he was sentenced to death."
Do witness testimonies not count as evidence? 2601:447:D181:7BF0:5706:7EDA:714D:D183 (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

To add onto this, the source cited for this section, "the jewish encyclopedia 1912 page 418" makes no mention of whether there was or was not evidence.
It does say on the next page "His death is now admitted by modern historians to have been a judicial murder." 2601:447:D181:7BF0:5706:7EDA:714D:D183 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)