Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HIAG/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2018 [1].

HIAG[edit]

Nominator(s): K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a Waffen-SS lobby group in post-war Germany. The article passed GA about two years ago and has been stable since. I believe that the article meets FA requirements for scope, sources, etc. It addresses a key group among German World War II veterans' organisations. HIAG is notable for the legacy of its propaganda campaigns, with some off-shoots and publications possibly still existing today. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Kurt_Meyer_and_Paul_Hausser_at_a_HIAG_convention.jpg: the "historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just whatever is pictured, is historic - eg. the Tank Man photo. This needs a different tag and a better FUR

Provided. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could use additional expansion, IMO. What does the reader gain from this image that they do not derive from simply reading the article? (Also, is anything further known about this image's provenance?) Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Der_Freiwillige_1959_cover.jpg needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Provided. --K.e.coffman (talk)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Stein title doesn't match between Notes and Bibliography
I'm not sure I understand this comment. There are both Stein and Steiner used as sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn6: publication title should be italicized
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page for FN54? FN27? FN75?
Some of that is Ward, "A Global History of Execution and the Criminal Corpse". I was using GBooks preview which unfortunately does not provide page numbers, i.e. here. Can I provide URLs instead? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page formatting needs correcting on FN77, 81, 108, 109
I provided a pointer to the URL. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether publication titles are or are not abbreviated in footnotes, but in the full ref they should be written out
I'm not sure I understand this comment. Can you give me an example? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
I'm not seeing anything out of order. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Access dates and archive dates should have the same formatting
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newspaper articles should include full date and, where available, author name or agency
Provided where available. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Factotem[edit]

My responses inline in italics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The link to kuecprd.ku.edu for Citino's The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943 could not be reached at the time I checked it.
Removed as unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link provided to uncpress for Diehl's Thanks of the Fatherland: German Veterans After the Second World War gives a different ISBN (978-0-8078-5730-4) than the ISBN link that you provide (978-0-8078-2077-3). Checking that first ISBN on Gbooks shows the 360-page 2009 edition, while your ISBN is for the 345-page 1993 edition. The difference in pagination may affect the page numbering in your refs.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link provided to www.dacapopress.com for Parker's Hitler's Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper gives me a page not found error.
Removed as unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pontolillo's Murderous Elite: The Waffen-SS and Its Record of Atrocities appears to have been published in 2009, rather than 2010 as stated in the bibliography.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Schneider appears to be the translator. Compare: [2]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliographic details you provide for Wienand's Returning Memories: Former Prisoners of War in Divided and Reunited Germany are confusing. According to the Worldcat list of editions, Rochester, N.Y., is the location of Camden House publishers, whilst Boydell & Brewer appear to be located in Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK. There's also an inconsistency in pagination, with the JSTOR link showing 366 pages (and the different ISBN 9781782045304), the Camden House edition (which corresponds to the ISBN number you provide) indicating 346, and the Boydell & Brewer edition (which has the different ISBN 9781782045304 - same as the JSTOR edition, prob refers to the e-book) indicating 364.
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the translation of Wilking's "Wie ein Mann ein Mann wird" correct? Google translates it as "How a man becomes a man". Whilst Google translate is more often guilty of butchering a language than translating it, I do believe that the German verb Werden in this context means "to become".
Removed; it may have been my translation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the above rather minor issues, the presentation of sources seem OK to me.

Spotchecks

  • Ref #3 (Smelser & Davies pp. 72-73). Page numbering error? These two pages appear, from the Gbooks preview, to discuss only Halder, and nowhere can I find anything to support the statements in the second paragraph of the "Post-World War II context section" cited to them. Should the page numbering be 73-74 (Section titled in the book as "Networking with the Bundeswehr"), which do generally support the statments? There is, however, one troubling exception relating to the third bullet point. I'm not sure where the quote in the statement: that "measures to transform both domestic and foreign public opinion" be taken with regard to the German military comes from. The source, p. 74, actually reads "Measures to change the public attitude toward military service would have to be implemented" (my emphasis). There is no mention there of "domestic and foreign" public opinion. More importantly, military service and German military are two very different things. Given that the Himmerod memorandum relates to the rearmament of West Germany, it's quite conceivable that this statement is referring to the future military, and not the past, don't you think?
Fixed page numbers and text; not sure where I got that last point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #42 (Frankfurter Allgemeine) OK except, as far as I understand the German, the article specifies that Simon was imprisoned for war crimes perpetrated against "Italian civilians", without specifying the Marzabotto massacre. The WP article on that massacre reports the conviction of Simon as one of the perpetrators, but the assertion is unsourced. FAZ also states that Simon was tried thrice (rather than twice as written in the article) after his release. This is an issue of precision, and the fundamental point being made is supported by the source.
The death penalty for the massacre is mentioned here: London Cage: The Secret History of Britain's World War II Interrogation Centre, "Max Simon did not stand trial for the Ardeatine caves massacre, but did receive the death penalty from a British military court for the Marzabotto massacre in Italy in autumn ...". --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #70 (SPD Anfrage). Given that this is a 39-page document, you could usefully refine the ref to "Chapter 3, Section 4". Also, the source states that Munin-Verlag was established by "Soldaten der ehemaligen Waffen-SS" (soldiers of the former Waffen-SS). It does not state whether they were members of HIAG.
Added "Chapter 3, Section 4". The sources used elsewhere in the article state that Munin-Verlag was established by HIAG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #74 (Worldcat listing). Is this not WP:OR? Also, taking one example from the names listed, how do we know that the Rudolf Lehmann listed as published by Munin Verlag is the same person as Rudolf Lehmann (SS officer)?
This seems okay to me, as I'm using a primary source for non-controversial statement. Rudolf Lehmann was a Munin-Verlag author, for example. I can remove, if it's a sticking point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any WP:PRIMARY issues with the use of the listing to say that this publisher published these authors, but strictly speaking, linking those authors names introduces an element of interpretation on your part. We are not able to verify from the primary source that those authors are the same as those you link to. I've also just noticed that the first sentence constrains the time-scale up to 1992, but Patrick Agte's works were published after then. The fundamental point that Munin published works by former Waffen-SS still stands, so I'm not sure that linking listed individuals adds any value that would warrant skirting around the boundaries of WP:OR in an article that aspires to showcase WP's best work. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I removed the list. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #86 (Heberer 2008 p. 235). Whilst the source supports the quote, I can see nothing in it to support the statements that the "...legal rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS was out of HIAG's reach" or that "...attitudes were beginning to change...".
Fixed. My citation was wrong; should have been {{sfn|Werther|Hurd|2014|p=330–331}} for the para. The "out of reach" was in Large. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was the only ref sourced to Heberer, so there's no need now to include that publication in the Bibliography. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #88. Werther & Hurd's work is a 33-page document. Is there a reason why you do not supply a page number for this ref?
Provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've provided a page number for W&H in ref #87, but ref #88, at the end of the second para in the section "Transition into right-wing extremism", is still without a page number. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the missing pages. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #103 (Smelser & Davies pp. 159-161). I'm curious about the page range, given that all of the statement can be cited to p. 159. Also, the source states that Yerger was a prolific writer, which is not the same as popular. This is an issue of precision, and the fundamental point being made is supported by the source.
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #107 (Smelser & Davies p. 187). Where on that page is there support for the statement that "...revisionist-inspired messages and visuals found their way into wargames, Internet chatrooms and forums..."?
I see this in Smelser & Davies, p. 187: "Romancers naturally saw wargames as an opportunity to refight the battles of the Russo-German war with distinctly different outcomes..." and "By 1990, the Internet transformed and enlarged the romancer communities. (...) Web sites, chat rooms, various fora..." So I think it takes care of "revisionist-inspired messages" and "wargames, Internet chatrooms and forums", no? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with this is that romanticising war and romanticising the activities of the Waffen-SS are, I think, not necessarily the same thing, and I can't find anything in my (limited preview access) reading of Smelser & Davies that explicitly states, when they talk of "Romancers", that they are referring specifically to the latter. I can see, in a snippet view, that on p. 201 they state "...veterans eagerly joined romancer chat groups, giving members access to men who served and fought in what romancers perceived as the heroic and courageous Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS". That tends to support the statement more than anything I read on p. 187. Is it possible to define what Smelser & Davies mean by the term "Romancers"? It appears to be their own term and not something I can find repeated more widely, based on my googling for it. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've found a preview of the introduction where Smelser & Davies explain, on p. 5, what they mean by the term "romancers", and explicitly link it to a sub-culture that has "embraced the message of the gurus" (which is the revisionist part of the equation here) and identifies "with the values of courage, honor, and self-sacrifice they see in the German soldier of World War Two". You do explain ..."romancers" — that is those who romanticise the German war effort at the end of the first sentence, but that is cited to p. 187, which does not support that definition. At the minimum, I would suggest adding p. 5 to that ref. Personally, I think you could probably do a better job of explaining what they mean by "romancers" in the article; it needs maybe only a sentence. That's more a content issue than a source issue though. Factotem (talk) 08:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Factotem (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few items remain. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned in the query I posted on the FAC TP, and adding here for the FAC itself:

  • Ref #9: The source for the statement "...HIAG-affiliated books were predominantly published by Plesse Verlag (de) in Göttingen, owned by an extreme right-wing politician and publisher Waldemar Schütz (de)" makes no mention at all of Waldemar Schütz as far as a GBooks preview search goes, and certainly not on the page referenced. Factotem (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmovogel_66[edit]

Comments inline in italics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • the arrival of the Cold War Better, I think, to say "the beginning"
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same year (1951), some former career officers of the Wehrmacht were granted war pensions under the Basic Law. Unlike the Wehrmacht, the SS had been deemed a criminal organisation at the Nuremberg trials and could thus act as an "alibi of a nation" (as Gerald Reitlinger's 1956 book of that title suggested). The SS was the entity onto which all crimes of the Nazi regime were conveniently shifted. Consequently, Waffen-SS career personnel were not covered under the 1951 law. Awkward
This seems fine to me. Is there anything, in particular, that seems awkward to you?. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hard for me to articulate, but I'd probably combine the second and third sentences in some manner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1949, the political climate was changing and the ban on forming veterans' associations had been lifted. Encouraged by the shifting tone of the World War II discourse, and the courting of the Wehrmacht veterans by the West German government and political parties, former Waffen-SS members came forward to campaign for their rights. Should move this to the 2nd paragraph so chronology is preserved and the text flows better.
I change to "Since 1949..." and kept where it was since the former Waffen-SS members came forward in 1951. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading this makes me want to consolidate this whole para and move it into the preceding para. Perhaps something along the lines of: "After the ban on forming veterans' associations had been lifted in 1949, and encouraged by the the courting of the Wehrmacht veterans by the West German government and political parties, former Waffen-SS members came forward to campaign for their rights." Or a variant thereof.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • local so-called support groups commas surrounding "so-called support"
Took out "so-called support", as this did not appear to be necessary and reads better without. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • were officers, most often of junior grades awkward
Seems fine. They were officers of junior grades, so that's what this is trying to convey. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that particular phrasing is almost never seen. It's always "junior-grade officers"--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 1977, Wilhelm Bittrich served as the chairman;[16] as of 1976 Hubert Meyer acted as the federal spokesperson. Awkward. Just say that they held those positions in those years.
I don't know the exact timeframes; sources are sporadic. This is true to sources, so I prefer to keep it this way. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only timeframe mentioned is a single year, so exact tenures are not important. "as of" is very clunky.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the publication of its first periodical in late 1951 Provide title
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waffen-SS membership, surviving and fallen Awkward. Perhaps "living and dead"?
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organisation also asserted that the Waffen-SS was merely "the fourth arm of the Wehrmacht"; these claims were even "more dubious", explains Large. Awkward
What seems awkward about it?. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Explains" is the problem here. It sounds as if Large is lecturing. Try concluded, believed, said or some other synonym that's not present tense.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kameraden-Suchdienst wouldn't a better translation be "lost comrade/soldier search" to be pretty literal or "tracing service"?
I standardised on "Tracing service meetings" as this is what Large was using. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the historian Jonathan Petropoulos comma at the end
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • alone during the Pripyat swamps punitive operation better retitled "anti-partisan operation", IMO. Punitive reads oddly in this context
They were mostly murdering defenceless civilians (Jewish men, women and children), so calling it an "anti-partisan operation" would be inaccurate. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Murderous rampage would probably be the most accurate characterization, but that might be viewed as a trifle pointy. Punitive implies punishment, or at least retaliation, which isn't what they were doing, either. On the Eastern Front, the Germans called just about anybody that they took a dislike to a "partisan", whether or not they were armed or not, etc., so I'm perfectly comfortable calling it an anti-partisan operation provided that their exceedingly liberal definition of partisan is explained.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is what the underlying article is called; so I would prefer to stick to that for consistency. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy with this term in this article and in the underlying article, but that's something we can work on later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • that could "honour traitors" but would vilify its soldiers missing comma
Comma not needed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is; you're contrasting the "but" clause against the preceding one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I implemented various suggestions, as noted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • with works published in the 1960s. Published in "Published" too close conjunction. Try: "with subsequent works".
  • Prior to the establishment of HIAG's own publishing house Munin Verlag (below), HIAG-affiliated books were predominantly published by Plesse Verlag (de) in Göttingen, owned by an extreme right-wing politician and publisher Waldemar Schütz (de) Avoid single-sentence paragraphs. This should be folded into the next para.
  • Until HIAG's dissolution in 1992, Munin-Verlag published 57 titles. Reverse the order of these clauses.
  • Clarify that Weidinger was a former regimental commander in Das Reich rather than just some junior officer.
  • Expand the abbreviation VdH--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and combine the two entries for Tauber since they share the same OCLC #.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments[edit]

I've also rephrased a few things in the article.

  • The two links to Munin Verlag don't make any sense to me. That is just a redirect to a section in this aricle.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The organisation drifted into right-wing extremism in its later history" drift doesn't quite seem like right word to me, when, as the article explains, HIAG had always engaged in glorification of Nazism.
The point that the sources were making that, in its early history, HIAG was less overtly open about its Nazi roots. Once their aims of rehabilitation have largely failed, they became more open about it. How about "The organisation drifted into open right-wing extremism..."? --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added "open" to qualify the statement. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Potsdam Conference held by the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States from 17 July to 2 August 1945 determined the occupation policies that Allied-occupied Germany was to face" "Allied-occupied" seems superfluous, since only an occupied country can face occupation policies. Besides, all of Germany was occupied (well, except for the parts that were annexed, but those parts weren't then part of Germany any more).
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong, but I thought all WWII veterans in the Wehrmacht, including conscripts, received pensions and not just career soldiers?
Conscripts are not entitled to pensions. Once they are demobilised, they just go back to their civilian careers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In response, Hausser wrote an open letter to the Bundestag" maybe mention that the Bundestag is West Germany's parliament?
Added. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph starting with "The historian David C. Lange wrote that..." seems a little strange to me. It feel like it's quite common for an organization to claim to represent a group of people, not all of whom are members of that organization, like the AARP claim to act in the interest of all elderly people in the US, even though not all are members. I also don't quite understand how this indicates a contradiction between HIAG's bylaws and what it actually did.
  • Reading "The organisation also asserted that the Waffen-SS was merely "the fourth arm of the Wehrmacht"" I was curious what the first three arms were.
Large did make a point that HIAG inflated its membership rosters to make itself appear more important in the context of the West German rearmament. The three branches were the Navy, the Army, and the Airforce. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as described in a 1951 issue of Wiking-Ruf ("Viking Call"), HIAG's first publication" I don't think that you need to mention that this is HIAG's first publication, since this is already mentioned in the previous section.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading "Along with other veterans' organisations...", I was a little curious how the West German government depended on veterans' organizations' cooperation in rearmament.
The German society was in general not very inclined to support a new military; they were war-weary. So the W. German policians felt it was important to get an endorsement from the veteran's orgs. Also, many sr officers were recruited from the former personnel of the Wehrmacht. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having "Fritz Erler (politician)" in the text seems a little awkward. Maybe the template being used doesn't support piped links, but then I'd do away with the template.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally on Wikipedia song titles aren't translated, or their translation is only given in parentheses. The article only uses the English title of This Is the Guard that Adolf Hitler Loves. This is a little complicated, since this is what the Spiegel article used as a source does. I researched this a little and I believe the German title of the song is "Wir sind die schwarze Garde, die Adolf Hitler liebt", which is actually "We are the Black Guard that Adolf Hitler Loves".
I think I prefer to keep it in English for the benefit of the reader, and since that's what the source had. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Large, who studied HIAG extensively, stated in 1987 that HIAG's anti-democratic and anti-Semitic public statements were..." You don't actually give any examples of HIAG's anti-democratic and anti-Semitic public statements.
I think I may have made a mistake; I believe he was using their internal memoranda, rather than "public" statements. I took it out. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You call the Spiegel article an "investigative article", but the way I understand it, it is only reporting on the study by Wilke.
Removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the [Allied] battle was directed not only the authoritarian regime of the Third Reich" Is there an "against" missing after "directed" or after "only"?
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that the one beaten" Shouldn't that be "ones"? I'm hesitant to change it since it's a quote.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Munin Verlag titles did not go through the rigorous fact-checking processes common in traditional historical literature" There is a lot of historical literature that is barely fact-checked.
Changed to "peer-reviewed". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HIAG worked with historian Ernst Klink of the Military History Research Office (MGFA) in Freiburg to screen materials donated to the German Federal Military Archive (de) for any information that may have implicated units and personnel in questionable activity" Does that mean that they were working to keep those materials out of the archive? Or why were they looking for it?
My understanding is that before the materials were donated, Klink would help review them to remove anything that would be potentially incriminating. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He argues that the unit histories, like other HIAG publications, focused on the positive, "heroic" side of National Socialism" What positive side of Nationalism Socialism?
Good one :-). Changed to "positive". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perceived by the West German government to be a Nazi organisation, HIAG was disbanded at the federal level in 1992" By whom? Were they banned by the government?
Yes, they were banned. I've changed to say that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might run into objections concerning the reliability of Antifa-Infoblatt, since it produced by antifa activists, not by experts, although I don't really doubt that it's well-researched. Just two little issues with how the source is used: "Der Freiwillige was still being published in the 2000s" is rather vague and suggests more than a source published in 2001 can back up. "At some point, Der Freiwillige and the Munin Verlag publishing business had been taken over by Patrick Agte, a right-wing author and publisher." The source is much more precise than "at some point". Agte took over Der Freiwillige in 2000 and Munir Verlag on January 1, 2001.
I expect that Antifa-Infoblatt would be considered RS in this context, similar to Southern Poverty Law Center for U.S. based far-right and extremist group. I provided the dates to be more specific. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dividing the sources into journals and periodicals doesn't make sense to me, since journals are periodicals. Maybe "academic journals"?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I addressed all the points in this section. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've also checked the Large paper and compared it to the claims backed up by that source up to footnote 44. I've found a few discrepancies. I concur with Ealdgyth's comment below that it would be good to recheck all sources.

  • According to Large, the Allies agreed to demilitarize, denazify, decartelize, and democratize Germany. There's no mention of decentralization. He also doesn't really claim that these policies "met with limited success".
  • Hausser being HIAG's spokesman is mentioned on pg. 82, not 83 in Large's paper. It does not, however, say that he rose to that position in December 1951, but merely that he wrote a letter in that capacity at that time. He may have already had that role before.
  • "It allowed the Waffen-SS proponents to advance the idea of Waffen-SS men being "soldiers like all other"—the phrase first put forth in HIAG's materials, and later publicly used by Chancellor Adenauer" That is not on pg. 86 of the Large article.
  • "Internal disagreements began to emerge in the mid-1950s as to the stance of the organisation: Steiner, Gille and Meyer favoured a more political, outspoken orientation. The rest of the leadership favored a moderate approach in order not to jeopardise HIAG's goals of legal and economic rehabilitation, which, in their opinion, could only come from the establishment: the government and the Bundestag." I also wasn't able to find that on pp. 86-87
  • The information in the paragraph "Along with other veterans' organisations..." isn't on pg. 88.
  • "as evidenced by internal party correspondence" according to Large it was a letter to a "Jewish Federation functionary and fellow socialist", there's nothing claiming that the recipient was an SPD member
  • There is no mention of the FDP on pg. 97-101
  • According to pg. 89 (not 90), Adenauer's "irresponsible and unhistorical" 1953 speech was actually a declaration to the Bundestag.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment[edit]

Couple of points, mostly very nitpicky:
  • My mistake, but the SPD Anfrage source is actually Chapter III, Section 4 (Roman numerals for the chapter). Also, I would have expected that information to appear in the inline citation rather than the bibliography.
  • You've not addressed my last point about Romancers.
  • I'm not sure about how fastidious we need to be on sourcing at FAC. Whilst I haven't found any fundamental problems, there are discrepancies (one of which is new, not listed above) at a very detailed level. It's entirely possible that I've not fully understood policy and am being excessively critical. I've asked for advice on the FAC TP. Factotem (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Factotem: I believe I addressed both points with this edits. Please let me know if that's satisfactory. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I expanded the FURs for both images. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Better, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • I was asked to give a second opinion on sourcing.
Condensed & changed cite to Werther & Hurd, p. 331. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick but in the full bibliographical details - spell out JTA, don't leave it as an abbreviation. This isn't as widely known as say the BBC.
Changed to Jewish Telegraphic Agency. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, checking against Smelser & Davies:
    • Current citation 3 is to Smelser & Davies pp. 73-74. There's a few small concerns here. One - at times the prose in the article skates close to being a bit too close to the wording in the source. The article text is "In 1950, after the outbreak of the Korean War, it became clear to the Western Allies that a German army would have to be revived to help face off against the Soviet Union. Many former German officers were convinced, however, that no future German army would be possible without the moral rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht. To this end, in October 1950, a group of former senior officers produced a document, which became known as the Himmerod memorandum, for West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer. It included these key demands: that all German soldiers convicted as war criminals be released; that the "defamation" of the German soldier, including those of the Waffen-SS, cease; and that measures to ensure welfare of former soldiers and their survivors be taken." The source text is "Five years earlier, after the outbreak of the Korean War, it became clear to the Americans that a German fighting force of some kind would have to be revived, for the eventuality that a hot war spread from Asia to Europe. U.S. military thinkers had been contemplating this eventuality since 1947, but now it took on real urgency. Among large numbers of former German officers, however, there was the conviction that no future German fighting force would be possible without the rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht." (paragraph break) "It was to this end on October 9, 1950, that a number of former senior German officers, including..." (list of names omitted along with some details on their pasts as well as the exact location of Himmerod) "The group advised West German chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Out of this meeting came a memorandum, known as the Himmerod Memorandum," which would be the "Magna Carta" of the future West German army. The authors made ic clear that they would only be involved with the founding of a West German military under certain conditions. All German soldiers convicted as "war criminals" would have to be released. The defamation of German soldiers, including Waffen-SS, would have to cease. Measures to change the public attitude toward military service would have to be implemented. The German federal government would have to issue a declaration to the effect that the German soldier had fought honorably. Suitable social measures would have to be taken to assure the material welfare of the former soldiers and their widows and orphans." There are phrases in the article that are almost exact word for word from the source... and while it's not really a complete copyvio - it's close enough that it should be tweaked a bit more to avoid the worst bits. But, there is also the issue that S&D are being reworded a bit off their meaning. Article: "clear to the Western Allies" - but S&D only say that the Americans thought that Germany needed rearming. "help face off against the Soviet Union" in the article - but S&D say nothing about the SU, and instead say the reason for rearming is the threat of the spread of a hot war from Asia to Europe. S&D list FIVE things that the officers demanded - we only list three. The phrases that need tweaking for close paraphrasing are at the least "after the outbreak of the Korean War", "future German army would be possible without the moral rehabilitation of the Wehrmacht", "that all German soldiers convicted as war criminals be released", "that the "defamation" of the German soldier, including those of the Waffen-SS, cease". And I do think that the two other demands need to be in the article.
"...against the Soviet Union..." is a bit of explanation of what the Korean War was, which was essentially a proxy war between China / Soviet Union & the US; from the linked article: "...was a war between North Korea (with the support of China and the Soviet Union) and South Korea (with the principal support of the United States)...". See also: The Korean War, by Steven Hugh Lee. I added the explanation, for the benefit of the readers who may say "huh, what did the Korean War had to do with German rearmament?" I can add a cite for the "proxy war", although I don't think it's needed since the linked article explains it. I also reworded to avoid close paraphrase & condensed, as I don't think we need to list out all five demands. People can learn about the details in the linked article about the Memorandum, which was mostly about the Wehrmacht, not the Waffen-SS. Even the Germans did not want to reconstitute the Waffen-SS. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we're obviously talking past each other. You cannot include information that says it's sourced to Smelser & Davies pp. 73-74... that is not in Smelser & Davies pp. 73-74. Right now, the "a proxy war between China and the Soviet Union on one side and the United States on the other," phrase is not supported by Smelser & Davies. Yes, it's very picky, but this is a picky process. Every bit of information (that is not of the obvious "the sky is blue" variety) needs to have a souce. It sounds like Lee would support this ... but it cannot support it if it is not in the article as a citation. Putting it here on the talk page of the FAC is not good enough. It being in a linked article is not good enough. It needs to be on the information in this article that it is sourcing. I realize this is your first FAC... but this is just plain sloppy citation practices. (Which, I might add, you're upset about enough in other places to take folks to ArbCom for ... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 5 - also to Smelser & Davies - pp. 72-76. Again, we have a phrase that's pretty much verbatim from S&D - article: "Adenauer accepted these propositions and in turn advised the representatives of the three Western powers that German armed forces would not be possible as long as German soldiers remained in custody." S&D: "Adenauer accepted these propositions and told the representatives of the three Western occupying powers that there could not be any West German contingent in the then-planned-for European Defense Community force as long as German soldiers remained in custody or were brought before courts."
Rephrased & narrowed down the cites. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick, but the quote from Eisenhower starting "I have come to know..." needs a citation directly on it. And it needs to note that the quotation is coming through S&D ... something like "as quoted in <blah>" is good.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 96: Smelser & Davies p. 136. This is used to source in the article: "HIAG achieved remarkable success in its rewriting of history. The results are felt to this day in the public's perceptions and popular culture, with many works translated into English. The historians Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davies write: "Unfortunately, the scholarly writings remained confined to a small audience, whereas the readership of the German authors (and their English-language spin-offs) was considerably larger." The authors note that "with a forty-year head start," the predominance of the German view, and the related fascination by Waffen-SS admirers, "hardly remains a mystery". While the second bit of this is supported by S&D (the parts after "the historians...") the first sentence is not supported on page 136. There is no mention of HIAG there or any remarkable success. S&D are talking in general about the overall German effort to rewrite history - but never specifically mention HIAG. For that matter - HIAG is not listed in the index to my (softcover) copy of S&D.
Added Large p. 81, and commented out S&D for now to see if I can similar content in another source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you find something else? Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 99 - S&D pp. 173-178 - is used to source "Smelser and Davies contend that some of the better known or prolific authors in the Waffen-SS revisionist tradition include Agte, who wrote hagiographic accounts on Jochen Peiper, Michael Wittmann and other Waffen-SS men, and Franz Kurowski, who provided numerous non-peer reviewed wartime chronicles of Waffen-SS units and highly decorated men." Pp. 173-178 discuss exclusively Kurowski. Nor could I find the part in there where it is pointed out that Kurowski's works are not peer-reviewed. Unfortunately, Agte doesn't even appear in S&D's index.
Added Danny S. Parker, p. 276, to support "hagiography" [3] & revised. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have Parker ordered through ILL... eventually it'll get here. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 101 - S&D p. 251 - is used to source "Critics have been dismissive of his works, describing them as Landser-pulp ("soldier-pulp") literature and "laudatory texts," that focus on hero-making at the expense of the historical truth." But ... nothing in S&D says anything about this on page 251.
"Laudatory texts" is top of page 251 that starts with "Gurus such as Richard Landwehr and Franz Kurowski..." The rest comes from other sources (see below). --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Critics have been dismissive of his works, describing them as Landser-pulp ("soldier-pulp") literature and "laudatory texts," that focus on hero-making at the expense of the historical truth.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Wilking 2004, p. 79.
  2. ^ Smelser & Davies 2008, p. 251.
  3. ^ Hadley 1995, pp. 137, 170.
  • Current ref 107 S&D pp. 5, 187 is dealt with by an earlier source review.
I assume no action is needed here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it was fixed to the others satisfaction, yeah. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 108 - S&D pp. 187, 201, 206 - used to source "The two historians contend that the Achtung Panzer and Feldgrau websites are especially attractive to this group." The only quibble with this I have is that really, the pages should be pp. 187, 201-218, as those pages are what back up the information - you really have to read the whole section for the import of the author's point to come through.
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 109 - S&D p. 226 - used to source "The romancers' popular culture also includes Waffen-SS reenactment. Although banned in Germany and Austria, SS reenactment groups thrive elsewhere, including in Europe and North America. In the United States alone, by the end of the 1990s, there were 20 Waffen-SS reenactment groups, out of approximately 40 groups dedicated to German World War II units. In contrast, during that time there were 21 groups dedicated to American units of the same era." The second part is well supported and paraphrased but the first two phrases of the second sentence are not (the "Although banned in Germany and Austria, SS reenactment groups thrive elsewhere" part.
Rephrased. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing on page 226 that supports "which is legal in North America and Europe (outside of Germany and Austria)." Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a further problem with these last citations (and the whole sections "Popular history" and "Websites, wargames and reenactment") - none of this is tied to HIAG specifically. As I mentioned, S&D don't mention HIAG in their index once. While the information in the article is generally supported by the citations given - there is nothing to tie this to HIAG, which makes these two sections quite possibly WP:SYNTH. There may well be sources that tie these sorts of books/sites/etc to HIAG, but it's not S&D. Luckily, this isn't a core part of the article - so if sources can't be found to tie these phenomenon to HIAG directly, it's not going to gut the article.
I think that MacKenzie makes a strong connection between the contemporary revisionist tradition and HIAG. Perhaps I could condense this area. I feel like this is a useful "footnote" for the readers. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the Websites section is cited to MacKenzie though... just Smelser and Davies. I've requested MacKenzie through ILL, it will probably eventually arrive... someday. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the websites & reenactment on second thoughts, as S&D do not connetct this to HIAG (as you note), just general Waffen-SS revisionism. MacKenzie does connect present-day popular/militaria literature as continuing HIAG's revisionist tradition. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking against Wette:
  • Current ref 4 - Wette pp. 236-238 - which sources "Adenauer accepted these propositions and in turn advised the representatives of the three Western powers that German armed forces would not be possible as long as German soldiers remained in custody. To accommodate the West German government, the Allies commuted a number of war crimes sentences. Public declaration from Supreme Allied Commander Dwight D. Eisenhower followed in January 1951, which read in part". This duplicates/buttresses a citation above from S&D. I note that Wette is a bit more nuanced on the first demand of the officers... he says that it was "that the men who had been convicted as war criminals be released" and then quotes the memorandum with further qualifiers "if they had acted only on orders and were not guilty of any offense under the old German laws". But it does support most of the information given.
I assume no action is needed here. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the rearrangements earlier dealt with this. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking Petropoulos
    • Current ref 54 - no page number given. This is a rather hefty book - we need a page number. It's supporting "Erich Kern, a far-right Austrian journalist and a former Nazi war correspondent, became the organisation's key employee responsible for its publishing arm. He first became active within HIAG in 1955, and then joined as a full-time employee in 1959. According to the historian Jonathan Petropoulos," ... is it meant to also support the uncited rest of the sentence "Kern remained an "unrepentant and unreconstructed Nazi" up to his death in 1991."? Because if it is, it needs to go on the whole sentence, not just the previous sentence and opening phrase. This is doubly so since the last bit is a quotation and would need a citation on it specifically. The only listing for Kern in the index is for page 151 - where it does support the full text in the article - Petropoulos says Kern was an employee of HIAG, but does not support the dates given nor that he was the key employee. Petroupolus info is "Erich Kern, whose full name was Kernmayr. Kern, who died in 1991, had been an SS-lieutenant and later a key employee of the SS veterans' organization (Hilfsgemeinschaft auf Gegenseitigkeit [HIAG], Auxiliary Fellowship for Reciprocity), as well as a prominent member of both the right-wing Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands and the Deutsche Volksunion. This unrepentant and unreconstructed Nazi, born like Scholz in Austria, worked to maintain the personal bonds left over from the Third Reich."
Yes, this is covered by the same page (151) here: [4]. I added page number and moved citation.K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpicks: The Ottawa Citizen article is authored by the Associated Press - this should be given in the bibliographical details
Added. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the Frankfurther Allgemeine article is bylined by Christopher Dowe? If so - it needs to be put in the bibliographical details.
Added. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick - you give some states for publication locations but not others - be consistent. Also with regard to this - either abbreviate New York "NY" or "N. Y." but not both
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed most of this (as they were still not all with states, and were using different abbreviation systems), but there is no location for Fatal Crossroads - and I don't own that book so I can't check it. Please fix. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick - you give publisher for some academic journals but not others - be consistent.
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
I strongly suggest that the authors go through and double check all the citations. I don't think the problems above are deliberate but just simply sloppy citing practices but they need to have the entirety of the article double checked. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the rest of the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further nitpick:
    • Carrard does not appear to be used in the citations - so should not be in the bibliography
Moved to further reading. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've abused my poor local librarian and have requests in on further sources so hopefully will be able to check a few more sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • checking Sydnor 1990:
    • The ref for the sentence "Steiner's, Meyer's and Hausser's books have been characterised by historian Charles Sydnor as the "most important works of [Waffen-SS] apologist literature" (current ref 64a) is actually p. 319 footnote 14.
Not sure I understand this comment. This was already cited to page 319. Or should I be citing "p. 319, footnote 14? --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if the information is solely in a footnote, it's helpful to cite it that way "p. 319 footnote 14" Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this sentence "They demanded rehabilitation of the military branch of the Nazi Party, and presented Waffen-SS members as both victims and misunderstood heroes. Nothing was said about the Nazi indoctrination of the troops or the atrocities committed by them." (current ref 64b) ... I see on p. 319 and footnote 14 that the first phrase is supported, but I'm not quite seeing that this supports the rest of the sentence. Sydnor doesn't really develop any discussion about the apologists claiming that the Waffen-SS were victims nor is heroism mentioned. And there is nothing about Nazi indoctrination on this page either.
Revised & removed 2nd sentence. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • For this sentence "To legitimise its image, HIAG underwrote the publication of works by right-wing academics sympathetic to the Waffen-SS." the source is again Sydnor p. 319 (current ref 64c). Here, the last part of the sentence is supported, but the "To legitimise its image" phrase does not seem to be supported by Sydnor's text. Sydnor says "For twenty years HIAG has lobbied vigorously with the Bonn government for a full rehabilitation fo the Waffen SS, and has underwritten the publication of a stream of tendentious memoirs an books by former SS generals and right-wing academics sympathetic to the Waffen SS." The rest of the page discusses the apologists in general and specific, but nothing about HIAG as an organization.
Revised to "To rehabilitate the image of the force...". I can see that it's confusing since "its image" can be interpreted as "HIAG's image", which is not what I was trying to convey. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 68a (Sydnor 1973) doesn't have a page number but it's actually to page 319 footnote 14 again of Sydnor 1990. This needs fixed.
"Sydnor 1973" is a journal article Sydnor, Charles W. (1973). "The History of the SS Totenkopfdivision and the Postwar Mythology of the Waffen SS". Central European History. 6 (4). Cambridge University Press: 339–362. doi:10.1017/S0008938900000960. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) (as opposed to Sydnor 1990, which was a book). I will look for the page numbers or will switch to the book cites. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when you've got this dealt with. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 68b again lacks a page number - is this also supposed to be page 319 footnote 14 of Sydnor 1990, where Steiner is discussed? In this bit, the other ref is current footnote 9 - is the Sydnor supposed to only be supporting the quote from himself, because the quote is on page 319 footnote 14, but this doesn't support most of the sentences it's attached to...
Same as above - journal article; my mistake of not having include the page numbers. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Current ref 69 supports "Felix Steiner published The Volunteers of Waffen-SS: Idea and sacrifice (German: Die Freiwilligen der Waffen-SS: Idee und Opfergang) in 1958. It presented the sacrifice messages echoing those of Der Freiwillige and stressed the theme of the purely military Waffen-SS." The only bit on page 145 is footnote 45 which reads in its entirety "This is a chief theme of much tendentious memoir literature ground out by former Waffen SS generals. See especially Paul Hausser, Waffen SS im Einsatz (gottingen, 1953); Kurt Meyer, Grenadiere (muich, 1957); and two books by Felix Steiner, Die Freiwilligen; Idee and Opfergang (Gottingen, 1958) and Die Armee der Geichteten (Gottingen, 1963)." I'm not seeing how this supports the article text completely. The rest of that page is a discussion of a two volume work by Fuhrlander titled "Schwert und Pflug" and then discusses the political indoctrination of the Totenkopfdivision. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revised & changed the cite to page 319; see [5]. I also added Tauber, p. 549 [6]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checking Orchard (1997):

  • I got in the paperback printing of the 1997 edition, so the pagination is a bit off, but the entry for Munin is on pages 257-258 of the 2002 printing of the 1998 paperback version of the 1997 hardcover. (ISBN 0-304-36385-5). The only citation to this work is current ref 72: "Muninn is one of the two ravens that are the companions of the war god Odin on the battlefield; muninn is Old Norse for "memory"." Orchard sorta supports this. Orchard does not call Odin the war god. He doesn't say that Muninn goes with Odin to battlefields. The entire entry is "Munin ('memory') (1) One of the two ravens of the god Odin, the other being Hugin, who sit at his shoulder and keep him supplied with information. Munin is less well-attested in the sources than Hugin; the eddic poem "Grimmismal" has Odin say of the two birds: "Every day Hugin and Munin fly over the wide earth. I worry that Hugin may not return, but I am never worried about Munin." The notion that thought and memory can be expresed as birds, visiting distant places and returning, is a commonplace of early Germanic and Celtic verse. In skaldic sources Munin appears simply as a poetic term of Heiti for 'raven', as in a verse by the twelfth-century poet Einar skulason which describes how: 'blue-black Munin sips blood from wounds'". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Revised to match text. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are starting to get to the point where there are a lot of problems, but it’s been almost a week and there has been no reply or acknowledgement by the nominator of the issues. @K.e.coffman:. I would rather not oppose this nom on sourcing issues, but continued checks keep turning up more issues. But it is concerning that the nominator doesn’t appear to consider these issues important enough to address. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately - I'm of the opinion that everything needs to be checked against the sources as there is a lot of sloppy citation practices - it's not that I don't think the stuff has sources, it's just that it feels like not much effort went into making sure that the citations went with the information they sourced. This isn't reflective of our best work as wikipedians, and it needs fixing. But it doesn't appear that the editors of the article will do that checking without someone going through and doing all the checking for them. The next two days are my husband's days off so I'm going to be scarce, but will try to reply to the above replies after that. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions from AustralianRupert[edit]

Comments/suggestions: G'day, I'm afraid I can't comment on content, so I just focused on minor aspects. Just a few nitpicks from me: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • slightly inconsistent: "Pontolillo 2010" in the citations, but 2009 in the Bibliography
  • Note 2, "Large: They "never..."", probably needs a full stop at the end of the note AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for Note 4
  • Citation # 6 seems a little inconsistent with the other refs, suggest making it the same style
  • "reassigned to "pacification actions" — the Nazi term for punitive operations — in the rear": the emdashes should be unspaced here per WP:DASH
  • same as above for: "Waffen-SS "romancers" — that is..."
  • same as above for: "...to "pacification actions" — the Nazi term for punitive operations — in the rear."
  • "p. see url." is there a page number that could be provided here? If not, I think it might be best to use the {{cite web}} template here instead. AustralianRupert (talk)
  • "p. 86–87" --> "pp. 86–87"
  • "pp. 257-281": should have an endash
  • "According to the historian Jonathan Petropoulos,[54] Kern remained an "unrepentant and unreconstructed Nazi" up to his death in 1991.": suggest moving citation to the end of the paragraph here, and adding a page number
  • "Titles published by Munin-Verlag, 1951 through 2000": not sure if this is specifically cited or not. If not, it probably shouldn't appear in the Bibliography
  • "One of the cavalry units in question, SS Cavalry Brigade, was...": missing definite article before "SS Cavalry Brigade" AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a mixture of English language variation in the article, e.g "organisation" and "defence" (British) but also "honor" (US). Either variation is acceptable, IMO, but it should be consistent for a featured article
  • "virulently anti-semitic" --> "virulently anti-Semitic"?
  • in the Bibliography, the "Thanks of the Fatherland" link appears to be dead: [7]. You might be able to link to an archived version through the Wayback Machine
    • Scratch this one, sorry. The link checker tool says the link is 404, but it actually appears to be working now when I click on it. Apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment[edit]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ealdgyth: sorry about the delay in responding. I'm procuring / reviewing sources and should be able to start addressing the concerns raised in the next few days. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Peacemaker67[edit]

Firstly, a point that jumped out to me on the first read through. Early on we are told what the HIAG bylaws stated the purposes of the organisation were, but then nearly all of the article is about its whitewashing activities and advocacy for Waffen-SS rehabilitation, which weren't even in its stated purposes. If Large investigated how these statutes were applied in practice, why aren't the results of his investigation covered in the article? Where is the information on its supposed activities; "comradeship, legal assistance, support for those in Allied captivity, help for families and aid in searches for those still missing"? Did it just not do the things it was established to do (other than the early tracing services and the rallies)? To be a comprehensive article on HIAG, surely this article must cover what it did in the areas it was established to pursue, as well as its role in trying to whitewash the Waffen-SS and rehabilitate its image? Also, how many chapters did it have, and what was its federal structure? Did it have federal or state presidents etc, if so, a list of at least the federal presidents would be appropriate. I'll have more comments once this has been addressed. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • there is a problem with the statement "and judged the entire SS to be a criminal organisation" currently cited to Stein pp. 250–251. Stein does not state that, he states that "the SS was utilised for purposes that were criminal". The cited statement may be true, but those pages of Stein don't support it in its current form. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • another instance of Stein not supporting the material cited, in the sentence beginning "In the first instance, Meyer was most likely referring to..." None of the information there appears on pp. 255–256 of Stein. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • a further issue is insufficient specificity. On p. 256 of Stein, Meyer is referring to soldiers of the "divisions of the Waffen-SS", not to the Waffen-SS as a whole, Stein then goes on to examine how Waffen-SS is defined, explaining that there are different positions taken by both accusers of and apologists for the Waffen-SS. This nuance is not currently reflected in the article. At the very least, Meyer's statement should be modified to incorporate the fact he specified the "divisions of the Waffen-SS". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are two citations to Stein with an over twenty page range for a single sentence. These need to be narrowed down so it can be better understood what material is being relied upon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding, "the SS is a criminal organization" comes from the Nuremberg trials. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not from those pages of Stein though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment: This has been open for several weeks without any consensus for promotion forming, and issues continue to be found. Therefore, it will be archived shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/HIAG/archive1&oldid=845466176"