Jump to content

Talk:Schutzstaffel/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Path to featured article

With the addition of the SS Medical Corps section, the article's content is at a complete phase. I encourage veryone to begin the process towards Featured Article status. Inputs and comments are welcome (as would a nomination). -Husnock 17Mar05

Husnock, thanks, yes, it is coming close to the quality needed for a featured article. I have to make a thorough check though. Andries 23:54, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Self nominated the article today. Let's make it happen! -Husnock 22:10, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pictures, please! A featured article should not just be highly informative but also pleasant to read (as much as one can say this about the subject under debate...) Refdoc 22:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Good point about that...A pictures we shall add! -Husnock 23:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

non German SS

Another point, poorly covered, are the many non German SS and Waffen SS units, curtly subsumed under "Germanic SS" in the current version. Ukrainian and Baltic SS units guarded concentration camps, Caucasian and Turkic Waffen SS troops fought on the Eastern front. None of these were particularly "Germanic"

A few further points, possibly worth mentioning, are Lebensborn and the various SS-Junkerschulen. Refdoc 00:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only Four Days?

An admin choose to cancel the FAC nomination after less than four days. Not nearly enough time, in my opinon to make the changes. At least a week should be given, Ive seen some articles remain on FAC nomination for two weeks. I plan to make the changes and resubmit. Thanks for everyone's input. -Husnock 18:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Split the article?

One of the reasons why I think this article is not super good is that it is a bit messy because the subject is large and complicated. I propose splitting the article in Organizational structure of the SS following the German language example. Andries 17:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am very much opposed to splitting the SS article up into smaller ones, although the major portions, such as Waffen-SS, Allgemeine-SS, and so on can have main articles linked in. Any further than that and this article runs teh risk of simply becoming one big disambig page. -Husnock 02:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blood Type in Armpit?

I was told that the SS tatooed their blood type into their armpits. Is this at all true, and if so, worthy of being included here? Or just more lies? Kaiser Matias 02:07 26 April 2005 (UTC)

This is quite true. A friend of mine who was in the 12th SS 'HJ' Division has his tatoo under his armpit. 21st Feb 2006. Detmold

Yeah, they did do this. However, it became more and more rare as the war went on. Infact, it was pretty much discontinued after 1943.

Myths

Someone should take all the things that are not verified and put them at the end of the article in a Myths section. Discuss whether or not to put something there, then put there or don't. This is especially important on a topic with so much discrepency (sp?).

What "myths" are you referring to? -Husnock 18:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stupid stories, like SS officer cadets putting grenades on their heads and letting them explode. I've seen that referred to in a couple of books on the topic of the Junkerschulen and have been assured by a number of veterans that this is just an absurd myth. 21st Feb 2006. Detmold

Requested move

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  1. Object. I don't think shorthand / abbreviations should count towards "most common usage". McPhail 21:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Object. The reasoning in the above decision to leave SS as a redirect still seems more sensible to me, and as noted there, many other braches follow the same practice. --Icelight 21:36, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Heavy Object I suggest looking up above where the page was ALREADY moved from SS to Schutzstaffel. Now we are proposing to move it back? That would cause tremendous redirect problems not to mention be slap against the agreed upon move which has already been discussed. And, upon the original argument. SS is an abbreviation. Schutzstaffel is the proper name of the group. -Husnock 22:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  4. Object. This has been gone over before and the consensus was to do this. I oppose moving this back and forth; both SS and Schutzstaffel go here, anyway, so it makes no practical difference. —Morven 00:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Object --Francis Schonken 10:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[1]
  6. Support. I agree completely with PBS; his rationale is sound. I was totally flabbergasted when the move from "SS" to "Schutzstaffel" was performed a while ago, for the same reasons as PBS gives in his move request. As for Morven's comment, I too oppose moving the article back and forth; it should've been kept at "SS" in the first place. ;-) --Wernher 12:07, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. SS means Schutzstaffel if the context leads to that, but in other contexts it can mean Social Security or Secret Service or probably several other things. Jonathunder 02:44, 2005 September 10 (UTC)
  8. Support. Not neccessarily for the reasons given by PBS, but simply because Schutzstaffeln are almost always refererred to as SS in English. · Naive cynic · 21:22, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. The full name is unambiguous and easily found. up+l+and 06:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Not overwhelmingly, unambiguously known by the two-letter abbreviation. –Hajor 20:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


Vote Count, 11 days after start of vote

Inclucing the vote of the proposer of the vote, 11 people voted. 3 (that is, including the proposer of the vote) supported the move. Vote results:

  • 3 votes out of 11 support the move = 27% < 60%, so No Move is the result of the vote.

Trying to help out with the present backlog of WP:RM, I remove the vote topic from that page. --Francis Schonken 16:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I don't think shorthand / abbreviations should count towards "most common usage". McPhail 21:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If the full name was an English name, then I would agree with you, but in this case it is a foreign word which is not used in English and for none German speakers and historians is not known or used. Philip Baird Shearer 22:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest looking up above where the page was ALREADY moved from SS to Schutzstaffel. Now we are proposing to move it back? That would cause tremendous redirect problems not to mention be slap against the agreed upon move which has already been discussed. And, upon the original argument. SS is an abbreviation. Schutzstaffel is the proper name of the group.

Schutzstaffel may be the proper German name but unlike Luftwaffe, it is not a name which has been borrowed from German and is in common use in English. Instead the letters SS are borrowed and used in English as a word in their own right. Philip Baird Shearer 07:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
There are about 50 links to Schutzstaffel and 250 to SS so how would the move "cause tremendous redirect problems"? Philip Baird Shearer 07:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This has been gone over before and the consensus was to do this. I oppose moving this back and forth; both SS and Schutzstaffel go here, anyway, so it makes no practical difference. —Morven 00:17, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

It is more than 10 months since this was last debated, things are not set in stone and opinions change. Philip Baird Shearer
  1. ^ Here's why:
    1. Can we agree that the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms)? Quoting the first section of that guideline (Acronyms as words in article titles):

      Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples).

      Many acronyms are used for several things; naming an article with the full name helps to avoid clashes. Whether the acronym or the spelled-out phrase is preferable in many particular cases is debatable, but this can work itself out with the #REDIRECT [[new page name]] command. For instance, DMCA and Digital Millennium Copyright Act have oscillated as to which is primary and which page redirects. Other less controversial pairs are MPAA versus Motion Picture Association of America and IMDb versus Internet Movie Database. At any rate, if the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should certainly be created, and one should redirect to the other.

    2. From List_of_acronyms_and_initialisms:_S#SS:

      SS - (s) Sand Storm (METAR Code) - (i) Schutzstaffel (Nazi elite Praetorian guard) - U.S. Secret Service - Spanish Ship - Stainless steel - Stockholm Skins - (s) Submarine (US Navy hull classification) - (i) Super Sport - Surface-to-Surface (missile)

      So I think "naming an article with the full name helps to avoid clashes", as from the guideline quoted above, applies.
    3. This is (at least) the 3rd vote about this issue on this page, last one from mid-february - slightly more than half a year ago. I don't see any "determining" changes in the applicable guidelines in the mean while, so what's the use of triggering YAV (Yet Another Vote)? --Francis Schonken 10:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
To extract a quote from what you have written "unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples" the Schutzstaffel in English are not known by that name they are known as the SS. "if the acronym and the full name are both in common use, both pages should certainly be created, and one should redirect to the other" The word Schutzstaffel is not in common usage in English.
As to the other point you are making. Yes there are other meanings for the letters SS. But (as you pointed out, I had missed the vote in Feb thanks to the none standard heading) previous votes it was rejected that the letters SS should redirect to the disambiguation page. Philip Baird Shearer 11:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion Invite

For those who don't know, the article on SS ranks was hit heavy and hard by a user (who has since been blocked) who was adding non-existent SS ranks. I invite everyone to please visit this deletion vote to help us clear some of this off of Wikipedia. Thanks -Husnock 18:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

non-cited conjecture

Theories also exist that Himmler did not see Jews as the only race deemed worthy of extermination. Documents from 1943 and 1944 indicate Himmler had discussed privately, with certain top SS leaders and perhaps even Hitler, the idea of continuing the Holocaust to include blacks and Orientals. These ideas were obviously kept very quiet, since Japan at the time was a major ally of Germany.

This paragraph either needs a direct citation to what historians postulated, and with what evidence they postulated, such examples of a possible idea had for a continuation of the holocaust to blacks or orientals, or should be considered POV conjecture. I think the paragraph otherwise should be removed. The SS had published propaganda works favoring the Japanese race, even before joining the Axis, for example. I've also read works claiming the SS foresaw a slave nation of Russians in the east; though I cannot even vouch for the authenticity of such a statement, however I myself have read nothing to seriously denote a plan of continuation for the holocaust to other ethnicities beyond those considered "alien" within Germany itself. Nagelfar 15:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

more ideas for article

The symbol of the Schutzstaffel is similar to the swastika in that they both show alphabetic lettering. The swastika, although it was an ancient symbol, was used sometimes by the National Socialist German Workers Party to represent overlapping “S” letters for their “socialism,” as shown in medals, banners, flags, stamps, etc by Dr. Rex Curry. The same symbolism is shown in Hitler’s own bizarre signature, which Hitler altered to use the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist," and in Hitler turning the symbol 45 degrees to the horizontal and eventually pointing all uses to the right to highlight the S letter, and similar alphabetic symbolism still shows on Volkswagens.

What's bizarre about the Sütterlin script Hitler used in his signature? It's simply a manner or writing.Michael Dorosh 01:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Translation of S.S.

I added the naming conventions section after reading the considerable confusion and controversy on the boards regarding the name. I included my source in the references. I also changed the Italian Black Brigades link to Italian Blackshirts. The SS could not have possibly have been inspired by the Black Brigades as they did not exist until 1943 (whereas the SS was developing in the 30s)! The SS did however liken itself to the Blackshirts that existed even during World War I and long before the SS's existence.Ikeinthemed

  • The following section I moved out of the article and into the talk page as it seems more talk page material than actual information about the SS. From what I can tell, it was added by a user some time ago expressing an opinion about differences in what SS stands for and how its been translated. I dont believe the body of the article is a good place for such a discussion, but it is more than welcome on the talk page. -Husnock 23:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It isn't actually my opinion. First of all, I think it's fact, not opinion. Granted the difference between fact and opinion is one of degree. Anyway, it is also not my opinion in that I did not originally generate it; the info came from a (well, two) Ph.Ds in history I spoke with, both of which (along with myself) speak German (Deutsche) and one of which actually was at the Nuremburg trials (and still lives!). So I think naming conventions deserves to return. Thanks. Ikeinthemed
It's good info to include, but I think you need to include a published source per wikipedia rules rather than "some Ph.D" you talked to.Michael Dorosh 03:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It's been on the References/Sources (I forget which one) since the page was originally posted. Just checked ... still there. Ikeinthemed
Please state the source that you are referring to here on the talk page so other editors can go check it out. -Husnock 23:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It's also POV to state that the translation of SS is "confusing" and debatable. I cleaned up the section to remove references to this. and for the record, my last edit was not "vandalism" [2], it was removing material which appeared unsourced and POV -Husnock 13:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

  • 1) Never said the translation was debatable, just the transliteration. The confusion exists obviously as demonstrated by the very naming debate on this talk page and if there is confusion it need not be hidden. There is confusion as to the proper transliteration, as the item discusses. If you know anything about German, they don't make nouns plural with the letter S. 2) I don't see how saying something has caused confusion violated POV. The POV is from the perspective of a person that can speak English. This confusion would exist for all English speakers. Even a person that also understands German (ie myself), there would still be confusion as to why something was transliterated in a certain manner. Finally, if you think something is POV and you know I don't, you should really say why. Go to the POV page and tell me which of the points indicated I am violating in my addition. 3) Here is an homage to my #2. I said if there is a debate, show why or how something violates a Wiki protocal. If you look at the Vandalism page you'll see that one of the definitions include: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia"; one type of vandalism, termed Blanking is defined as "Removing all or significant parts of articles ... is a common vandal edit." So there's just an example of how I think what you're doing (repeatedly) is vandalism. This is really more of a couple of opposing opinions (you think it's not, I think it is vandalism). However, the POV issue I think you're trying to address may have to do with your lack of understanding in Deutsche. Am I wrong? Point out the specific violation from the POV page. Thanks. - Ikeinthemed
Very easy..."Assuming the obvious" (since you say there is "obviously" confusion, and the policy of Wikipedia: No Original Research. I have yet to see a source that states the translation, etc of Schutzstaffel is confusing to people. Also, you did not link to NPOV, whichn applies more here that Point of View since a neutral point of view is what we try to achieve. Saying that a word is confusion to people seems to me like a point of view. -Husnock 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Forgot to add. The Naming Conventions are Sourced. I included the source. Stop telling me it's not sourced. It's sourced, it's sourced, it's sourced. Read the source. The source says what it refers to. The source includes a link. It's sourced. Read the source before you tell me it's not sourced. It's sourced. Sorry, but when everyone tells me it's not sourced after I told them it was; gets a bit annoying. Not a personl attack, just me being annoyed. I hate to repeat myself. I hate to repeat myself. Ikeinthemed
I attempted to compromise the edit by making some minor changes and you reverted again, stating that my edits were against the vandalism policy [3]? You use that term rather loosely as I am a major contributor to this article. Saying I am vandlising the article is actually extremely offensive. Also, as far as POV, who says that a translation is confusing? Confusing to who? What source says that this translation is confusing? Can you name it? I certianly know of no German or World War II text that says "the translation of the world Schutzstaffel has caused much confusion" and I have studied World War II history and the SS for nearly 20 years and have have spoken German for over 12 years. In any event, please read the phrase on this page which states "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." I made a minor change to your edit, I did not vandlise it. Please. -Husnock 23:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I fouund the "source" to which you were referring. It is "regarding naming conventions" and link to Yahoo Groups. Sorry, but a message posted on a public chat room/groups forum is not a valid source in accordence with Wikipedia:Reliable sources (i.e. "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources"). Also, the link itself appears to be broken as it leads only to an error page stating that one must be a member of the group to access the website. -Husnock 23:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

SS Name - Easy - Look it up in the Dictionary

I have noticed the above dispute. It seems you are unsure as to what SS stands for. I haven't read as to who said what. This one is easy to solve, though. Here is the link: [4] to the dictionary.

  • Schutzstaffel means literally "Protection Squad".
  • There are actually two words Schutz and Staffel. Note that German always uses capital letters for nouns.
  • Schutz means protection or guard
  • Staffel means relay race or scale or flying squadron
  • As with most langauges, the indiviual words can have multiple meanings.
  • In the context, SS means Protection Squad
  • The article says that the SS is like the Pretorian Guard. This is true too. It is an analogy, not a direct translation.

As for my German: Meine Deutsch ist nicht so gut. Sie bleibt immer schlecht. Sie ist für mich zu schwerig. Entschuldigung! (not so good).

Hope this helps. Wallie 06:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Article also. [5] "Protection Squad". Wallie 21:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually my german->english dictionary translation (ran it by my former German teacher as well) gives "Staff or Administrative Group" for Staffel not squadron. Your translation of Schutz however is quite similar to the one from my dictionary of "to protect or watch" not exactly guard, but very similar in intention (I think we can judge this a case of mere semantics). As such I think a more valid translation for Schutzstaffel is "Staff Watcher" as its quite unclear if its meaning is more for "watching ones own staff" or "member of a staff designed to watch others". Thats my 2 reichsmarks anyway.  ALKIVAR™ 07:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
OK. Good luck with your German. It is probably better than mine! The SS sure did watch the staff! Have a look at this one, though Erbo Graf von Kageneck. The word Staffel in the military is normally associated with the Air Force. A native German speaker may be able to help. Wallie 18:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Being a native German speaker let me try to give my 5 cents ( yeah... with euros nowerdays its cents over here as well. ;-) )

The translation of Schutz in this context is Protection. Staffel is indeed associated with the Air Force and describes a military unit from the airforce or army's flying corps consisting of 6 "swarms" with 2 planes each, this is a total of 12 planes. Talking about groundforces it is very much the same thing as a "Kompanie" (company) a unit with about 100-120 soldiers. "Protection Squad" is really as close to the idea as I can think of. Regards from Munich.

Gypsies and Roma

The first paragraph of the intro concludes: in which millions of Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Russians and Roma were killed. Gypsies and Roma, isn't that redundant? Sumergocognito 20:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Schutzstaffel/Archive_2&oldid=1137175817"