Jump to content

Talk:Waffen-SS in popular culture

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

Unused sources in a GA nominee

[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks. The article was a spin off from HIAG, so when I migrated the bibliography, I did not clean up the unused sources. I've done this now. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paramilitary?

[edit]

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)[reply]

I edited the lead to clarify; pls see: diff. This aligns with the definition in the International Encyclopedia of Terrorism from Routledge: link. Hope this works. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on sources

[edit]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

I believe that the OPs concerns are misplaced. To begin with, Smelser & Davies devote several chapters in The Myth of the Eastern Front to the topic of the Wehrmacht & Waffen-SS in popular culture, directly addressing the topic at hand. Yes, Steiner wrote a well regarded book on the Waffen-SS but it was published in 1967. His chapter "The Tarnished Shield" indeed mentions HIAG, but only briefly and does not go in the detail on the image of Waffen-SS in popular culture. This source would of limited use anyway, as popular culture presumably includes the contemporary culture as well.
Since the publication of Stein's book, 50 years have elapsed and much more historiography is available on the topic. For example, all of these sources are used in the current article, in addition to others:
  • In 1987, historian David C. Large wrote an extensive journal article on HIAG and its revisionist efforts.
  • In his 1997's book, Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach, historian Simon MacKenzie devoted a chapter to the Waffen-SS, HIAG and the popular culture.
  • In 2011, Karsten Wilke published a book on HIAG.
  • Historian Robert Citino devoted a page in his 2012 book, The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943, to the literature that "flirts with the admiration" for the Waffen-SS. Etc.
Bernd Wegner, who is one of the leading experts on the Waffen-SS, concludes that any survey of the literature on the history of the Waffen-SS would show "an immense discrepancy between the veritable avalanche of titles and the quite modest yield of credible and scholarly insight". This 1994 journal article has not been used as a source, but arrives at similar conclusions: "Visiual Historical Methods", p. 170:
  • "Since 1950s, they have attempted to reestablish the Waffen-SS mythos (...). This work takes the form of unit histories, memoirs and combat reminiscences, all arguing that the organisation ... held duties that were purely military—above all, fighting the Russian threat."
I thus believe that the article shows an appropriate breadth of citations from a variety of RS. If the OP would like to suggest additonal sources, I'd be happy to incorporate them.
Separately, to borrow OP's language, I am only guessing, but I expect that this post is not solely motivated by the concerns over the sourcing in this article, but in part by an on-going disagreement with my editing. Paraphrasing a comment addressed to me by the OP, User:Peacemaker and I have been at odds for some time over my editing approach, so I don't believe his comment here is entirely in good faith. And to quote OP's self-described "rant": 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)[reply]
Note as to Wegner and Stein. Wagner admits that his book is one that is "...concentrating on the pre-war years". Wegner (1990). p. 4. And as for Stein, Wegner singles him out, recommending this book "especially...for the war-time history of the organization". Wegner (1990). p. 4. So very dated it is not. Kierzek (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree: "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.
Hence Stein is used to cite the war-time and the immediate post-war period (Nuremberg trials and early years of HIAG). Other sources are used for subsequent periods; for example, Large's treatment of HIAG is much more substantive & goes up to 1987. (The article is an interesting read; it's available via Jstore with free registration).
As I mentioned, if the OP has other sources to suggest, I'd be glad to review them; stating that the limited use of Stein is a "serious shortcoming" strikes me as a reach, given the topic at hand. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coat rack

[edit]

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)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Waffen-SS in popular culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 22:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused): {{GAList/check|y
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

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)[reply]

  • One of the sources being used is called The Myth of the Eastern Front: The Nazi-Soviet War in American Popular Culture. Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach devotes a chapter to how the image of Waffen-SS has been shaped into what it's today: in both academic and popular culture. Other authors that the article quotes include discussions on the popular literature that portrays the Waffen-SS; my assumption is that "popular literature" is part of popular culture. How do you think the article can be improved to meet expectations? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few obvious problems, firstly, the lede image of the USMC. If the sources connected this significantly to the topic—but I reviewed the CNN source and doesn't use the term "popular culture" — linking "related concepts" in an article like this is a redflag for me. USMC is also not discussed in the article, so it doesn't seem like an appropriate choice for a lede photo. As for the rest of the sources, I will have to check how they have been used more closely, so I have asked for some of the pages at the Resource Exchange to help with the review. Seraphim System (talk) 08:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I would suggest after reviewing the sources is that this article be moved to Waffen SS in Literature and that the lede photo be replaced with something appropriate. As it is, I have to fail to it for OR. For example the source says "the works of Landwehr and other pro-Nazis have not achieved wide distribution or much academic acceptnace." This is pretty clear that it is not part of "pop culture." For most of the others, we have to guess because the sources are not explicit. The sources are discussing literary themes more then pop culture, so I am going to fail it, and let you decide if you want to move it and renominate. Seraphim System (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am also adding that the lede would benefit from expansion before re-nomination. Seraphim System (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

USMC picture

[edit]

Can we remove this WP:OR lede photo? Seraphim System (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just be BOLD. It's retention requires the primary editor to show how this image has been discussed in popular culture. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tags

[edit]

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)[reply]

Wargaming section

[edit]

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)[reply]

The point in S & D is that "Romancers naturally saw wargames as an opportunity to refight the battles of the Russo-German war with distinctly different outcomes..." (p. 187). I.e. they criticise Avalon Hill & Simulations Publications for enabling such romanticisation, as they put it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If they're saying that some of the Waffen-SS apologists are fans of wargaming too, fine, that's includable. If they're complaining about Avalon Hill "enabling" alternate history, that's pretty weak, and I'd be in favor of just removing the section if no other good sources can be found to agree with this viewpoint or otherwise comment on it; tons of perfectly harmless fiction investigates "different outcomes" for all of history. SnowFire (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They discuss the portrayal of the Waffen-SS in wargaming, which is part of the popular culture, no? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Smelser & Davies also argue that the Waffen-SS in wargaming is portrayed in such a way as to emphasize their (alleged) military proficiency while downplaying their war crimes and their overall role in Nazi Germany's planned genocide in the east. As such, these games enable a view that romanticizes the exploits of these men and permits a view in line with revisionist history, i.e. that they just were professional soldiers doing their duties, instead of members of a criminal organization. It's not just "what if", but "what if" that either deliberately or unintentionally focuses on military exploits and disregards genocide and ethnic cleansing... in my experience (as a wargamer), this kind of "what ifs" are almost always highly suspect. The andf (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Wildermuth agrees with Smelser and Davies on this: "As someone whose first contact with German military history was through the Avalon-Hill board games I played as a teenager, I followed closely, and could only agree with, the authors’ argument to their potential danger to depoliticize a conflict which at its core was a war of racial subjugation and conquest." The andf (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waffen-SS_in_popular_culture&oldid=1213816299"