Talk:Horst Wessel/Archive 1

Putting the murder into context
Did SA members and other nazis at that time conducted murders/assasinations similar to the one carried out by communists against Horst Wessel? If it happened often it should be mentioned. Mieciu K 14:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazis and Communists frequently killed each other in street battles, but I don't think either employed assassination as a tactic. Communist parties traditionally disapproved of assassination as an "anarchist" and "terroristic" tactic rather than a revolutionary one. I don't think Wessel was killed on the orders of the KPD, although his assassin may have been a KPD member or supporter. It is equally likely that he was killed as a result of a personal feud over his prostitute girlfriend. Adam 14:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

According to "Looted Treasure..." by George Mihan, n.d. [about 1943]: "Horst Wessel was... a member of the Berlin underworld who lived on the earnings of prostitutes and was killed in a brawl by another procurer".125.239.111.52 (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of Wessel.
There only really seem to be repeats of the main Wikipedia image of Wessel when searched for online, but I have come across some others on the far right, a rare mug shot angle, an artists rendering, a full view of the image currently in the article. I know I've come across better ones in the past, it seems as the internet just becomes a whole lot of mirrors to Wikipedia it becomes more & more difficult to discover disparate sourcing for information and/or media. 67.5.158.161 (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The picture we have is perfectly adequate. Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. Any photo posted must be demonstrably in the public domain. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The 'full view' image mentioned aboved is actualy the official Party photo of him. I think it is in the public domain now - or is WikiPedia likely to be sued by the Nazi Party? It should be used as his most recognizable public image (tho the others have historical interest too).°°°° —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.242.151.191 (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - I have put it in the article. 84.69.150.82 (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Posthumous fame / Der Brunnen
The article cites an SA journal Die Brünnen of 2 Jan 1934, quoted in Schumann, F.L., Hitler and the Nazi Dictatorship, London, 1936, p.368... The article "Sturmabteilung" in the German Wikipedia only says that since March 1928 "Völkischer Beobachter" had a monthly supplement „Der SA-Mann“, which from 5 Jan 1932 was turned into an indipendent weekly published by the High Command, the Oberste SA-Führung.--Vsop.de (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Meanwhile I looked up Schumann, F.L., Hitler and the Nazi Dictatorship at http://www.archive.org/stream/hitlerandthenazi029875mbp#page/n389/mode/2up/search/wessel and found that the reference is not to Die but to Der Brünnen. Obviously this is
 * Der Brunnen, 2. Jahrgang 1934, Reihe: Für Deutsche Lebensart (Halbmonatsschrift); Herausgeber: Frithjof Fischer; Verlag Nordland.

The subtitle Für Deutsche Lebensart - for the German way of life sounds far to bourgeois for an SA publication. So when correcting the article I just called it a bimonthly. --Vsop.de (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

18th SS Volunteer Panzergrenadier Division Horst Wessel
It's doesn't mentioned by this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
"His story was spread over Germany; when Naumann, a student who worked for Goebbels, had attended the funeral and taken the train to Gorlitz, he found that everyone at a Nazi rally was speaking of Wessel, and when they discovered he had attended the burial, insisted on his taking the stage to tell them of it."  Enigma msg  21:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

28 May 2015
As of today, I've finished my improvement and expansion of this article, and have gone ahead and nominated it for GA-status. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 22:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Beyond My Ken is in favor of this edit. I'm in favor of keeping it the other way. Please establish a consensus on which one should be kept. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 11:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Pimp
I've read that he was a pimp to the para-military men facing action (and by that rationale, getting some potentially final "action" before-hand) that he was kind of the free-lance inspiration to the SS Lebensborn project. He is listed in the category "German pimps & madams" but there is no mention in the article of this aspect of his 'career', could someone incorporate what this vocation of his entailed to some degree, perchance? 66.96.79.217 (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What was your source? I ask because KPD (German Communist Party) propaganda emphasized his status as a "pimp", and, indeed, initially characterized his murder as an argument between two pimps, before the truth came out about the KPD status of the murderers. A neutral source, after which they downplayed the incident entirely. Neutral sources I read don't refer to Wessel as a "pimp", or, if they do, don't emphasize it as significant - so where did you read that he was definitiely a pimp for the SA?? BMK (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if this is the source of the accusation, it should be incorporated that it was the German Communist Party that attempted to allude to him being a pimp and that is where the misunderstanding arose that he was typecasted as such, because it seems to be a prevalent misunderstanding, I've read it in some historic works in English about him, but can't now tell you what the sources were specifically. 66.96.79.217 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Both sides mischaracterized Wessel for their own purposes. The Nazis painted him as a martyr, and the Communists as a pimp. BMK (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Democratic-minded newspaper?
What is a "democratic-minded newspaper"?, and what is its relevance to the story?119.224.100.246 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * During the rise of the Nazis, democracy in Germany was under attack from both the left and the right, from the Nazis and the extreme nationalists, from the Communist Party of Germany, and from the royalists who hated the Weimar Republic (as indeed did all those parties). Newspapers were not, at the time, neutral reporters of fact, they were almost all either owned by the various parties or tremendously slanted.  Thus a "democratic-minded" newspaper would be one in favor of the Weimar Republic's democracy, and opposed equally to both the Nazis and the Communists, and therefore more likely to report the facts about a dispute between those two parties more impartially. BMK (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nicely explained, BMK. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Rallying point for Neo-Nazis?
It is stated that "the church wished to stop the site from being a rally point for Neo-Nazis". But there is no reference to Neo-Nazis rallying there. In fact the references given suggests that the grave was a rallying point for Communists and anti-Nazis. The article should either say that, or give evidence of Neo-Nazi's rallying, or genuine fears of Neo-nazis rallies, should be cited.119.224.100.246 (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You miscomprehend the sentence. It is irrelevant whether neo--Nazis rallied there are not, what it says is that the church wanted to stop it from becoming a neo-Nazi rallying point.  The meaning of the sentence is in the intent of the church officials. BMK (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

PoV Problems
The book largely builds on Siemens 2013, in which I have just had a chance to look at the three biographical chapters. Reading that source it becomes clear that the article here excludes all material that could be considered unflattering to Wessel, and in fact ends up coming dangerously close to the Nazi propaganda myth of Horst Wessel that Siemens critiques and exposes at length. Here is a bullet point list pointing out some of the aspects of Siemens' account that are being excluded: All of this would have to be addressed for the article to be considered neutral.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wessel's participation in and glorification of violence against political opponents. By excluding the fact that Wessel participated and contributed to creating a climate of rampant political violence, his assassination comes to stand out as unmotivated. Siemens writes that "Wessel zealously contributed to this climate of violence until he himself became its victim..." (p. 75), and that "In reality, the Friedrichshain SA unit under Horst Wessel had the reputation of being a band of thugs, a brutal raiding squad." (p. 73) Page 68 describes how Wessel would organize trips for his troop through working class neighborhoods to provoke attacks on them that they could then retaliate. The article currently describes him as more of a social organizer when in fact what he organized was a militia, receiving military training and participating in para-military activity against political opponents. Page 54 gives a quote of Wessel's group participating in bating up police officers, and shooting another.
 * Wessel's weak constitution and apparent reluctance or inability to participate personally in the violence of his SA group - Siemens' describes Wessel as not strong fighter, but primarily one who used words to create the image of being a warrior and strongman. Siemens attributes this to Wessel's weak physique. (p. 54-56)
 * Wessel's early and constant dedication to violent antisemitism. (pp. 42-46)
 * The second Horst Wessel trial of 1934 in which three persons (Peter Stoll, Sally Epstein, Hans Ziegler) were innocently sentenced and two of them executed is not mentioned. Their sentences were rescinded only in 2009.
 * Wessel's continued use as a propaganda posterboy for National Socialism in contemporary times. (the books part III)


 * These are serious concerns. I also see that the article was tagged NPOV in January. I would like to nominate this article for community reassessment as I believe it no longer meets the criteria for a Good Article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I dont think it ever did.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you like to go ahead and reassess it? Or should it go through the community review process? Or perhaps I should just go ahead and reassess it? K.e.coffman (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , you guys should consult him; I thought he had a good handle on this article as far as corrections needed from what I have seen/read. Kierzek (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , have you guys checked Siemens and "fixed" the problems with this GA article? I just happened to come back around to it today. I do believe the Jewish Virtual Library cites should be removed as not RS and replaced if needed; if used as a "double cite", may not be needed to be replaced. I leave it in you guys hands to carry on. I don't have any works on this person or I would work on it with you. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the POV tag was removed since hardly any of my critiques have been addressed.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to Siemens, so I wouldn't be that helpful from that standpoint. I suggest that Maunus should make the changes he thinks are appropriate and supported by Siemens, point by point (i.e. not as one massive change), and see what others think of them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the book anymore.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I've ordered it and will make the necessary changes once I get it and have the chance to read the relevant sections. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now got the book on hand, and have started working on the article. I think it may go fairly slowly, as I want to be as accurate as possible. Feel free as I work section by section to point out things that I may have missed in a section I've already done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Good work so far, BMK. Maybe you can find something better than "World War II Graves 2015" which was used for several cites. Kierzek (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at that specifically. I think I'm coming close to going as far as I can just by reading selected parts of the book.  The next step will be to read it cover-to-cover and try to fill in some empty spots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history
HI, just a quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that editors of this page may be interested in. K.e.coffman (talk)

Problematic quote
I support removal of the quote. W/o context, this wp:primary propaganda material is presented in what appears to be Wikipedia's voice. If there's a secondary, WP:RS source that discusses this quote or Wessel's use in propaganda in general, then I would support including such discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've left an initial message of BMK's T/P. It echoes some of your points, (which I have just seen). Anyway I'm for bed. I am sure we can resolve this in a friendly fashion, by all parties. It raises some very interesting aspects. Goodnight all. Simon Irondome (talk) 01:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Quick update. I like BMK's reworking of the quote, at first glance. It contextualises it in a far more effective way, if we are to use the quote. Happy to discuss further. Night. Simon Irondome (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal
What do you guys think of rewording the below?


 * Goebbels continue to use the "martyrdom" of Wessel as a propaganda device for years, including in January 1933, when "an enormous procession ... led by Hitler, Goebbels, Röhm, and other top officials of the NSDAP,... marched to the St. Nicholas Cemetery ..[where] Hitler spoke of Wessel's death as a symbolic sacrifice, and dedicated a memorial to him Wessel's name was frequently invoked by the Nazis to bolster core tenets of National Socialist ideology during the remaining existence of the Third Reich:

"Comrades who found their way to the Führer through him and who fought the Red subhumans at his side. Comrades who were with him daily and knew him best ... "the hero of the Brown Revolution." His sacrificial death inspired and passionately inflamed millions who followed. The spirit of Horst Wessel is today the driving force behind the struggle for freedom of the armed services and the homeland of the Greater German Reich."

- An article from the Nazi-owned Völkischer Beobachter newspaper encouraging German soldiers during the war.

This is the only block quote in the article right now, so one's eyes are naturally drawn to it. I believe the below treatment to be more neutral:


 * Goebbels continue to use the "martyrdom" of Wessel as a propaganda device for years, including in January 1933, when "an enormous procession ... led by Hitler, Goebbels, Röhm, and other top officials of the NSDAP,... marched to the St. Nicholas Cemetery ..[where] Hitler spoke of Wessel's death as a symbolic sacrifice, and dedicated a memorial to him. Wessel's name was frequently invoked by the Nazis to bolster core tenets of National Socialist ideology during the remaining existence of the Third Reich. For example, a wartime article from the Nazi-owned Völkischer Beobachter newspaper called Wessel "the hero of the Brown Revolution" and referred to his "sacrificial death" that "passionately inflamed millions who followed". The paper further referred to Wessel as "the driving force behind the struggle for freedom of the armed services and the homeland of the Greater German Reich".

What do you guys think? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Siemens describes how Goebbels wrote the Fuhrer from sitting at Wessel's bedside before he died, basically planning explicitly the way they would use Wessel. Hitler himself chose not to visit Wessel at the hospital.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Taking the stuff out of a blockquote and synopsizing it is fine with me. BMK (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horst Wessel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150605200442/https://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/49963 to https://linksunten.indymedia.org/de/node/49963

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Image of Hitler speaking at Wessel's grave
If there is a way to do this, it would be really great to include the photo of Hitler speaking at Wessel's grave in 1938 which is given in two versions here. It is published in 1938 in Life Magazine, and the other version is from the Bayerische Hauptstaatarchiv. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm looking into this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Using "Martyrdom" as a section title
objects to using "Martyrdom" as a section title, on the theory that it shouldn't be said in Wikipedia's voice. Whether a person is or isn't a martyr always depends on the point of view of the person describing the dead individual, however, the process of making someone into a martyr, or declaring them to be a martyr can be described from the outside without accepting the validity of the process. Thus, to say that the Nazis (Goebbels in particular) turned Wessel into a martyr is a neutral, true statement, which is supported by numerous reliable sources (which I'd be happy to supply on request), and is not more controversial than saying that the Roman Catholic Church considers Joan of Arc or Thomas á Beckett to be martyrs. One doesn't have to accept them as being martyrs to describe the process of turning them into martyrs.

For these reasons, I have restored "Martyrdom" as a section title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is a neutral and objectively true statement - or that it ever can be objectively true about anyone. It is as you also acknowledge a truth only to whomever considers it so. Goebbels considered Wessel a Martyr, but that is exactly why we should not use it as section title or as a neutral descriptor of the persons, but only use it with attribution to whomever holds the view. Wikipedia's voice and Goebbels' voice should be maintained separate. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, that they are a martyr is a POV statement, that they were martyrized is a neutral description of a process. I can refer to the "Martyrdom of St. Stephen" without believing for a second that St. Stephen was actually a martyr.However, I would have no objection to changing the section title to "Nazi martyrdom", if that would alleviate your concerns. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not what the word "martyrdom" or "martyrized" usually means. It does not usually refer to the posthumous process by which some group declarea and promotes a dead person as a martyr for their cause, rather it normally refers to someone being killed for a cause (the actual dying for the cause is the "martyrdom"), and using the word "martyrdom" to describe the death amounts to an implication that the person who says so is argueing that the person is already a martyr by virtue of having died for the cause. That is the problem with the wording. A better title would be "as a Nazi martyr" or "as a martyr for the Nazis".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, point taken - although I will point out that our article Martyr (not a reliable source, of course), says "The death of a martyr or the value attributed to it is called martyrdom." You're referring to the former, myself to the latter. However, various online dictionaries agree with you, so I will change the section title to "As a Nazi martyr". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Horst Vessel ostensibly died "for a cause"; in his case, the Nazi cause. The Nazis at the time immediately proclaimed Vessel a martyr for the Nazi cause - despite the details of Vessel's death being unclear, with viewpoints varying according to ideology. Dying for a cause is what makes a martyr for that cause, according to the typical definition of the term, be it a political or a religious cause. (The Christian religion honors a pantheon of martyrs.) Wikipedia should not take sides in the dispute about Vessel's status in the Nazi canon. A carefully worded, neutral description of events is paramount, especially in section titles where strict neutrality is obligatory. -The Gnome (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Wessel died as a result of a personal dispute with his landlady, which the Red Fighter's League took advantage of to kill him. He was not dooing anything for his "cause" at the time (and the facts of his death are only a little bit unclear - ignore what the Nazis and the KPD said and concentrate of what modern scholars say.  He was made into a martyr for the Nazi cause by Goebbels, because Goebbels was lookoing for him, and his death was such that it could be re-molded into a martyr's death.  These are all facts.  Facts supported by reliable sources.  We report facts that are supported by reliable sources.  And that's what this article does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond my Ken is right here. He did not die for a cause, he died because he was a petty streetfighter in conflict with other petty streetfighters. He became a Martyr only afterwards because the Nazis actually ended up in power. The book to go by here is really Siemens.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

How can you mend a broken text
The article (not the first, nor alas the last in WWII- and Nazi-related articles, by the looks of it) is full of loaded words and phrases. I removed some of them, but Beyond My Ken reverts 'em. And he requests I justify my changes. So, here tis:

Most of the diffs are trivially justifiable additions of wikilinks (e.g. directing the term "putsch" to the article "Coup d'etat" or adding a wikilink for Pyotr Krasnov) or corrections of syntax (e.g. "between the groups of which he had been a part" instead of "between the groups which he had been a part of") and language (e.g. "more and more right-wing youngsters" instead of "more and more right-wing youth"). But in some places original work seems to have crept in. Specifically here, with the loaded, unsourced words underlined: "Goebbels who was responsible for creating the fervid atmosphere of which Wessel wrote"; "in some ways the two worlds were converging in ideology ". Who says so? Who speaks here?

When we deploy characterizations, assessments, or colorful descrpitions, we must be careful to attribute them quite specifically to the third-party, reliable source from which it comes, e.g. "in an atmosphere described by author XYZ as 'fervid'" with a citation to the respective work; otherwise, they are to be removed. We are never offering Wikipedia's viewpoint because Wikipedia does not have a viewpoint. And, by the way, Beyond My Ken should try and correct the specific part(s) with which he disagrees instead of going for wholesale reverts! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your cited examples of "original research" are extremely weak, and the policy is probably not applicable. Wikipedia's viewpoint is that facts that are supported by reliable sources are said in our voice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought The Gnome's changes were pretty good and that the article did not become less accurate because of them - the vividor poetic description does not really add anything important in my view. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, I can repeat myself only so many times! You asked for a detailed exposition of my viewpoint and, although this is a quite blatant case of fan page wording created by contributors, I provided it. Now you are simply repeating your stance and nothing else. You are hereby challenged to provide exact and specific third-party, independent sources that use the loaded, judgmental terms I'm removing (e.g. "fervid atmosphere", etc). Otherwise, you have no case, there are no "facts" except for "your voice", and the whole mess is unceremoniously chucked out. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I asked for for what was "OR", and the examples you gave were not OR, so it doesn;t matter how many times you repeat it. As for the "fan boy" stuff, I'd ask you to please strike it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But is it really important to retain "fervid and "world converging in ideology"?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "fervid", meaning "intensely enthusiastic or passionate, especially to an excessive degree":Suggest another word for what the source says: "When the [Wiking League's] leaders started to show signs of at least tolerating the parliamentary system, the now nineteen-year-old [Wessel] ... resigned and became a member of the SA and NSDAP, where he could finally satisfy his urge for violent action. ... Goebbels had succeeded in creating the 'atmosphere of activisim' that attracted more and more of the younger members of right-wing organizations, young men and women who felt increasingly disenchanted by the lack of prospects, the passivity and the sheer opportunism of their own parties and associations." An atmosphere where you leave one revolutionary organization for another, because the other is more likely to allow you to express your violent urges, and many others are doing the same thing ("two-thirds of the people who had served under [Wessel] in the Wiking League had already joined the SA and NSDAP") - that is a fervid atmosphere.  Sometimes what appears to be a biased word is actually the right word."world converging in ideology":  The source says "In the second half of the 1920s, Wessel was moving in two different, albeit ideologically converging, worlds.'"  I think my wording is appropriate in presenting what the source says.And I would still like The Gnome to withdraw his insinuation that my writing stems from a Nazi fan's mentality.  I take great umbrage at that.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record, and despite this too being quite clear, there was never an insinuation from my part that Beyond My Ken's "writing stems from a Nazi withdrawal from you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)fan's mentality" since there is no evidence for any such claim. I repeat, in any case, that the current wording in the article, in its totality, often reads as written by fans - which does not mean, of course, that Beyond My Ken or specifically anyone else has acted or is acting like a fan. The wording in Wikipedia articles is almost never the work of one individual; texts change and changes accumulate over time. I accept the explanations about the text and the citations provided above by Beyond My Ken and withdraw my objections. Still, I'd suggest we place the contested words inside quotation marks in order to demonstrate that, for those loaded words, we are quoting a source. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The specific wording you complained about was written by me, and I'm still waiting for that withdrawal from you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The specific wording read as if it was original work by contributors - and if that were the case, those contributors would have to be, logically, fans. Since the wording has been attributed to some specific, reliable, outside source, then obviously the work is not original. And I've already stated that I accept without reservation that you are not a fan. I have no reason nor evidence to doubt that. The way the article text struck me cannot be changed. That is all and there ain't no more. -The Gnome (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I get it, no admission that your judgment was poor, that you made an issue out of something that wasn't an issue, without having read the sources, and that, in the process, you insulted a fellow editor. Classy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You insist on a non-issue. I already acknowledged that I have not read the sources. I already wrote that I never considered you personally a fan of Nazi ideology. Whether my reading of the text was "poor" I leave it up to others to judge. I made an assessment on the basis of the text itself; I was honest and try to continue to be. If you still feel insulted by my take on the text, I cannot help in any other way but to stop commenting. And this is truly the last message here. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One hopes that in the future you take more care in your editing, that you actually read the sources which the text you're complaining about is based on, and that you avoid language in your commentary which is derogatory, insulting, or belittling of the editing of hard-working fellow editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Lede sentence
There's an editing disputed regarding the lede sentence. The sentence as it's stood for quite a while reads: "Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a local leader in Berlin of the Nazi Party's 'stormtroopers' – the Sturmabteilung or 'SA' – who is best known for being made into a martyr for the Nazi cause by Joseph Goebbels after Wessel's murder in 1930." An editor wishes to change this to: "Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a local leader of the Nazi Party's 'stormtroopers' – the Sturmabteilung or 'SA' – in Berlin who is best known for being made into a martyr for the Nazi cause by Joseph Goebbels after Wessel's murder in 1930." I contend that moving "in Berlin" to a place right in front of "who" creates a less understandable sentence. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to change the sentence to "Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Berlin leader of the Nazi Party's 'stormtroopers' – the Sturmabteilung or 'SA' – who is best known for being made into a martyr for the Nazi cause by Joseph Goebbels after Wessel's murder in 1930." in the hope that this compromise will be accepted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I got a "thank you" notification from the other editor, it appears the compromise has been accepted, so I'll archive this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The compromise is a good one, yes. Note that you missed a comma in your characterization of my suggested edit; this makes a difference. However, the sentence now reads smoothly and information is presented in a logical flow. Edit summaries are an important part of how Wikipedia works and allows editors to collaborate. Please bear that in mind in future when you are critiquing the work of other editors making changes in good faith. Pyrop  e  21:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

What is correct birthday?
Was Horst Wessel born on 9 September 1907 or 9 October 1907? The following link seems unclear about his birthday.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Wessel

Born	Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel 9 October 1907 Bielefeld, Westphalia, Germany

Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel was born on 9 September 1907 in Bielefeld, Westphalia
 * I cannot find a source for the October date. Mitcham -- a general source -- gives the September date, but Siemens -- which is specifically about Wessel -- does not give a date of birth at all, at least that I can find.  Therefore, unless someone can some up with a better source for the October date, I've altered the lede and the infobox to reflect what Mitcham gives. Thanks for the catch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold the phone! After a more diligent search, I found the October date in Siemens (on the first page of the body of the book!).  Since it is the better source, I've gone with it: 9 October 1907. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Short description
There is dispute between two editors regarding the short description.

Editor 1 prefers "Berlin leader of the Sturmabteilung (1907–1930)". This is not accurate, because Wessel was not the leader of the Berlin SA, his rank was the lowest commisioned officer,a "Storm Leader" or "Assault Leader".

Editor 1's other choice is "officer of the Nazi Party stormtroopers" which, of course, misses why Wessel is significant, which was because Goebbels made him into a Nazi martyr.

My choice is "A Nazi stormtrooper turned into a martyr after he was shot by [a] communist streetfighter in 1930" which covers who he was and why he is significant.

Editor 1 says on my talk page:

"Your idea of a short description doesn't match the Wikipedia MOS. Besides the fact that the s/d you insist on using is overly long, it begins with an article and includes excessive detail on the subject. Please familiarize yourself with s/d protocol and also please remember that edit warring is not acceptable on Wikipedia."

I believe that this complaint is pedantic and treats MOS as if it were policy and not a guideline. I removed the "A" at the beginning, but the rest is pretty much necessary to understand why Hort Wessel is in this encyclopedia when thousands of other stormtroopers of the same rank and above are not.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, or "Editor 2", seems to misunderstand the point of short descriptions. In my opinion, "Nazi stormtrooper turned into a martyr after he was shot by [a] communist streetfighter in 1930" is excessively long (it even contains a bracketed letter, for crying out loud!) for an s/d and should be shortened. The purpose of a short description is not to summarize the topic of the article but rather to distinguish it in a few words. Editor 2's s/d is more of a summary than a disambiguation. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The short description must include the reason the subject has an article. Wessel's here because Goebbels made him into a Nazi martyr.  If it's only short we're going for, I suggest "Human being". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, per the SD guideline, the purpose of the SD is to distinguish, not define the subject; there is no requirement that it include why the subject is significant. Most chemicals, for instance, have an SD that is just "Chemical".  Brevity is significant for an SD, as it's focused on mobile viewing use.  Here, something like "Murdered Sturmabteilung officer" would work.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  02:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Murdered SA officer turned Nazi martyr. Kierzek (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With no further suggestions or comments, I've updated per this last suggestion as evident consensus. Thanks, all.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  04:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to "Murdered stormtrooper made into a Nazi martyr." (1) The general reader has no idea that "SA officer" refers to Nazi Brownshirt stormtroopers. (2) If I'm, for instance, a "physicist turned poet", that's something that *I* did, so "turned "Nazi martyr" is inaccurate, since Wessel didn't make himself into a martyr. Goebbels made him into a martyr for the cause. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The change, BMK, is fine with me. Kierzek (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"Commonly known as"
Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel, commonly known as Horst Wessel. As in: $FIRST $MIDDLE $LAST, commonly known as $FIRST $LAST, the normal for of address for both German and English.

Commonly known as would be for, e.g. William Bradley Pitt, commonly known as Brad Pitt. There's no need to have "commonly known as" when it's the absolutely expected and standard form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.240.157 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Robby.is.on (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Wessel's skull thrown in the Spree?
UPI just ran a story about the grave of Reinhard Heydrich having recently been exhumed by persons unknown. The last sentence in the article states "In 2000, a group of extremists opened the grave of Nazi storm trooper Horst Wessel, removed the skull and threw it in the Spree River."("Grave of Nazi officer Reinhard Heydrich dug up") My curiosity being piqued, I came to this article to read more, only to find that such was not mentioned. Can anyone provide a source to confirm this, or refute it? Bricology (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not think the skull could have been Wessel's. I used to have in my possession an After the Battle military history magazine (British published, though has printed no issues since 2021) which carried an article on the death of Horst Wessel, his funeral and what became of his grave. The article stated that contrary to popular belief among those outside Germany, his remains were not politically removed by the post-Nazi regime but were, in the 1950s removed according to German burial custom whereby if a family deem not to have continued maintaining a grave, the grave site was reclaimed and the remains cremated. Unfortunately I do not now have the magazine, so could not bring its information into the article - but perhaps there might be someone who has access to the After the Battle files who may be able to find it. I read this article during the early 1990s, which was before the year the incident quoted arrived. His German wikipedia article makes no reference to the remains ever being removed however and describes an alleged disinterring of his skull in 2002 as only superficial digging which would make a skull unlikely to be found.Cloptonson (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)