Talk:HIAG

message: I removed the recently added logo: diff. The logo is not well known and does not add much to the article. In addition, the logo appears to be self-made and does not accurately represent the actual logo of the group. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The logo is made based on photos on the page itself, such as :file:Der Freiwillige 1959 cover.jpg and :file:HIAG-Ulrichsberg.jpg and other sources such as this. Futhermore, the fact that it is not well known, should not negate its presence on the page. It is, as far as I can see, the logo of the organisation and should therefore be represented in the infobox. Regards Skjoldbro (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW the lettering font varies among the examples, so it‘s hard to say what the “actual logo“ should be—although the one on the magazine cover (probably Futura) strikes me as the most characteristic of the period.—Odysseus1479 18:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So apart from the font, you would say that the logo appears to be accurately presented? Because, if that is the case, then it is an easy to fix, if that is what is needed for it to be “allowed” back. Skjoldbro (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A self-created logo is original research, which Wikipedia does not publish. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are saying that the work is not accurate? Because as I stated just before, the image has been created based on photos found on the page itself. If that is the case, then please tell me which other logos are more accurate, so that I can improve it. Or are you simply referring to the fact that it is a vector image? Skjoldbro (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: At minimum, a reliable source is needed to confirm that this is actually the group's logo (and not an image used informally). The copyright situation also needs to be considered: is it possible for the group to claim copyright over a simple design such as this under US or German law? If so, we can only host a small version of it under a fair use claim. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Appearing on their own publication, could be argued to be an official source. However, it is possible to just name it "Unofficial logo" in the infobox, if that is not enough. And since it is base on the :File:Balkenkreuz.svg, I can't see how there would be any copyright claim. Skjoldbro (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A reliable source is also needed to confirm that this is an 'unofficial logo', and why it is still so significant that it should go in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I found a book published by them, collections of their membership magazines, a picture of Kurt Meyer standing behind it and members in front of the logo, adding that to the pile of their flag, membership pins and their own membership magazine. Seems like it is the official logo. Skjoldbro (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: While I'm sure that any criticism will immediately be met with disingenuous claims about "reputable sources" (Quoting the same handful of historians, ignoring other historians) the biased, tendentious and selective nature of this article needs to be pointed out.
That some of HIAGs claims have a factual basis, is completely ignored. Such as:
*The research done by Scandinavian historians (such as Claus Bundgaard) on Scandinavian Waffen SS volunteers disproves the notion that a majority of these were Nazis. Indeed, the motivation for joining Waffen SS was quite varied and for the most part, volunteers were motivated by: Sense of adventure, economic opportunity, hostility to communism and pan-nordic or nationalist sympathies. (Wanting to restore Danish honor, for example.)
*The "Baltic problem". According to the Nurnberg trials and the post war denazification efforts, The Baltic Waffen SS divisions were not to be considered war criminals, and membership of these was not illegal. (The number of Baltic volunteers was significant: 5 divisions.)
So apparently a significant amount of Waffen SS divisions WERE officially "soldiers like any other", according to the allieds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.140.140 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If one excuses genocide, yeah, sure. Fringe, uncredited writing by people who were 'in tune' with the Third Reich are not Reliable Sources.50.111.25.253 (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Biased and unbalanced article

message: The section claims that HIAG was "increasingly ostracized" and disbanded itself.
The wording inaccurately suggests that the dissolution was caused by increased focus/pressure on the group. 
But the real reason for why HIAG ceased to exist on a federal level is never given.
The real reason for the dissolution, which should be mentioned, is obviously that:
A: HIAG was founded as a "kameradenschaft" mutual aid organization for former Waffen SS members. Due to the passage of time, and as WWII fades into history, there were very few Waffen SS members left to organize/benefit.
B: HIAG had outlived itself, and mostly succesfully reached its aims. Pensions had mostly been solved decades ago. And with an entire cottage industry revolving around WWII (with a focus of Waffen SS, Waffen SS historical reenactors etc.) the need for an organization to "defend their honor" was no longer there.
(Indeed, the passage of time will ultimately fulfill HIAGs goal of rehabilitating Waffen SS. Just look at Ghengis Khan for example. Or Napoleon.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.140.140 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor "Dissolution" section 

message: I changed "German society, wanting to forget the past, embraced the image" into "parts of the German society" because it's a very far stretch to claim that German society or even anything close to a majority of it, at least today, wants to forget the past or sees Waffen-SS as "engaged in a noble crusade". Making such a claim without presenting any source seems highly tendentious to me. In Germany you find numerous Holocaust memorials even as memorial stones in front of more than 75,000 houses, numerous of the former concentration camps are now museums and there was a much debated exposition about crimes of Wehrmacht. I would say that it is undisputed among a very big majority of the German society that Waffen-SS was a criminal organization, as could also be seen in the discussion when for example Günter Grass revealed that he had been member of Waffen-SS when he was 17 years old. Supsudelu (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the sentence being vague / potentially derogatory. I removed it since I don't have access to the source (MacKenzie). I'm quite certain that it did not deal with the contemporary German society, but rather with that of West Germany. The sentence started with: West German researchers questioned these notions....  But since I'm not sure whether it was about the 1950s or a longer period, I removed it: . It's also a bit superfluous since the section HIAG#Transition into right-wing extremism already deals with when and how the attitudes of the German society changed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negationist tradition outside of HIAG 

message: Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Books would not show this page to me. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Not verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Diehl 1993

message: Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified, but Large 1987 as used is far better for this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Caddick-Adams 2014

message: Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Kühne 2017

message: Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Bartrop & Jacobs 2014

message: Reviewing this diff. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Verified. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Citino 2012

message: Google Books will not let me see the cited pages. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Wienand 2015