Talk:Schutzstaffel

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2023

I want to change something. 176.30.161.135 (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Favonian (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

zionist meaning of the ss rune

the naZionist ss rune has a similar form like the form of israel on the world map.

some ss leaders like reinhard heydrich and adolf eichmann said, that they were NaZionist Zionists. 2001:9E8:D2C4:CE00:CC92:F73D:D721:B837 (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Flag of Israel appears in popup link to Sicherheitsdienst

In the third paragraph of the article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schutzstaffel , the Israel flag is inserted at the top of the pop-up link to the linked page on Sicherheitsdienst (SD). The SD was a police arm of Nazi Germany and should not be represented or confused as the State of Israel. 128.84.124.150 (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's the result of template vandalism. I've purged the cache so it should be fixed now. Nardog (talk) 06:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Replace redirect with link to article

In the SS Cavalry section, this article links to a redirect, Pripyat swamps (punitive operation), an inappropriate and euphemistic description of the event. This should be replaced with the article title itself: Pripyat Marshes massacres. Corundum Conundrum (CC) 15:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for the suggestion. — Diannaa (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

British vs. American spelling

@Asperthrow and Obenritter: per the tag {{Use American English}} dated May 2013, this article should use American English. Asperthrow, in the edit summary of your recent edit you said An administrator has already approved my moving this article to British English., could you expand a bit on this? With regard to Nor is there any reason for it to be when all other related articles use British English., see MOS:RETAIN. Ljleppan (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Ljleppan - Honestly, I am ambivalent about this after looking at all the cases where British authors are cited and their spelling used. Asperthrow did come off as presumptuous here if not contentious, when it is simply not the case that there is some preponderant evidence for British English on this subject area, but at the same time, most of the usage of words like "organisation" are in British English. Like I stated on his/her Talk Page, this is a common problem—mixing linguistic variants of English—when so many English speakers (whether native or not) bounce between them. Historians are even guilty of this and sometimes I too have mixed spellings [like labour and labor, toward and towards, etc] in the same document. Anyway -- let's see what this editor has to say about it and possibly raise a consensus query. Thanks for ringing in Ljleppan nevertheless. --Obenritter (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN says: When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.

Looking at the history of the article, the very first version (here) contained the sentence "From 1929 the leader of the SS was Heinrich Himmler, who together with his right hand Reinhard Heydrich consolidated the power of the organisation." The spelling of "organisation" shows that the first time the variety was identifiable it was British English.

Hence, per MOS:RETAIN, I guess we need to declare that the article uses British English. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I really don't personally care what WP:ENGVAR variant is used, as long as it's determined here in the talk page rather than through edit summaries. Ljleppan (talk) 19:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The overtaking of American English on this article (and others) presumably comes from the disproportionately large number of American editors on the English Wikipedia.

The tag has no bearing on anything. Any editor may add one and have it go unnoticed, even for a decade.

Are there any more substantial reasons why this article should use American English? Reasons which pertain to the content of the article, rather than bureaucratic ones. Asperthrow (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, administrators are not responsible for making decisions about content, including which English variant to use, so if you discussed this with an administrator, their opinion carries no more weight than any other editor. It's up to the editors active on the page as to which variant to use.

It's unlikely there was ever a discussion about which variant to use. Typically the person who adds the tag makes a decision based on the predominant variant present in the article at the time the tag is added. It looks like that's what happened over ten years ago when the tag was added. I would not say that the template has gone unnoticed, as there are numerous page watchers actively monitoring the article.

In my opinion the choice of variant is not as important as having consistency within the article. — Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

It would appear that the short original article was written using British English. And then at some point, American English became predominant and since then it has been reverted back to British English in recent days. Ultimately, the original version of the article should carry weight, but consensus and consistency among the editors is most important. Kierzek (talk) 02:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Ultimately, I believe we should retain the British English. Kierzek (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)