Talk:Finnish volunteers in the Waffen-SS

message: :Image:Finnish SS Cuff title.png 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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Finnish SS Cuff title.png

message: I believe the translation to "Hostage battalion" is basically incorrect and the proper term should be "Pawn battalion". The finnish word "pantti" means a pawn, whereas the word for hostage is "panttivanki", "vanki" meaning prisoner.
In this case the battalion would act as a pawn for securing Germany's assistance, not as a hostage taken by Germany (which would imply Germany extorting Finland for action in the war).
Quick Google search seems to give more "pawn battalion" hits, and the incorrect "hostage battalion" translation seems to be foremostly based on a daily news article in Helsingin Sanomat, where the translation is informal (and connotationally wrong).
I did not see edit "19:50, 26 July 2010 Death Bredon (talk | contribs) (9,789 bytes) (Changed translation of "panttipataljoona" from "pawn battalion" to "hostage battalion" (nb. Finn. "panttivanki", literally "pawn prisoner", translates as "hostage").)" before, dear Death Bredon your linguistics and reasoning are simply wrong. The original word to be translated is "panttipataljoona", not "panttivankipataljoona".
--Rk1945 (talk)--Rk1945 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Pawn battalion" is also used at [] so same term should be used here for consistency. --Rk1945 (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of "Panttipataljoona" 

message: This article has a lot of uncited material, and this has been noted for eight years. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations, and per K.e.coffman above: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." This should be done promptly, though I'd suggest leaving it for a week or so because I guess that Wanderer602 or others can provide the necessary reliable sources. I look forward to seeing those sources produced. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not going to see anything from me on so short notice due to real life issues that some of the people editing wiki are saddled with. End of March is the earliest i might have time for. If some one else wants to edit the article i have no qualms about it. You should remember that while the notice has been on the page for eight years there hasn't been any sort of indication of section blanking prior to the recent edits. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks in advance for anything you may be able to do for this page. I hope it's clear that nobody is blaming you for its problems, nor is any overdue removal of uncited material in any way directed at you. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Your understanding is incorrect. First, this is about verifiability, which has nothing to do with bias or controversy (that's the neutral point of view policy, whose issues are only reached after verifiability has been established. Second, though there is no policy or guideline on section blanking it might, indeed, be improper in some circumstances but policy makes it very clear in BURDEN that once it has been removed that it cannot be restored without citations. Since we do not have a board of paid professional editors to make decisions about whether or not content is reliable enough to be included, the reliability of the encyclopedia turns on verifiability. I'm afraid that I did not notice that K.e.coffman's edit included some sourced material, including your edit, along with the sourced material. I'm restoring that material. If K.e. believes it to be inappropriate for some reason, he can make his case for its deletion here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:3O

message: I do not see any cited material that has been removed, including the unit composition. Instead, short paras have been combined and moved up; this is easier to see via individual edits: diff. 
 I reviewed the content again, and I don't see anything valuable here. Some of it is about SS Division Wiking, then trivial content about which camps the unit trained at, and some combat content that may or may not be true. The "Notable members" section consisted predominantly of red links. The articles appears to have been written from a particular POV: I already noted the false claim that 'all' Waffen-SS units were under army (Heer) command, plus there's a strange sentence about a unit "carrying on the legacy" of another Finnish unit that had been part of the Wehrmacht. My conclusion is that Wikipedia is better off without this material.
Here's a source that deals with the topic directly and in detail: "Finnish Waffen-SS Volunteers and Finland's Historical imagination", by Antero Holmila of the University of Jyväskylä. This could be a suitable source. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a deconstructionist book (lately it's really popular that cosmopolitan academics are deconstructing what they see as "national myths"). Fair enough, it's one view point on the topic but it's hard to write a full article about a military unit based on such a limited critical view. The definitive books on the battalion have been written by professor Mauno Jokipii in 1996 and later in 2002 but those exist only in Finnish. Well, I'm not interested in spending that much time on the topic but let's see what Wanderer602 comes up with later if he's going to work on it. --Pudeo (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed what was deleted and I'll agree that most of it was garbage. However, the stuff that you dismiss like the unit's training in various camps is worth keeping, IMO, because detailed info on how long a unit takes to become combat ready is scarcer than you might think. You seem to have a very minimalist idea of what level of detail is best for Wiki, coffman. We're not constrained by the cost of paper, so we can provide more detail than the Britannica, and should, IMO. I believe that we need to ensure that Wiki articles appeal both to specialists and to those barely familiar with the topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if this content can be reliably sourced, then by all means. However, I often find that "intricate detail" (i.e. the precise locations of the training camps) actually obscures the significance of the subject. Yes, we can know where and how they trained, but what was the social and political significance of this unit? How did it fit into the overall war aims of Finland? How were its personnel perceived in Finland after the war? I believe that these questions should be answered first to make the content encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourced content

message: Should Oy Insinööritoimisto Ratas be merged with this article? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CFORK]] 

message: I wonder if the scope is really the Finnish SS volunteers (as a whole), vs the battalion. In most historiography, much is devoted to the service of these volunteers in various subordinate units of the SS Division Wiking in 1941, prior to the volunteers being combined into a stand-alone battalion. Same applies to the discussions of historical memory. Thoughts? --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be opposed to renaming this along the lines of "Finnish Volunteers of the Waffen-SS" and making the current title a redirect to the renamed article. Perhaps we should also turn Oy Insinööritoimisto Ratas into a redirect to the relevant section of this article. -Ljleppan (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This article needs to be refocused solely on the battalion and a new article needs to be created covering all of the Finnish volunteers. The new article would absorb Oy Insinööritoimisto Ratas and cover the Finns serving with Wiking as well as the recruitment, etc. of the volunteers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  As far as I can tell, there really isn't any practical difference between "the battalion" and "the Finnish SS-volunteers". There's a common pool of recruits that is divided into two groups for a few months, with one undergoing further training and the other serving in various regiments of Wiking, both groups merging together into the Finnish battalion within Wiking once the training of the first ends. Along what lines would you propose we split the article? –Ljleppan (talk) 16:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware that the men originally assigned to Wiking had been transferred to the battalion. Since that's the case, I'd support your proposal.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to admit I'm not too broadly read on this, but I'm going by Pajunen & Karjalainen who write "" on page 20. -Ljleppan (talk) 18:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm in the favor of renaming as well, as after renaming the article could cover those who joined the SS in 1944-1945, like Mikko Laaksonen.RKT7789 (talk) 08:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify -- the suggested name being discussed is "Finnish SS volunteers"? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking "Finnish volunteers in the Waffen-SS". –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the article 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: page moved.  Andrewa (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS →  – Looking at the previous discussion "Scope of the article" it looks like there is consensus to move the page to a title including all SS volunteers. I was considering a bold move but decided to open this RM in order to confirm the exact title to move to. Ping all participants in the earlier discussion: User:Vami_IV, K.e.coffman, User:Ljleppan, User:Sturmvogel 66. (t · c) buidhe 02:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Yes please. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 23 December 2021 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Finnish volunteers in the Waffen-SS's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "holappa":
From Nordic Resistance Movement: 
From Far-right politics: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Finnish volunteers in the Waffen-SS]]