Talk:Ideology of the SS

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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)

Grammar

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

Ideology of the SS

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)

Please see the discussions on the Talk page:

• Problematic content, and
• Sourcing.

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

Requesting a close

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)

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

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)