Talk:Ideology of the SS

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ideology of the SS article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 90 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Ideology of the SS was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 23, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
March 25, 2016	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Military history: European / German / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 October 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dog in real life.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

The grammar in the last two sections is particularly poor, this is obviously written by a non-English native speaker and will likely require a native speaker to correct.

Community reassessment[edit]

Ideology of the SS[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: The consensus has determined that the article should not be deleted, but given the neutrality issues raised on the talk page and instability which has occurred, it should be delisted as a GA article at this time. Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussions on the Talk page:

Problematic content, and
Sourcing.

K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I support desisting immediately given the major concerns being raised on the talk page. The article could (and hopefully will) be redeveloped to GA status, but it doesn't deserve it at present. Nick-D (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article raises major concerns and definitely needs to be delisted at once. Coretheapple (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it should be delisted. zzz (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the nominator. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The article needed further work, I said that before the atom bomb dropped and still agree with that fact. With that said, it should have been handled better. I agree it should be delisted from GA straight-away at this point. Kierzek (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the delisting, there are enough issues raised on the talk page to illustrate that this is not a stable, neutral article at the moment and thus should not be listed as such. MPJ-US 04:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support While I do not agree with much of the critique voiced on the talk page, I do agree that the actions by several editors (most of which support the deletion of this article alltogether) have made the article so unstable that it can for the moment not be considered a good article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - however, there is absolutely no basis for deleting this article, the subject is clearly notable and there are numerous reliable academic sources available for it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, it should not be deleted. MPJ-US 06:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying it should be deleted. Right now, I don't believe it should be. Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I can only agree with the other editors here, the neutrality issues on the talk page alone raise sufficient questions. But it at least feels like one that could potentially come back as a GA in the future if enough editors sit down and discuss how to take this one forward. Miyagawa (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask this be closed and for the article to be delisted per consensus. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a close[edit]

Would it be possible for the handlers of this page to reassess, per consensus? (Sorry, I thought I was posting to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Hopefully, it will show up there.) K.e.coffman (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have "given it a go". I have not done one before. Kierzek (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history[edit]

HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that editors of this page may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

Possibly Excessive Quoting of Himmler[edit]

@Nick-D:@K.e.coffman:@Kierzek:@GeneralizationsAreBad:@EyeTruth:@Beyond My Ken:@Diannaa:@Peacemaker67:@Nillurcheier: Recently, an editor @LeftiePete: added several quotes directly from Himmler, which were extracted from the Longerich work on him. While we would all certainly agree that Longerich is a leading scholar, the piling up of language used by the infamous SS leader, Himmler, borders on glorification and while I am not entirely opposed to these additions, I am not entirely comfortable with them in succession like this either. At this point I am tempted to delete them as they seem a little excessive. It would be helpful if the subject matter experts I have pinged about these edits could either share their thoughts or vote on whether they should be retained.--Obenritter (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Retention / Support Deletion

Support Deletion-- based on the fact that the point is already well enough made. Also, if you all recall, this page came under scrutiny in the past. Not sure these recent edits help the cause. --Obenritter (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've removed two of the quotes and only kept the one with regards to anti-Slavism.--LeftiePete (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal of quotations and tend to use them extremely sparingly if at all. Prose written by Wikipedians tends to be more engaging and gives the article better flow. Also, what the participants have to say about themselves or their own organization tends to be biased as they can say whatever the heck they want as a way to justify their actions.— Diannaa (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, quotations should only be used indirectly, when scholars refer to them, explain them or put them in a historical context ("einordnen" in German) best Ulrich. --Nillurcheier (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]