Talk:Schutzstaffel

Article Reorganization

I just finished a major reorganization of the article in an attempt to get the flow a little bit better. The SS was so huge and massive by the time frame of World War II that the many branches and sub-branches can get very confusing. Hopefully, the current version will help with the reading of the article.

I think we can proceed with a possible Featured article attempt at this stage. A first step would be to give citations to every statement in the article and also add some SS specific pictures.

I do appreciate the Holocaust photos; however, this article I think should have pictures only of SS personnel and SS offices. Cluttering the article with Holocaust photos, when there are plenty of additional articles for those, detracts from the main purpose of this article which is to explain what the SS was and the mechanics of how it operated. -OberRanks (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I have added and will add more cites as my time permits. Kierzek (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The German government maintains excellent archives of WW2 photos, including SS photos. Can we use these in Wikipedia? I'm not an expert at uploading photos to Wikipedia, but there's excellent German archival material out there, free for the taking. For instance:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/12/the-muslim-hitler-haj-amin-al-husseini-was-promised-leadership-of-israel-palestine-after-annihilatio.html Santamoly (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Buchenwald SS Corpses photo

Once again, someone wants to add in this photo. It was discussed by editors in Talk:Schutzstaffel/Archive 3 and inconclusive to a degree but in the end the consensus was not to include it. As all editors know, the burden is on the one who wants to add something, as is the case here. If they get consensus then so be it. I don't think it should be added under the argument of WP:UNDUE, as in undue weight being given to a section that should be mentioned but not be given as much attention as the majority view being conveyed herein. It is about NPOV and balance and has nothing to do with "censorship". Thoughts guys? Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. This is a general article about the SS, not about Buchenwald. Buchenwald has its own article and those photos would be fine there. I think adding them to the main SS article is for little purpose other than "shock value" and saying "See what bad things they did?!?". Another way to look at it is that the camp service was, honestly, covers perhaps 10% of the SS duties. Filling this broad article with photos about the camps detracts from the purpose and, yes, is against the UNDUE Wikipedia guidelines. Keep the photos out. BTW, I feel the same way about filling up the article with Einsatzgruppen execution photos. -OberRanks (talk) 14:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it is undue weight. Suggests that the Schutzstaffel organization were as commonly victimized as other people, etc. I certainly have a good idea of the probable reason why someone wanted to add in this photo; to show that the SS could be victims of their own regime at times. Which is true. But it is undue weight. OberRanks already summed it up pretty succinctly. Perhaps it could be added to the respective camp article? I do believe, however, that it is fine to have several Einsatzgruppen execution photos in the article pertaining to Einsatzgruppen. Because that is, sadly, not undue weight. In other words, I believe that you are correct.Hoops gza (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

bodies of two SS guards who were killed in the Ohrdruf concentration camp soon after the liberation.

The picture is encyclopedic, it illustrates the kind of retribution levelled on SS members after the liberation of a camp, is in color and is freely licensed, also no conclusion can be drawn about its 'shock value' since individual reactions will vary upon seeing any picture and wikipedia is not censored Coasttrip (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Since consensus is not with you herein Coasttrip, I would suggest you may want to add it to the Buchenwald article, if you wish. The reaction to it there is unknown at this time, but you have a much better argument for it there, I would agree (as stated by the other editors above). Kierzek (talk) 23:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest waiting for more replies to this thread since the only two editors were canvassed by you on their talk pages, more neutral view points are welcomed, I encourage others to respond with your thoughts about this encyclopedic image Coasttrip (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The image doesn't seem relevant to the focus of this article per WP:UNDUE. (Hohum ^@) 23:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I asked two editors who hold a great interest in World War II and German history to give their own opinion; Hohum has now, as well. Enough said. Kierzek (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Values of the SS

This newly added section has some problems. For one, it is too long; second, it expresses the opinions of only one author. I would suggest the section be edited down and if anyone has cites from others reliable sources to further confirm or add to the points of the section, then that would be helpful. Kierzek (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion that entire section should be removed as breaking nearly every rule of No OR. Not only does it read like a personal research essay, but it isnt really accurate. The SS was a vast and huge organization. The personal values and morales of SS members is a deep and extensive topic and relies very much on personal opinions of researchers. Also, depending on what area of the SS one studies, the results of such research would be vastly different. Take for instance a desk bound paper pusher in the SS-Hauptamt, a front line Private in the Waffen-SS, and a camp gaurd at Auschwitz. The morales and values of these three persons are not the same, nor should ane attempt be made to extropolate or interpret them in a Wikipedia article. No, the section as it reads heavily as OR. It should be removed. -OberRanks (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Assuming the contents reflect the citations given, it clearly isn't OR. However, a broader range of sources would be better. It has also become far too long and wanders off the point. (Hohum ^@) 20:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the new section is too long, and that it shouldn't rely on one source so heavily - particularly as that source is over 40 years old. It seems to me that there are other problems - mostly that some of it is general to (elite) military units (the hardness, readiness to fight, etc.) and some of it is more generally applicable to other units carrying out the Holocaust as well. (The last two paras contain points made by Christopher Browning about Ordnungspolizei units in his book Ordinary Men). For this reason, some of what is written in the values section would be better incorporated into Responsibility for the Holocaust (another article which needs some help). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I added an accuracy tag. I think a solution would be to create a new article entitled Ideology of the SS and move both this section and the section on "Class Egalitarianism" over to the new page. If the material can;'t stand up on its own, it should and will be deleted. Right now, this is pretty much a weak essay type section placed inside a much larger article. -OberRanks (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I noted the same essay is already included in The Holocaust article under the section, "Perpetrator Motivation", as well. Kierzek (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Move was completed. May need to copy this talk page discussion over as well. I'll leave that up to others. -OberRanks (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I made some of the needed edits for concision and tidy of cites; and took out some of the POV of the author. See what you think, OberRanks. It could use more work. Kierzek (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Totenkopf.jpeg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Totenkopf.jpeg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Origins - Conflicting Accounts

In the summary of this article it states: "It began at the end of 1920 as a small permanent guard unit known as the "Saal-Schutz" (Hall-Protection)[1] made up of NSDAP volunteers to provide security for Nazi Party meetings in Munich."

Whereas, in the Heinrich Himmler article it states: "The SS, initially part of the much larger SA, was formed in 1923 for Hitler's personal protection, and was re-formed in 1925 as an elite unit of the SA."

Please could somebody [appropriately knowledgeable] resolve this conflict? Alexandrews (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)