Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HIAG/archive1

HIAG

HIAG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/HIAG/archive1

Nominator(s): K.e.coffman (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

Image review

• File:Kurt_Meyer_and_Paul_Hausser_at_a_HIAG_convention.jpg: the "historic images" tag is intended for cases where the image itself, not just whatever is pictured, is historic - eg. the Tank Man photo. This needs a different tag and a better FUR
• File:Der_Freiwillige_1959_cover.jpg needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Stein title doesn't match between Notes and Bibliography
• Fn6: publication title should be italicized
• Page for FN54? FN27? FN75?
• Page formatting needs correcting on FN77, 81, 108, 109
• Be consistent in whether publication titles are or are not abbreviated in footnotes, but in the full ref they should be written out
• Check alphabetization of Bibliography
• Access dates and archive dates should have the same formatting
• Newspaper articles should include full date and, where available, author name or agency
• No citations to Wildermuth. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Source review from Factotem

My responses inline in italics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• The link to kuecprd.ku.edu for Citino's The Wehrmacht Retreats: Fighting a Lost War, 1943 could not be reached at the time I checked it.

Removed as unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• The link provided to uncpress for Diehl's Thanks of the Fatherland: German Veterans After the Second World War gives a different ISBN (978-0-8078-5730-4) than the ISBN link that you provide (978-0-8078-2077-3). Checking that first ISBN on Gbooks shows the 360-page 2009 edition, while your ISBN is for the 345-page 1993 edition. The difference in pagination may affect the page numbering in your refs.
• The link provided to www.dacapopress.com for Parker's Hitler's Warrior: The Life and Wars of SS Colonel Jochen Peiper gives me a page not found error.

Removed as unneeded. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Pontolillo's Murderous Elite: The Waffen-SS and Its Record of Atrocities appears to have been published in 2009, rather than 2010 as stated in the bibliography.

Fixed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Deborah Lucas Schneider is also credited as a co-author for Wette's The Wehrmacht: History, Myth, Reality.

Schneider appears to be the translator. Compare: [1]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• The bibliographic details you provide for Wienand's Returning Memories: Former Prisoners of War in Divided and Reunited Germany are confusing. According to the Worldcat list of editions, Rochester, N.Y., is the location of Camden House publishers, whilst Boydell & Brewer appear to be located in Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK. There's also an inconsistency in pagination, with the JSTOR link showing 366 pages (and the different ISBN 9781782045304), the Camden House edition (which corresponds to the ISBN number you provide) indicating 346, and the Boydell & Brewer edition (which has the different ISBN 9781782045304 - same as the JSTOR edition, prob refers to the e-book) indicating 364.
• Is the translation of Wilking's "Wie ein Mann ein Mann wird" correct? Google translates it as "How a man becomes a man". Whilst Google translate is more often guilty of butchering a language than translating it, I do believe that the German verb Werden in this context means "to become".

Removed; it may have been my translation. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Other than the above rather minor issues, the presentation of sources seem OK to me.

Spotchecks

• Ref #3 (Smelser & Davies pp. 72-73). Page numbering error? These two pages appear, from the Gbooks preview, to discuss only Halder, and nowhere can I find anything to support the statements in the second paragraph of the "Post-World War II context section" cited to them. Should the page numbering be 73-74 (Section titled in the book as "Networking with the Bundeswehr"), which do generally support the statments? There is, however, one troubling exception relating to the third bullet point. I'm not sure where the quote in the statement: that "measures to transform both domestic and foreign public opinion" be taken with regard to the German military comes from. The source, p. 74, actually reads "Measures to change the public attitude toward military service would have to be implemented" (my emphasis). There is no mention there of "domestic and foreign" public opinion. More importantly, military service and German military are two very different things. Given that the Himmerod memorandum relates to the rearmament of West Germany, it's quite conceivable that this statement is referring to the future military, and not the past, don't you think?

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

• Ref #42 (Frankfurter Allgemeine) OK except, as far as I understand the German, the article specifies that Simon was imprisoned for war crimes perpetrated against "Italian civilians", without specifying the Marzabotto massacre. The WP article on that massacre reports the conviction of Simon as one of the perpetrators, but the assertion is unsourced. FAZ also states that Simon was tried thrice (rather than twice as written in the article) after his release. This is an issue of precision, and the fundamental point being made is supported by the source.
• Ref #70 (SPD Anfrage). Given that this is a 39-page document, you could usefully refine the ref to "Chapter 3, Section 4". Also, the source states that Munin-Verlag was established by "Soldaten der ehemaligen Waffen-SS" (soldiers of the former Waffen-SS). It does not state whether they were members of HIAG.
• Ref #74 (Worldcat listing). Is this not WP:OR? Also, taking one example from the names listed, how do we know that the Rudolf Lehmann listed as published by Munin Verlag is the same person as Rudolf Lehmann (SS officer)?

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)

• Ref #86 (Heberer 2008 p. 235). Whilst the source supports the quote, I can see nothing in it to support the statements that the "...legal rehabilitation of the Waffen-SS was out of HIAG's reach" or that "...attitudes were beginning to change...".

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)

• Ref #88. Werther & Hurd's work is a 33-page document. Is there a reason why you do not supply a page number for this ref?

Provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ref #103 (Smelser & Davies pp. 159-161). I'm curious about the page range, given that all of the statement can be cited to p. 159. Also, the source states that Yerger was a prolific writer, which is not the same as popular. This is an issue of precision, and the fundamental point being made is supported by the source.

Fixed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Ref #107 (Smelser & Davies p. 187). Where on that page is there support for the statement that "...revisionist-inspired messages and visuals found their way into wargames, Internet chatrooms and forums..."?

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)

That's all for now. Factotem (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

A few items remain. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmovogel_66

• the arrival of the Cold War Better, I think, to say "the beginning"
• In the same year (1951), some former career officers of the Wehrmacht were granted war pensions under the Basic Law. Unlike the Wehrmacht, the SS had been deemed a criminal organisation at the Nuremberg trials and could thus act as an "alibi of a nation" (as Gerald Reitlinger's 1956 book of that title suggested). The SS was the entity onto which all crimes of the Nazi regime were conveniently shifted. Consequently, Waffen-SS career personnel were not covered under the 1951 law. Awkward
• In 1949, the political climate was changing and the ban on forming veterans' associations had been lifted. Encouraged by the shifting tone of the World War II discourse, and 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. Should move this to the 2nd paragraph so chronology is preserved and the text flows better.
• local so-called support groups commas surrounding "so-called support"
• were officers, most often of junior grades awkward
• As of 1977, Wilhelm Bittrich served as the chairman;[16] as of 1976 Hubert Meyer acted as the federal spokesperson. Awkward. Just say that they held those positions in those years.
• With the publication of its first periodical in late 1951 Provide title
• Waffen-SS membership, surviving and fallen Awkward. Perhaps "living and dead"?
• The organisation also asserted that the Waffen-SS was merely "the fourth arm of the Wehrmacht"; these claims were even "more dubious", explains Large. Awkward
• Kameraden-Suchdienst wouldn't a better translation be "lost comrade/soldier search" to be pretty literal or "tracing service"?
• According to the historian Jonathan Petropoulos comma at the end
• alone during the Pripyat swamps punitive operation better retitled "anti-partisan operation", IMO. Punitive reads oddly in this context
• that could "honour traitors" but would vilify its soldiers missing comma
• Down to Memoirs, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)