Talk:Sturmabteilung/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wether historians support that the SS and SA were awash with socialist revolutionaries

This progression is confirmed by the patterns of stormtrooper membership and activity. The Utopians and those who speak of a Marxist republic have the highest membership in SA and SS (77.6 and 63%, respectively).

My argument is that Utopians were socialist revolutionnaries. This is evidenced in the text by multiple quotes :

It is indeed true that the Nazi leadership was stridently anti-Marxist and yet at the same time liked to invoke a "national" or "German socialism," just as it was anti-capitalistic (at least prior to 1935) and at the same time wooed German capitalists like Thyssen.

As I came to understand later, the officer corps was of the highest social classes. I often wondered how this feudalism would stand up if hard blows of fate were to hit the country. . . . I knew my own ability and saw what little others around me and above me could do. I felt how painful it was not to be allowed to become an officer no matter how fit and able. It hurt me to see the social chasm between these cavalry lieutenants and the infantry commission I later received on the battlefields of World War One. . . . The social conflicts and divisions, which impressed themselves so painfully on the mind of this young man who later became a high-ranking SS leader are fairly typical.

As for the prior youth group memberships, nearly half of the SS members and nearly one-third of the instant stormtroopers were with the Free Corps, vigilantes, or militant veterans' groups during their first 25 years of life. They also came in disproportionate numbers from left-wing youth groups such as the Socialist or Communist Youth or the Red Front (RFB).

As thus I argue for this new phrase :

Other historians contend that the SA and SS were awash with socialist revolutionaries, where "The utopians and those who speak of a Marxist republic have the highest membership in the SA and SS (77.6 and 63 percent respectively)".

I disagree with this interpretation, specifically the quotes you utilize to support your argument make no reference whatsoever to the designation of "utopian Nazi", and come from entirely different sections of the book.

It is indeed true that the Nazi leadership was stridently anti-Marxist and yet at the same time liked to invoke a "national" or "German socialism," just as it was anti-capitalistic (at least prior to 1935) and at the same time wooed German capitalists like Thyssen.

This quote is from page 96, Chapter 4 : Solidarity among classes. The designation is not used anywhere within this chapter.

As I came to understand later, the officer corps was of the highest social classes. I often wondered how this feudalism would stand up if hard blows of fate were to hit the country. . . . I knew my own ability and saw what little others around me and above me could do. I felt how painful it was not to be allowed to become an officer no matter how fit and able. It hurt me to see the social chasm between these cavalry lieutenants and the infantry commission I later received on the battlefields of World War One. . . . The social conflicts and divisions, which impressed themselves so painfully on the mind of this young man who later became a high-ranking SS leader are fairly typical.

This quote is from page 46, Part 1, about the Social Dynamics of the Nazi movement. The text continues as follows.

The social conflicts and divisions, which impressed themselves so painfully on the mind of this young man who later became a high-ranking SS leader are fairly typical. They are among the mechanisms separating people from both major social classes which are relevant to our examination of the social dynamics of the Nazi movement. Parents were split violently between religious devotion and anti-clericalism or between the prewar Social Democrats and a conservative party. Seething class consciousness and resentment of the snobbery of the upper classes often are part of the dynamic forces at work. Some of the respondents of the Abel collection even have a social split between their parents, as in the case of a proletarian father and a bourgeois mother. The son or daughter can neither accept his (her) working-class identity nor win acceptance among the bourgeoisie. In the rigidly stratified class society of the German empire, the Socialist bricklayer's son should have become a militant Socialist and trade unionist and have had no other ambitions. But for this his mother was too devout and he was too bright a student at school and in the Prussian military. His desire to emigrate, and his hopes for a military career, in themselves may have been an attempt to escape from the cross-pressures on his mind. It should also be noted how the motives of achievement and merit of a modern society clashed in his mind with the ascriptive nature of the bourgeois and aristocratic privileges that stood in his way.

The testimony is identified neither as utopian, nor as that of a socialist revolutionary.

As for the prior youth group memberships, nearly half of the SS members and nearly one-third of the instant stormtroopers were with the Free Corps, vigilantes, or militant veterans' groups during their first 25 years of life. They also came in disproportionate numbers from left-wing youth groups such as the Socialist or Communist Youth or the Red Front (RFB).

This quote is from page 586, the part titled "The Sacred Freedom Fighters". This sections makes no reference to the Utopian Nazi, but is informative because of a table on the next page.

This table shows that out 484 Nazi's interviewed, 37 had the SAJ, Red Front or SPD as their first youthful association. Of those, 24 joined the SA immediately, 1 joined later, and 4 of those graduated to the SS. While this is an above average rate of joining the SA, the limited number of SAJ/Red Front/SPD people within the Nazi party still ensures that they make up only a minority of the members, contradicting the statement that they were "awash with socialist revolutionaries".

Note however that these interpretations are not necessarily valid. Extrapolating the behavior of a group based on sample size of just 37 members means that the margin of error here is massive.

Back to the point, the original quote originates from an entirely different part of the book.

The Utopians and those who speak of a Marxist republic have the highest membership in SA and SS (77.6 and 63%, respectively).

This quote is from page 483, from part 2 ""Disaffection from "The System"

I think it is far more informative if we look at the definition of Utopian utilized within the confines of this section. At the start of the section, the author provides a table splitting up the Nazi's into 9 groups, based on their perception of the Weimar republic. 2 pairs of 2 groups are grouped together, indicated here by the '-'signs.

Perception of the Weimar Republic  : Number Percent

Marxist-(KPD, SPD) run system 45 9.4

"Liberalistic-Marxist" system 111 23.1

---Liberal system, capitalism, high finance, monopolies 14 2.9 ---'-Traditional objections (empire was better), economic disorder 25 5.2 i

---Republic run by "blacks and reds" 27 5.6 ---Utopian objections (looking forward to Third Reich) 22 4.6

Jewish-run republic, alien or un-German culture 144 30.1

Respondent dislikes multi-party system 89 18.5

Respondent likes Weimar (more or less) 3 0.6

(Table comes from 479, same chapter as the quote)

Not only is it noted that those with Utopian objections are a small minority at just 22 people (4.6% of those who answered the question), but the Utopian Nazi themselves are only defined as "looking forward to the Third Reich", with no indication that they're socialist revolutionaries.

In addition, the text repeatedly contrasts the Utopians with other categories including the anti-capitalists, which while not outright stating that the Utopians are not socialists revolutionaries, strongly implies that they are not.

By location of residence during the fighting years of 1928-1933, the antisemitic response comes mostly from Berlin, while the traditional, anti-capitalistic one is so strong in rural areas as to suggest that it is frequently based on the long-standing agricultural crisis. Many of the critics of the Parteienstaat also come from the countryside, where political or ideological diversity may well have been rare. The Utopian and antisemitic responses are as much as twothirds metropolitan. The anti-Marxist perceptions, by contrast, come heavily from small and medium-sized towns.

Quote comes from page 480

It is therefore my view that : A) The utopians are not socialists B) Even in the event that the Utopians are interpreted as socialists, their presence within the Nazi party is too small to substantiate the claim that the SA/SS is awash with socialist revolutionaries.

2A02:A03F:5EE6:F400:DD5A:8E67:116A:FE5 (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

The first quote prove that by wanting the third reich, they were wanting a revolutionnary socialist movement. The officer joined the nazis because of a perceived class challenge, which self evidently tie in the social struggle of the marxists, moreover that fact that it is common show that it was important for SS members.

Either way, I do agree that utopians were not enough to support the previous phrase. As such I propose this new one :

This is evidenced further by historians, "They[the SS and stormtroopers] also came in disproportionate numbers from left-wing youth groups such as the Socialist or Communist Youth or the Red Front (RFB)."

Which should be less controversial.

There remain a few problems.

This section would be placed after the following section in the article :

In his 1936 Hitler: A Biography, German historian Konrad Heiden remarked that within the SA ranks, there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' – brown outside and red within."[42] The influx of non-Nazis into the Sturmabteilung membership was so prevalent that SA men would joke that "In our storm troop there are three Nazis, but we shall soon have spewed them out."[42]

The number of 'beefsteaks' was estimated to be large in some cities, especially in northern Germany, where the influence of Gregor Strasser and Strasserism was significant.[43] The head of the Gestapo from 1933 to 1934, Rudolf Diels, reported that "70 percent" of the new SA recruits in the city of Berlin had been communists.[44]

Thus implying that among that the SS and Stormtroopers came primarily from left wing youth groups. But that is not the case. If we look at the table on the next page, we see that the SAJ, Red Front, SPD are among the smaller groups joining the SA. Of those who joined the SA immediately, 62 came from Free Corps, 37 came from the Hitler Jugend and other NS organisation, 34 had no organisation, 28 came from Jungo,DVP or DPP and 24 came from SAJ, Red Front, SPD .

What the book actually says is that those Nazi's who came from the SAJ, Red Front, SPD, joined the SA or SS dis-proportionally often. This statement can not be inverted to imply that the SA or SS was dis-proportionally SAJ,Red Front or SPD, as that would be a fallacy. Specifically, the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

There's also another issue, which is that the sample size of people interviewed is too small to meaningfully make these conclusions. While this concern is not noted with the book, it's worthy to mention. You can not draw a conclusion on the entire SA based on the testimony of just 37 people. Your error margins on such a poll would be in the range of 15-20%/

2A02:A03F:5EE6:F400:D0E3:408B:A059:E66 (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not how statistics work. The total sample size is 484, not 37. The error margin depend of the 484, not the 37 (well it depend of the 37 too because of the standard deviation but you get my point).

How about this instead :

This is evidenced further by historians, "As for the prior youth group memberships, nearly half of the SS members and nearly one-third of the instant stormtroopers were with the Free Corps, vigilantes, or militant veterans' groups during their first 25 years of life. They also came in disproportionate numbers from left-wing youth groups such as the Socialist or Communist Youth or the Red Front (RFB)."

This way it should be clear that they were not a majority.

Or we can simply use the numbers disponible in the book which would be the following :

This is evidence further by historians, 4 out of 39 SS and 24 out of 213 SA who joined immediatly, came from left-wing youth groups

I would prefer the first phrase because it's clearer and I prefer to cite direct sources when possible, but whatever.

References

Article image layout

The consensus is that it is fine to keep the image on the left.

The consensus is that the horizontal pictures should be enlarged by using the upright= parameter.

Cunard (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Beyond My Ken:. You seem to have misread WP:BRD. After you revert, you start the discussion. I didn't see one so please explain why MOS:IMAGELOC should be ignored here. Yes, I get that you're an admin, but WTF? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, actually. The article was in the status quo state, and you made a BOLD edit to change it -- that's B. I reverted your edit, that's R. And now you start a discussion (D) to allow the community decide if your non-consensus, non-status quo version should be the new consensus. I don't have to defend the status quo until you make an argument in favor of your new version. That's the way it works, and the way it's always worked. Please read WP:BRD again, and take a look at WP:STATUSQUO as well.

I look forward to reading your argument - which, BTW, should consist of something more than simply citing a non-mandatory guideline; an argument about how your layout improves the article would be best -- and I will rebut it at that time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see until now your comment that I am an admin. To be absolutely clear: I am not an admin. I have never been an admin, and I never will be an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, actually, either party can discuss. And knowing that you're a tendentious editor difficult and pedantic editor, I probably should have opened a discussion. You, could have opened the discussion, but fine, I did.

There has to be a good reason not to follow MOS:ACCESS in sizing and MOS:IMAGELOC. Feel free to provide it. That's the guideline. I do not need to provide one for following it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It's hardly a good idea to start off a discussion with a violation of WP:NPA. I request that you strike out "tendentious editor", Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

And after you do that, please answer the question: How does your edit improve the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I started the discussion by pinging you and asking you to explain why IMAGELOC should be ignored. I continued the discussion by recognizing that you are a "tendentious editor", but sure, I'll strike it. ¿Avoiding answering?

IMAGELOC is its own reason. Answer my question Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

So, I'll ask again: In what way is the article improved by your edit? You've answered a different question, how it conforms to the non-mandatory editign guideline IMAGELOC, but that's not the issue. Our purpose here is to service our readers as best we can. How does your change in the lamage layout help our readers? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's start with the basics, and pardon me if I'm speaking down to you, but it seems as though you just don't understand the issues here. Wikipedia:Manual of Style are not guidelines are more than just guidelines, they are "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. The MoS also reiterates this: Most images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement. If an exception to the general rule is warranted, . This is why I've asked you with each edit why it's been ignored. You steadfastly refuse to answer. I'll assume that's because there's absolutely no reason for it.

As for sizing, we do not need large images, we need prose. WP:IMAGESIZE (a policy, not a MoS or guideline) says nothing about enfocing a large image, but that's a personal preference. However, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states that images should be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. What do the images here add to the understanding? I tpyed with the idea of moving them to a gallery, but thought that making them relatively smaller than an average upright image would help reduce their prominence.

As for why IMAGELOC, in layout, whether for print or online, there are several factors in determining whether an image is placed on the right or left edge of a page. The first is where the focus of he image is leading the reader's eyes. In the case of File:Hitler 1928 crop.jpg, the motion is to the left, in fact, it's up and to the left. That means when a reader looks at the image, they eye will be drawn to the left side of the image. If that is away from the prose, that detracts from the purpose of the article. If it's on the right, the reader's eye is drawn back into the prose and they may continue reading. File:Bundesarchiv B 145 Bild-P049500, Berlin, Aufmarsch der SA in Spandau.jpg might be better placed on the left edge for that reason, if it were not for the boy in the foreground staring straight into the caper, the motion is almost entirely to the right there.

The second issue is that with a left-to-right text reading style, a reader's eye wants to return to the left edge of the page when reading. If there is an image on the left edge, that interfers with normal reading patters. That is why right is the preferred location for images unless there is a reason to place it on the left. Finally, we want to avoid sandwhiching, but that's not a problem here.

Then you reverted all of the forced over-sizing of the images. Why do they images need to be intentionally large?

So overall, the images had problems. Why should we accept the problems? All of the problems do not benifit the reader, they detract from the prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I stopped reading after your second sentence. "Wikipedia:Manual of Style are not guidelines,", you wrote. Here is what the Manual of Style says at the top of every single one of its pages:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. (emphasis added)

Please note the expression "This guideline".

When I have some time, and I've recovered from your egregious category error, I'll answer your other remarks, and then outline why the current layout is vastly superior to yours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, please strike out "tendentious editor" so I don't have to report you to an admin for sanctioning. I'll check when I come back to continue my remarks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I see you've done that. Thank you. More later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Image placement

Should the pictures in the article follow MOS:IMAGELOC and avoid the left edge of the page? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Occasional left justified images are perfectly fine.(Summoned by bot) There are millions of articles that do it on this project and whatever the recommended guidance at MoS (which is getting increasingly WP:CREEPy in some respects), it is clear that the larger editorial community more or less completely understands that there are occasions when left justification is, for any of a hundred possible formatting reasons, perfectly reasonable. Myself, since I'm pushed to make a call here by the existence of the RfC, I would say that in articles on non-technical issues, it is actually more in keeping with encyclopedic formatting alternate the justification significantly.

All that said, this also strikes me as something that very clearly falls under the auspices of WP:STYLEVAR: where the differing approaches have such little bearing on the over-all reliability and usability of the article, one party should be willing to give way, but when that doesn't occur, parties should default to the older stable approach so as to avoid needless consumption of community time and adjudication on such a minor point. I don't know who that is in this instance, but I urge them to recalibrate their sense of what editorial disagreements are worth taking to the mat, and which should be let go of.

That second point is especially salient here because I must note that this is not the first time recently that I've received an RfC notice from someone trying to force this issue one way or the other. Now, I can't recall the parties from the previous discussions well enough to know that they are the same as those here--and for that matter, and far be it for me to discourage people from using the RfC process to civilly break obvious deadlocks, but I would caution the parties here to be careful of not turning this into another infobox wars situation--that is to say, another roving pitched battle over a trivial detail of formatting which causes disruption that is far out of proportion to the benefit conferred by either approach to the editorial issue. The community has increasingly developed short tolerance for situations where the same parties are found litigating the same small point across every article where they run into eachother, and it has come to sanctions in the past. Again, not wanting to crawl through edit histories to sort the matter out, I can't say that this is what is going on here, but I think it's worth keeping things in perspective: even as an advocate for RfC being used liberally before disagreements spiral out of control and needlessly imflamed, I think there's a limit on which issues require broad community involvement, and I'm not sure a debate about MOS:IMAGELOC as it applies to one or two images really qualifies as an optimal use of volunteer time. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

• Keep image on left. On my desktop screen, the layout looks much better with that particular image on the left in that particular place. I firmly believe in alternating or shifting images to the left if it avoids a boring "page." There would be no reason for moving it other than personal preference, I suppose. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • By the way, "avoid" means "avoid." It doesn't mean "never do it." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
• Sent here by the bot. The MOS says multiple images can be alternated left and right. It is quite acceptable to have some images on the left, I've done it in dozens of FAs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Image sizing

Should the horizontal pictures be enlarged by using the upright= parameter? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) Candidate for wp:Lamest edit wars. DonFB (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes that is the default nowadays and is the best way to scale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
• Yes – that's the recommended practice. Mathglot (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Doh, two typos. First corrected. The second should have been as opposed to left at standard size. Never mind ignorance of layout wins again. Unwatching. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reads too much like a story

Apologies to the fact I might be formatting this wrong.

The section of "Night of the Long Knives" reads more like a paragraph to a story rather than a part of an article speaking of the events as neutral as possible. A specific example would be "But Hitler had his own reasons for wanting Röhm removed" which feels like unnecessary fluff. Not sure what else to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.182.146 (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2020

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Sturmabteilung → Stormtroopers (Nazism) – WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH—see below. buidhe 12:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Per USEENGLISH: "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works, scholarly journals, and major news sources)."

Most English language books on this topic use "Stormtroopers":

• Fischer, Conan (2014). Stormtroopers (RLE Nazi Germany & Holocaust): A Social, Economic and Ideological Analysis 1929-35. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-63844-5.
• Grant, Thomas D. (2004). Stormtroopers and Crisis in the Nazi Movement: Activism, Ideology and Dissolution. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-64501-5.
• Mitchell, Otis C. (2013). Hitler's Stormtroopers and the Attack on the German Republic, 1919-1933. McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-7729-6.
• Siemens, Daniel (2017). Stormtroopers: A New History of Hitler's Brownshirts. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-23125-0.
• Wackerfuss, Andrew (2015). Stormtrooper Families: Homosexuality and Community in the Early Nazi Movement. New York: Harrington Park Press. ISBN 978-1-939594-06-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Lepage, Jean-Denis (2016). Hitler's Stormtroopers: The SA, The Nazis’ Brownshirts, 1922–1945. Frontline Books. ISBN 978-1-84832-427-5.

Another major source uses "SA" (throughout, not just the title):

• Campbell, Bruce (2014). The SA Generals and the Rise of Nazism. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-4911-0.

I am not able to find any English language books from reliable sources using "Sturmabteilung" in the title.

When I search "Sturmabteilung", many of the results are German-language sources about the Nazi SA: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] or are about unrelated units: [6] [7] So the current name is also failing to be WP:PRECISE. buidhe 12:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - that is the proper name of the organization and "stormtroopers" is more a slang term that is also used commonly for other troops, such as Stormtroopers (Imperial Germany), the specialized shock troops of World War I and even in fiction for Star Wars Imperial troops, for example. One could argue for "Brownshirts", as well under your reasoning, but it also is more of a slang term and even more vague. No reason to move. I checked and 894,000 results for Sturmabteilung in total, not all books, but many are English. Adding the initials SA, could be considered. Kierzek (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  When it's used by Yale University Press as the title of a book, I think it is no longer a slang term. Anyway your figure for Google hits is misleading, if you skip to the end of results it only gets to "Page 16 of about 154 results". buidhe 12:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Well, "Nazi" is also a slang term for "National Socialist". Rreagan007 (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Sturmabteilung" is the established name. Also, if it's going to be moved, "Stormtroopers (Nazi Germany)" would be a better target. JIP | Talk 14:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  No, it wouldn't, because the SA existed before Nazi Germany (which covers the period 1933–1945). buidhe 14:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Then why are you proposing to move it to Stormtroopers (Nazism)? Was there Nazism before Nazi Germany? JIP | Talk 15:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, the Nazi Party existed much earlier. buidhe 00:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

• Isn't this group usually called Brownshirts or SA? Stormtroopers are the elite WWI trench warfare unit. To call this group the same thing is misleading given that the German name is different. Allan Rice (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• See the archives for discussion and RM regarding "Brownshirts". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - There are other titles I prefer (i.e.. "Brownshirts" or "SA"), but the proposed title is not one of them it's ambiguous, for one thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is no reason to change the name of the article from Sturmabteilung to Stormtroopers. There should be page directs for Wiki-searches that use either "Brownshirts" or "Stormtroopers" to indicate this article as a potential target, however. Most people searching for "Stormtroopers" are looking for Star Wars characters. If one Googles "Stormtroopers" that fact reveals itself immediately, so it is silly to think a Wiki-search should be constructed differently. Moreover, there have been other "stormtroopers" throughout German military history, so this presents a potential conundrum better avoided.--Obenritter (talk) 03:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:USEENGLISH. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - USEENGLISH unless doing so would cause confusion with other topics that share the same English name, as is the case here (e.g., WWI, Star Wars), in which case we should use some other naturally-disambiguated common name, like "Sturmabteilung". The natural dab is better than the parenthetical dab. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A foreign language term unknown to most English speakers would cause even more confusion and thus is not preferable to a parenthetical disambiguation. Rreagan007 (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, most English-speakers who know anything about them will know them as the Sturmbteilung or SA, and those who don't probably won't really be aware of them in the first place. WP:UE does not mandate that we translate absolutely everything into English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per the intent behind WP:PRECISE. The common name suggested is too common in this case, as it is applied to many different and similar subjects, needlessly causing confusion. I might support renaming to SA, however. And, BTW, abteilung means "detachment", not "troopers", so the suggested name is misleading. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 02:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Individual members may often be referred to as stormtroopers, but the organisation is mostly referred to as the Sturmabteilung (or SA, but that's far too ambiguous and the full title is better natural disambiguation). -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SA in the concentration camps

These images may be of interest. buidhe 14:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ghost Ship

https://www.bremerhaven.de/en/tourism/architecture-monuments/memorial-ghost-ship.21475.html https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gespensterschiff_(Bremerhaven) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B00:4776:61FA:88DB:D0B5:F3DC (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Reversion of proper formatting?

@Beyond My Ken: What is your reasoning for reverting my formatting changes to bring the article in compliance with the MOS? And I didn't like them isn't an acceptable reason.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)