Talk:HIAG/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs) 08:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I will start the review shortly, probably not in one single run.

Image assessment by Diannaa

 * File:SSWallonie.jpeg: This one has no source information, and no evidence that the copyright tag is correct. it's gotta go.
 * File:Bundesarchiv Bild 192-299, KZ-Mauthausen, Himmlervisite.jpg: Bundesarchiv image, everything is in order.
 * File:HIAG organisation laying a wreath at the grave of Bernhard Siebken.jpg, File:Cover art of the The Myth of the Eastern Front book by Smelser and Davies.jpg, File:Book-cover of Narwa by Richard Landwehr.jpg, File:Kurt Meyer and Paul Hausser at a HIAG convention.jpg, File:Paul Hausser and Kurt Meyer-at HIAG meeting 1957.png, File:HIAG assocation, post-World War II.gif, File:Der Freiwillige 1959 cover.jpg, File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg: Properly tagged as fair use and each has a source, so the licensing is okay.

So what we've got is 8 non-free images. Each needs to have a solid reason for inclusion. Where pics like this usually fail the WP:NFCC is on criterion #1 and #8. #1 says that non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. In many cases non-free images can be readily replaced by prose describing the event. #8 says that non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. So a pic of two guys at a conference does not meet that criterion. I think the photo in the info box can be justified, and two or three of the best examples of book/magazine covers, the ones that illustrate points raised in the article or cover material in their captions. I think the Der Freiwillige cover should stay, and The Myth of the Eastern Front. So, keep three non-free images: File:Cover art of the The Myth of the Eastern Front book by Smelser and Davies.jpg, File:Der Freiwillige 1959 cover.jpg, and the infobox image, File:Kurt Meyer and Paul Hausser at a HIAG convention.jpg. That's my opinion. Cross-posted from my user talk page. — Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree on the most. However, I feel that images *File:HIAG organisation laying a wreath at the grave of Bernhard Siebken.jpg and File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg should stay, as I believe that they meet points #1 and #8, by significantly adding to the understanding of the organisation.
 * The image "grave of Bernhard Siebken" shows the atmosphere in West Germany in the 1950s when HIAG emerged and was at its most influential. It also illustrates the point of 1950s being the "decade of the suppression of the Nazi past" where war criminals were almost exclusively referred to as "so-called war criminals" and could be openly celebrated. It's one thing to read about it in the bullets, and another to see the group of HIAG members solemnly laying a wreath on the grave of a war criminal (and publishing it in the organisation's magazine).
 * The image File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg is also important to understanding of the activities of the organisation. Hausser's book is described by historians as one of the foundational works in the Waffen-SS mythology as strictly a military formation. The image shows HIAG's connection to the Nazi past via the design (with SS runes on the cover) and helps the readers understand why the book was deemed "detrimental to youth".
 * Potential replacements:
 * On the image File:HIAG-Ulrichsberg.jpg: I've seen it before but it seemed a bit unfair to include an image of old and frail people. Besides, the article is mostly about the leadership and the organisation as a whole, rather than about individual members. Please let me know if the image is appropriate; it can then be included in the section HIAG.
 * Question: If I wished to replace the recruitment poster, would this one be free and properly licensed: File:Skanderbeg.JPG? I may or may not reinstate the idea of including war-time propaganda, but the sources do draw parallels between HIAG's materials and what was produced during WWII.

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The use of copyright material on this website is very strict, stricter than copyright law itself in some ways and stricter than most other websites. Eight non-free images in one article is too many, as it violates NFCC #3a: minimal usage: a minimal number of non-free items must be used. I will go over the contested images again and try to explain again why they fail our NFCC:
 * File:HIAG organisation laying a wreath at the grave of Bernhard Siebken.jpg In my opinion this image fails NFCC#1: There's nothing here that cannot be described using words alone, and it fails NFCC #8, because it does not greatly increase our understanding of the subject of the article (HIAG).
 * File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg: This is a book cover. Normally we only include these in the article about the book itself. Other usages would have to have very compelling rationales for inclusion, and I'm just not seeing that here. You've already covered the main point in the prose, which is that the SS runes are prominently featured on the cover (fails NFCC #1).
 * File:HIAG-Ulrichsberg.jpg is properly licensed and is okay for inclusion.
 * File:Skanderbeg.JPG: This image is a derivative work: it is a photograph of a poster, and while there's a licence tag in place for the copyright status of the photograph, we don't have any information about the copyright status of the poster. I have nominated it for deletion on the Commons. — Diannaa (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I would be very sad to see File:HIAG organisation laying a wreath at the grave of Bernhard Siebken.jpg go, as it made a big impression on me and really clarified the nature of the organisation for me. As I mentioned, it showed pride in the action, with commemorative photographs being taken and then printed in the magazine for the entire membership to see. Paul Hausser's book I'd be okay with removing, and I've already removed the rest. That leaves four non-free images -- would that be fine? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing here that can't be described in words alone. In fact you just did so. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I took out the wreath laying ceremony and relocated the The Myth image, which leaves the article with three non-free images, as per Diannaa's original suggestion. Is that acceptable? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Book cover of Waffen SS im Einsatz by Paul Hausser.jpg still does not meet the non-free content requirements and could be nominated for deletion as F7 at any time. Good articles should exemplify some of our best work, so I don't feel I can endorse this. — Diannaa (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The image was removed, I think the criteria is now met. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Section 1b + other
I addressed the points raised in the section, I believe. Please let me know if further improvements are needed. I kept full names of the authors in the bullets about the books (Hausser, Steiner and Meyer) as full names seemed to go well together with the book titles. Besides, there are two Meyers mentioned in the article (Kurt and Hubert), but I don't feel strongly on this point. I also kept the links to names in the captions in case someone is just scanning the article. Hope this works! K.e.coffman (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * PS, not sure what was meant by the suggestion to create a template for "German veterans' organisations". Is there an example I could reference? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of something similar to Falsification of history or Nazis South America MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can help with this if you like. I recently made the wee template Normandy landings bombardment groups as a navigation aid for my articles about D-Day bombardment groups. If you could provide me with a list of the articles that would be included, I can make something up for you. User:Diannaa 15:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Diannaa, yes that would be nice although I'm not sure if enough articles on English wiki exist. This is an interesting org referenced in the HIAG article, but more details are only available on De.wiki . Another relevant org is Verband deutscher Soldaten, but there's no article for it, even on De.wiki. I suggest not including ODESSA, as it may or may not have existed, but Stille Hilfe would probably be suitable, although it is not a high-quality article at this time. If you guys are aware of other articles on the topic, please let me know. Perhaps, similar to Nazis South America, include the list of key figures, including both leadership and HIAG's authors? Then there would be value and I can provide a list pulled from HIAG.


 * Separately, I addressed more American spelling issues and added Wette. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see overlinking to Historical revisionism (?). Seperately, I reworked the lead per suggestion above. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I added an applicable template. Separately, I don't see "pretenses". Will work on others. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for second opinion
Request for second opinion has been made. The issue for second opinion has been requested as to the article staying on point apparently with a concern for digression from the intentions of the article. WWII revisionism is an extensive topic and there appears to be a camel in the tent here which can be looked at more directly than the article currently does. It is difficult to call this article complete without a more direct assessment of the complex issues involved in matters dealing with the Wikipedia articles for the Holocaust, Holocaust denial, and Holocaust victims to start this list. Its not clear why these do not appear in high emphasis, or whether they should or should not appear, more prominently in the outline. As a very general statement (and this is a very short second opinion) any time the issue of historical revisionism is visited there become a set of operative issues which need to be put to rest directly including: Propaganda, secondary agendas, biased agendas, lobbying, political motives, etc. Have all of these issues been addressed in the article and are they sufficiently prominent in the outline. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To address MisterBee's inquiry above, I'd see no problem splitting the "Revisionist tradition..." content out into a separate article, and leaving a summary. This section has grown to a size where it can stand on its own. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, with the article splitting. Kierzek (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I largely finished the trimming/moving. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly, it is better, more focused and tighter organization/presentation. Kierzek (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)