Talk:7th SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen

message: Added mention that the 7th SS was equipped entirely with foreign equipment. --KobaVanDerLubbe 15:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What does 'foreign' mean in this context? Can you name the countries that the equipment came from? Do you have a reference source? Binksternet 15:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreign equipment

message: :Image:SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SS Volunteer Mountain Division Prinz Eugen.jpg

message: I wonder if there's a referencing error here: "...Kumm managed to avoid extradition to Yugoslavia by fleeing over the wall of the internment camp of Dachau.[30]" Kumm 2007, p. book cover.
The only 2007 book in the references is Pavlowitch, Stevan K. (2007). So I assume it must be the one being referenced in the extradition statement. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is on p.273 of my English version of Kumm's book published in 1995 by J.J. Fedorowicz, Winnipeg, Manitoba. Cheers, Peacemaker67  (crack... thump) 05:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the article be updated then? It still says "Kumm 2007" and the link in "Kumm 2007" does not jump down to References. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing error?  

message: Line: [a SS unit] that served alongside but was never formally part of the Wehrmacht during World War II in Yugoslavia. - o. k. It was "never" formally part of Wehrmacht. Why this introduction discusses things that factually never happened, or why should it have been part of Wehrmacht ? SA was also never part of Wehrmacht, or Nazi German Police etc. Btw, never part of the Wehrmacht during World War II in Yugoslavia ? Awkward statement. In Yugoslavia ? That SS formation served in Yugoslavia, and nowhere else. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Readers can be confused about the status of the Waffen-SS, and it is important to explain that it was not part of the Wehrmacht but served alongside it as part of the fighting forces. The SA were never involved in warfighting. I will tweak the grammar. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 20:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: why is it important to explain that SS was never part of Wehrmacht ? On the contrary, you confuse the reader somewhat with your own (prejudical) ideas of "normal" German military organization (should have been part of Wehrmacht, but never was) - ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is self-evident. Waffen-SS formations fought alongside the Wehrmacht but were not part of it. In what way is that idea prejudicial? I never said they should have been part of the Wehrmacht. You aren't making any sense, frankly. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 06:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also "self-evident" that, say, German Luftwaffe fought alongside German Heer but was never part of it - dance the redundance ! --129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because they were both part of the Wehrmacht. The Waffen-SS was not. There is no redundancy. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 07:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So who claimed that Waffen-SS was part of Wehrmacht ? In my opinion, your beloved remark ("was never part of Wehrmacht") suits for the overall-article "Waffen-SS", but needn't to be repeated in each Waffen-SS-unit-article. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are on your own then, as not only I, but the GAN, Milhist ACR and FAC reviewers of the FA SS division articles have never raised this issue, because it is a non-issue. Do something productive with your time. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: that i already have did, meacepaker. repaired your awkward introduction. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things that never happened ... 

message: That is, the mass executions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.104.13 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one is stopping you from adding that information with citations to reliable sources. This article is not of high quality as it stands. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 21:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article fails to mention their fate after surrender 

message: it's uncited, but it is also incomplete, I believe. Another article also says that this finding was also not applied to individual soldiers unless they could be shown to have personally participated in one or more atrocities. Possibly that was a different finding about a separate trial, in which case fine; statement can be returned if cited. Elinruby (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete statement removed