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

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]

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

Source review - spotchecks not done

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]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
I'm not seeing anything out of order. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Removed as unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed as unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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

Fixed page numbers and text; not sure where I got that last point. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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:

Comments by Sturmovogel_66[edit]

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

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]

A few comments[edit]

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

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Added. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Removed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "peer-reviewed". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Good one :-). Changed to "positive". --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they were banned. I've changed to say that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Implemented. 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.

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]

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]
"...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]
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]
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]
  • 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]
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]
Added. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Moved to further reading. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Revised & removed 2nd sentence. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"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]
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]
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):

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]

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]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More