Jump to content

Talk:Ideology of the SS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vami IV (talk | contribs) at 00:50, 28 January 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleIdeology 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
DateProcessResult
October 23, 2015Good article nomineeListed
March 25, 2016Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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)[reply]

Please see the discussions on the Talk page:

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

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

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)

Looks good

I have edited many WWII-related articles here and elsewhere. My family was victim of German agression, but it is not an ad hominem argument. This article reads well as it is now. Thanks for the editing wars - they contributed to its good shape ;)! Zezen (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enemies

This list makes the intro too long. Would there be any objections to removing it?

Representing the ideological opponents of the regime in one form or fashion, historian George C. Browder identified the Nazi state's list of enemies as follows:

  • Enemy States: Other nations' efforts to keep Germany down, to persecute or treat her unfairly or disrespectfully [1]
  • Miscegenation: Sexual relations with people viewed as being a different "race"[1]
  • Jews: Fear and hatred of Jews[1]
  • Catholicism: Conflicts with or hostility toward Catholic clergy and disdain for Catholicism, and a conspiratorial view of the Roman Catholic Church[1]
  • Freemasonry: Conspiratorial view of the Masonic order as undermining natural German culture and society[1]
  • Communism: Fear and hatred of Communist and socialist ideologies and parties, their labor organizations and influence in the Weimar Republic[1]
  • The Republic: Hostility directed at the liberal republican constitution and form of government[1]
  • Homosexuality: Fear and hate of homosexuality and homosexuals[1] that "defied the command structure of government and military institutions"[2] (Himmler wrote a 1942 memo urging "ruthless severity" to eliminate the "dangerous and infectious plague," and the death penalty was instituted for homosexuality in the SS)[3]
  • Moral Decay: Concern with other symptoms of "moral decadence" as threats to the strength of the German nation[1]
  • Capitalists: Hate and fear of economically powerful combinations or individuals as unjust, corrupting, undermining influences and forces in German society[1]
  • Old Guard: Hate and fear of traditionally powerful influences and institutions of the old society as unjust, retarding influences in German society[1]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Browder 1996, p. 275.
  2. ^ Boden 2011, p. 1.
  3. ^ Giles 2002, p. 269.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first section of the article, which I believe is important to provide the general reader with a representation of all their main "enemies". You may be able to tighten it up, but frankly, except for copy edit & clean up work I really don't work on this article. So, I would suggest you discuss it with others herein, such as: @Obenritter:. Kierzek (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove this content, it will impact the general understanding of the Nazi's enemies. @K.e.coffman: See if you like what I did to the opening section. It retains its basic information but with less space. --Obenritter (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obenritter, the edits for concision look good to me. Kierzek (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kierzek. We'll see what our friend thinks of them. The one thing I never liked about that structure was the same citation repeated after every bullet.--Obenritter (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Obenritter: -- this works much better; thank you for condensing. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ideology_of_the_SS&oldid=762315044"