Talk:World War II reenactment

Possible sources

• What are the people who reenact 20th Century wars up to?
• [1] War Games: Inside the World of Twentieth-Century War Reenactors by Jenny Thompson (Smithsonian, 2004)

External links; OR

I removed the external links -- these are non official YT channels (pls see WP:Ext. I also found the videos objectionable. Pls lmk if we need to discuss. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I also tagged the article WP:OR as much of the content is uncited and appears to be original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Weight and coatrack issues

This article in its previous state was an under-sourced overview of the topic with some coverage of critical responses to particular aspects. The current version is a coatrack for criticism lacking any overview or encyclopedic coverage of the nominal subject. Please expand the coverage of the topic with any sources available and attempt to rebalance the commentary. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. An article on Waffen-SS reenactment can be split out if necessary. Regarding the hyphen, it's not a typo and all our articles that I can see currently use "reenactment". Start a new bundled RM for all of them if you think they should be hyphenated. Jenks24 (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

---

World War II reenactment → Waffen-SS reenactment – The article used to be a mostly uncited / OR-based fan page: 2015 version; this material was subsequently removed. What's cited in the article is on the topic of Waffen-SS reenactment. Sufficient sources exist to establish notability for this topic in its own right; samples: Man of War: My Adventures in the World of Historical Reenactment, by Charlie Schroeder; Wargames: From Gladiators to Gigabytes, By Martin van Creveld, Bearing Witness: Perspectives on War and Peace from the Arts and Humanities, edited by Sherrill Grace et al; plus the material already cited in the article.

Waffen-SS reenactment is banned in several countries and remains controversial in the English-speaking world. Therefore, there's substantial coverage in RS of the topic, so a redirect may be appropriate. If anybody wishes to create a WW2 reenactment article, they would be able to turn the redirect into a stand-alone page. Another option is to split Waffen-SS reenactment from this article while leaving a stub behind for future development. There have been concerns about the scope of the article (see above), so I hope they can be addressed by either a move or a split. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to split them, as there are plenty of reenactors playing Allied or Heer units.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a coatrack POV article and I would question whether it has any place in WP at all in its present form. Regards. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that the POV issues can be more effectively addressed if the scope of the article is redefined to focus on the Waffen-SS reenactment. If the POV challenges are insurmountable, then the article can be nominated for deletion. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I would believe that there is a place for an article of this present title - one which has a balanced coverage of re-enactment groups of various countries, events ect. In other words, an article which is representative of the title. Even retitled, the present contents would have significant issues of POV weight and coverage that would need to be addressed. At present, there is an implied syllogism that all members Waffen-SS re-enactment groups are racist neo-Nazis. This may be the case but it must be verified - not to mention the validity of such an hypothesis per Karl Popper. The POV and coatracking issues are not addressed by simply changing the title. There are weight and scope issues too. This is a case of WP:ISNOT. IMHO. Create a stub of this article (present title) should be. Take that as an oppose. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I oppose a move to Waffen-SS reenactment as it will essentially be a de facto "criticism of" article, creating another neglected content fork to drop sensationalist 300 word news articles and tangential axing grinding. The article simply needs (and has needed) the brief attention of a competent editor to create a brief summary. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose If there are sufficient sources for a Waffen-SS re-enactment article, it should stand alone as a child of the WWII re-enactment article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I'd suggest reducing this to a stub, and splitting the content on Waffen SS reenactment (which is a significant topic in its own right) into a separate article. Nick-D (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The general community intent does not appear to be for this page to have such a narrow scope; the fact that non-Waffen-SS material was removed for lack of sourcing does not mean at all that sourced material on broader WWII re-enactment won't be soon enough added, which would just necessitate naming it back again. Someone could probably add something of this sort in less than 5 minutes of online source research. (I take George Carlin's view when it comes to battle re-enactors – "Give 'em live ammo!" – so it won't be me.)

  Instead, move to World War II re-enactment to match the spelling of that word preferred by most dictionaries.
   — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Support SMcC Cinderella157 (talk) 07:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Observe that other articles in category are similarly titled to present and would need change too. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Since it's just a typo fix, that can be done manually and (where necessary) via WP:RM/TR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Support LargelyRecyclable (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems that a new article could be made about Waffen-SS reenactment at some point, but this article is a reasonable topic, and we shouldn’t split it until this article becomes too long. Dysklyver 10:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, per SMcCandlish and support his comments and suggestion. Kierzek (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (I can see "...re-enactment") The article's treatment of Waffen-SS is essentially "some places don't allow that." The current name fits in with the organization in Template:Reenactment.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. As it currently stands it's fine. There's plenty that could be written on the subject. Move to World War II re-enactment though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edit

I restored notable controversies with this edit. It has previously been removed [2], with edit summary: "trim in prep for proper sourcing and expansion". However, no noticeable expansion has occurred.

I also removed the tag that looked misplaced to me. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I support the revert by User:LargelyRecyclable. See my comments per proposed move (above). Actions that turned this article into a coatrack, regardless of how well justified they might appear, should remain undone. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I've restored this content - this is well-sourced and clearly significant. Neutrality^talk 23:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be "well-sourced and clearly significant" but the extent of coverage gives undue weight to the extent that it out weighs the "intended" subject of the article and thereby creating a coatrack. It is also contrary to the general consensus expressed above (IMO). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above was about the article name; not the content in question. The way to deal with the weight concerns is to add content, not remove the content one may disagree with; pls see WP:NOTCENSORED. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman While not the primary question of the above discussion, it certainly touched upon issues of content. I would also observe that you remove substantial amounts of text here and do so habitually (WP:POT - though this is not a matter of incivility). While WP:NOTCENSORED it is also WP:NOTSOAPBOX and coverage of a subject within an article must have due WP:Weight lest it become a wp:coatrack. You are correct, in that the best way to improve an article is to add rather than remove content - but this must be done in a balanced way. It is not that I disagree with the content per se, but that it gives undue weight to a particular aspect and thereby distorts the purpose of the article. You asked if there were any concerns. The answer is, "Yes". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The Waffen-SS content was eliminated from the article due to it being tangential axing grinding, whatever that means, but I would like to point out that it was present in the article since before I edited it: Dec 2015 version. As you can see, the rest was unsourced original research, and it was proper to remove it. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

And consequently, it is now appropriate to remove this material due to weight (or expand the other sections to the point that it might be re-inserted). I would observe that, rather than removing a large body of unsourced material, the other (and perhaps better) alternative would have been to provide sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Material in question

For reference, the material removed was:

Controversies

In 2007, BBC investigative reporter John Sweeney produced a documentary entitled Weekend Nazis that delved into the reenactment scene in the UK. Members of German units, especially the Second Battle Group (SBG)), were interviewed and investigated about their hobby. Two SBG members were covertly filmed expressing racist views. The documentary was broadcast on 27 August 2007; in the ensuing controversy, the SBG issued a statement through their lawyers: "The views alleged to have been made by members of the SBG are, in the opinion of the SBG, fascist, racist and utterly reprehensible and as such are views we strongly oppose."

In 2010, Rich Iott, a Republican candidate for US Congress, came under intense scrutiny after images were released showing him wearing an SS uniform. Iott defended his interest in historical reenactment.

This content was deemed to be tangential axing (sic) grinding. I'm still not sure what the meaning of this phrase is, but it appears that there was an objection to including the controversies surrounding this activity. But it's what it is. Waffen-SS reenactment is a controversial hobby so there are bound to be controversies that reliable sources cover. Another objection was: there is an implied syllogism that all members Waffen-SS re-enactment groups are racist neo-Nazis. This may be the case but it must be verified. The Telegraph source does report on this in re: a particular reenactment group, so I'm not sure what the concern is.

The main argument is around NPOV and WEIGHT. I.e. that this coverage is one-sided and if we include this we must include other stuff as well. I find this to be a weak argument; adding the controversies is not stopping the balancing info (if needed) from being added. It also needs to be better demonstrated that this is not neutral while excising reliably-sourced material does not help. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Topic ban

These two edits [3] [4] violate the topic ban imposed here:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#Cinderella157 German history topic ban

I've undone them. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)