Talk:SS Main Economic and Administrative Office

Military history: European / German / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wedding Ring picture caption

The source describes the rings as taken from victims but not necessarily from Holocaust victims. According to the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust the Holocaust refers exclusively to jewish deaths. Those who died at Buchenwald were according to the wiki article Buchenwald by no means exclusively Jewish, so as per the source and common sense the caption shouldn't talk of victims of the HolocaustHardicanute (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the Holocaust article say it refers exclusively to Jewish deaths? — Jess· Δ ♥ 00:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says it in the lead. I clicked on the image and found the source. You are presenting yourself as a more experienced wiki user and assuming an air of authority here and elsewhere and yet you don't know this basic procedure it seemes odd. Please don't revert without checking sources Hardicanute (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the wiki article - it says it in the opening sentnce. I suggest you check before reverting. Hardicanute (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you where in the article it said that because I was hoping you'd read the lead... particularly the third sentence: "Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include the Nazis' genocide of millions of people in other groups, including Romani... Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians..." That article goes on to discuss these groups in detail, with sources. Further, wikipedia is not a reliable source, and what the Holocaust article has to say has little bearing. We need to use actual reliable sources to found our wording, not original research. Lastly, please stop commenting on other editors, and keep discussion focused on article content, per WP:PA. Thank you, — Jess· Δ ♥ 08:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then ignore the Holocaust article and just say what the source caption for the piocture says. If I comment on inconsistencies in the application of guidelines I cannot but by extension be commenting on the editor who applies them in this way. If this causes embarrassment it is a metter for yourself. If I continue to feel that you are seeking to alter every edit I make applying guidelines in a selecvtive/inconsistent way I will be bound to suspect that you are seeking to discourage me from editing wikipedia at all and will take this up with an administrator. Hardicanute (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would write this privately if I had an email for you but can't find one. I don't know whether you have to be appointed as a 'recent changes controller', but I have reported your actions to a very senior administrator who I found agreed with me before against a multitude of more junior editors. Your actions don't come across to me as designed to be constructive but rather to deter me from editing. Hardicanute (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

I suggest moving this article to SS Main Economic and Administrative Office -- this appears to be well known term in the English language literature; please see Google books results. The treatment would be similar to Reich Main Security Office. Any opinions / feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full support. In line with almost any book on the subject written in English. BTW, I would love to see more cryptic Nazi names from that period translated in accordance with our literature, including almost incomprehensible Persönlicher Stab Reichsführer-SS. Poeticbent talk 17:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. I also proposed a move for Hauptamt SS-Gericht. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]