This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Waffen-SS in popular culture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Waffen-SS in popular culture was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 16, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are a bunch of uncited sources in the Bibliography, including Bartrop et al, Caddick-Adams, Chairoff, Cuppers (excuse the umlaut), Heberer, Janson, Levenda, Orchard, Petropoulos, Tauber, Ward, Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine, JTA, and Wette. As I've noted elsewhere, on first glance a critical reader might think there was a bit of bibliography padding going on, but I'm sure that's not the case. If they aren't being used, I suggest putting them in a Further reading section if they are actually relevant to this subject, or delete them if not. I am a bit puzzled by this, as you have shown in your editing of other articles that it is your view that if sources aren't being used, they should be deleted. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The Waffen-SS is described in the lead as paramilitary. This is a misnomer. I can understand an attempt to differentiate the Waffen-SS from the Wehrmacht, and to reinforce the close relationship between the Allgemeine-SS and the Waffen-SS, but this is just counter-factual. The SS-VT and then Waffen-SS were decidedly military organisations, the umbrella SS and SS-TV were paramilitary. The latter did not form fighting divisions or even brigades, and were not equipped to wage war. It is very hard to argue that well-equipped panzer or panzergrenadier divisions (and other types of divisions that included tanks, artillery etc) that were closely engaged in conventional high-intensity warfare, or even anti-partisan warfare, were in any way paramilitary. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: Original heading was "Over reliance on Smelser & Davies and limited use of other sources". K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I note this article has been at GAN for quite a long time. I am only guessing, but I expect that the lack of interest in reviewing this article is, in part at least, a function of the over reliance of this article on one source which has had mixed reviews. Stein, for example, is barely used, despite dedicating a whole chapter to Waffen-SS criminality, including the role of the HIAG in revisionism and discussing the relationship between the Allgemeine SS and Waffen SS in some detail, including sections on the Einsatzgruppen, the Totenkopfverbanden, the Kaminski and Dirlewanger brigades and Waffen-SS atrocities in general. This is a serious shortcoming in the article. I would not expect this article to meet the GA criteria until other critical sources regarding the Waffen-SS have been incorporated into it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Sooner or later, someone is going to look at this campaign in detail and report it at ANI. Please, by all means. :-). K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
"especially...for the war-time history", Stein is a suitable source. But this article is not about the war-time history of the Waffen-SS, but about its perceptions in popular culture, including at present time. Given that, a 1967 book would not be the "go-to" source, as 50 years worth of popular culture developments have transpired since its publication.
I have added an additional tag for the article functioning as a coat rack. In addition to the above concerns, the article has become a treatment of revisionism instead of an article of the topic at hand. Please add sourced information about the actual topic to help bring it in compliance with WP:NPOV. LargelyRecyclable ( talk) 18:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Seraphim System ( talk · contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
My impression after the intial read through is that this is a very intelligent, well put together WP:OR essay. The few sources I was able to access do not discuss "popular culture" at all. I've asked if the Resource Exchange can help provide me with access to some of the sources. Just by looking at how the article is put together, it looks like Smelser & Davies is being used to support original conclusions drawn from a synthesis of sources. Seraphim System ( talk) 23:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there are some OR concerns with this article. I've placed a tag on it so that this issue can be brought to the attention of readers and editors until it is addressed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Can we remove this WP:OR lede photo? Seraphim System ( talk) 23:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the tags: some of them have been added by a contributor who was later warned in re: such activity. I also removed mentions of Richard Landwehr since he's certifiably fringe, rather than part of the popular culture: diff. The rest fit the definition: Kurowski, Agte, Williamson, Quarrie, etc are all widely available. Please let me know if there are any concerns. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
What exactly are Smelser and Davies trying to get at in the wargaming section? Is it relevant? The section seems to pull a few fast ones rhetorically - it starts off with a useful statement, that S&D think the revisionists affected wargames and the Internet, but then it switches over to "factual" comments about Avalon Hill & Simulations Publications without actually connecting it. Was S&D directly criticizing Avalon Hill, or is that the Wikipedia editor doing so? Not clear at the moment. In the same way, having read Wildermuth's review of S & D, it's a pretty loose connection to take his "non-political" out of context and connect it to this.
This section comes across as alarmist moralism from the types who complained that players can play as the Taliban in modern military shooter video games because they'll get "influenced" by it. There may yet be a notable criticism here, but I'd rather it have more than 1 effective source (Wildermuth is just reviewing S & D), and it spell out more exactly what S & D's contention is. SnowFire ( talk) 02:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
This article only covers the small number of postwar media that portray Waffen SS positively, so it should maybe be called "Waffen-SS revisionism in popular culture"? There are dozens of films etc. about ww2, like, how do you make this page and not mention, say Schindler's List? Not to mention that plenty of Nazi-era pop culture depicted the Waffen-SS too but that gets no mention. Sheila1988 ( talk) 10:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Waffen-SS in popular culture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Waffen-SS in popular culture was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 16, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are a bunch of uncited sources in the Bibliography, including Bartrop et al, Caddick-Adams, Chairoff, Cuppers (excuse the umlaut), Heberer, Janson, Levenda, Orchard, Petropoulos, Tauber, Ward, Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine, JTA, and Wette. As I've noted elsewhere, on first glance a critical reader might think there was a bit of bibliography padding going on, but I'm sure that's not the case. If they aren't being used, I suggest putting them in a Further reading section if they are actually relevant to this subject, or delete them if not. I am a bit puzzled by this, as you have shown in your editing of other articles that it is your view that if sources aren't being used, they should be deleted. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The Waffen-SS is described in the lead as paramilitary. This is a misnomer. I can understand an attempt to differentiate the Waffen-SS from the Wehrmacht, and to reinforce the close relationship between the Allgemeine-SS and the Waffen-SS, but this is just counter-factual. The SS-VT and then Waffen-SS were decidedly military organisations, the umbrella SS and SS-TV were paramilitary. The latter did not form fighting divisions or even brigades, and were not equipped to wage war. It is very hard to argue that well-equipped panzer or panzergrenadier divisions (and other types of divisions that included tanks, artillery etc) that were closely engaged in conventional high-intensity warfare, or even anti-partisan warfare, were in any way paramilitary. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: Original heading was "Over reliance on Smelser & Davies and limited use of other sources". K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I note this article has been at GAN for quite a long time. I am only guessing, but I expect that the lack of interest in reviewing this article is, in part at least, a function of the over reliance of this article on one source which has had mixed reviews. Stein, for example, is barely used, despite dedicating a whole chapter to Waffen-SS criminality, including the role of the HIAG in revisionism and discussing the relationship between the Allgemeine SS and Waffen SS in some detail, including sections on the Einsatzgruppen, the Totenkopfverbanden, the Kaminski and Dirlewanger brigades and Waffen-SS atrocities in general. This is a serious shortcoming in the article. I would not expect this article to meet the GA criteria until other critical sources regarding the Waffen-SS have been incorporated into it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 09:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Sooner or later, someone is going to look at this campaign in detail and report it at ANI. Please, by all means. :-). K.e.coffman ( talk) 05:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
"especially...for the war-time history", Stein is a suitable source. But this article is not about the war-time history of the Waffen-SS, but about its perceptions in popular culture, including at present time. Given that, a 1967 book would not be the "go-to" source, as 50 years worth of popular culture developments have transpired since its publication.
I have added an additional tag for the article functioning as a coat rack. In addition to the above concerns, the article has become a treatment of revisionism instead of an article of the topic at hand. Please add sourced information about the actual topic to help bring it in compliance with WP:NPOV. LargelyRecyclable ( talk) 18:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Seraphim System ( talk · contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
My impression after the intial read through is that this is a very intelligent, well put together WP:OR essay. The few sources I was able to access do not discuss "popular culture" at all. I've asked if the Resource Exchange can help provide me with access to some of the sources. Just by looking at how the article is put together, it looks like Smelser & Davies is being used to support original conclusions drawn from a synthesis of sources. Seraphim System ( talk) 23:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there are some OR concerns with this article. I've placed a tag on it so that this issue can be brought to the attention of readers and editors until it is addressed. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 10:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Can we remove this WP:OR lede photo? Seraphim System ( talk) 23:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I removed the tags: some of them have been added by a contributor who was later warned in re: such activity. I also removed mentions of Richard Landwehr since he's certifiably fringe, rather than part of the popular culture: diff. The rest fit the definition: Kurowski, Agte, Williamson, Quarrie, etc are all widely available. Please let me know if there are any concerns. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
What exactly are Smelser and Davies trying to get at in the wargaming section? Is it relevant? The section seems to pull a few fast ones rhetorically - it starts off with a useful statement, that S&D think the revisionists affected wargames and the Internet, but then it switches over to "factual" comments about Avalon Hill & Simulations Publications without actually connecting it. Was S&D directly criticizing Avalon Hill, or is that the Wikipedia editor doing so? Not clear at the moment. In the same way, having read Wildermuth's review of S & D, it's a pretty loose connection to take his "non-political" out of context and connect it to this.
This section comes across as alarmist moralism from the types who complained that players can play as the Taliban in modern military shooter video games because they'll get "influenced" by it. There may yet be a notable criticism here, but I'd rather it have more than 1 effective source (Wildermuth is just reviewing S & D), and it spell out more exactly what S & D's contention is. SnowFire ( talk) 02:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
This article only covers the small number of postwar media that portray Waffen SS positively, so it should maybe be called "Waffen-SS revisionism in popular culture"? There are dozens of films etc. about ww2, like, how do you make this page and not mention, say Schindler's List? Not to mention that plenty of Nazi-era pop culture depicted the Waffen-SS too but that gets no mention. Sheila1988 ( talk) 10:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)