Talk:Sturmabteilung

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

I'm trying to find information on a Dr Oskar Heymann who was an early member of the SA and also on a Dipl.hort. Max Muller of Schweizarei Seehof Bamberg. I recently received documents on both these individuals and am trying to find anything on them. Thanks for any help you may give.

Gary Nichols----gnic231432@earthlink.net

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.41.35.52 (talkcontribs) 19:32, 7 October 2002 (UTC)

Date conflict?[edit]

The list of leaders states that Emil Maurice was the leader of the Sturmabteilung from 1920 to 1921. But the text says that the group was formed by Hitler in 1921. Is this correct? If so, it should be addressed in the text somehow. Tablesaw 19:33, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

The page on [[Ernst_R%F6hm]] states "At the end of the war, Roehm founded the "Freikorps", a right-wing militia, in Munich. In 1920, he became an Nazi-party member and the Freikorps became Hitler's Brownshirts - the Sturmabteilung (SA)." The information on this page appears to be incorrect. Refer [1]. - porge 06:56, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stormtroopers not just Sturmabteilung[edit]

There is something wrong with the links. I followed link to stormtroopers from trench warfare, and i don't want to know about SA, but about German tactics to break defenses in WWI ...Szopen 09:59, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I am not sure about the common english translation of "Sturmabteilung" and "Sturmtruppen", since I am not a native speaker. But I know for sure, that in german these two words have distinct meanings. The first is described in the article, the second is a form of infantry (a real military unit, not paramiliary). So I think the redirect from Stormtropper to Sturmabteilung is wrong.

I've made Stormtrooper a disambiguation page. We now need an article – or a link to an existing article – on Strumtruppen and/or stormtroops in general. Hajor 22:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know German, but I do know that the differences between the Storm-troopers of the Germany army (in both World Wars) and the Storm-troopers of the Nazi party are two different organizations/concepts, and so should have two different pages. They could reference each other, but there is reason (that I see) to combine them.

The real trouble is that the English translation "Storm-trooper" or "Stormtrooper" is a total misnomer. "Sturmabteilung" should never have been translated that way in first place. The word "Abteilung" in military usage is translated as "detachment" or "detail". So, "storm detachment" would have been much nearer the mark. But, I guess, "trooper" sounds so much tougher, and so much closer to what the average German is imagined to be like. "Abteilung" is a much more neutral term than is thought, every private commercial company or firm has various "Abteilungen", or "departments", "sections", or "divisions".
So, I am afraid, we as English-speakers have got ourselves into a bit of of a
blind alley, out of which we are unable to escape, unless we totally re-translate the word "Sturmabteilung" radically. Dieter Simon 00:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Strumatbielung and Stoormtrooper should not be merged - SA in English is used almost exclusively to refer to the the Nazi organisation, not to Stormtroopers in genreal. Sturmtruppen can be kept for this, at least in English Wikipedia, the German Wikipedia can follow the correct German practice. Phil alias Harry 02:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
WW1 shock troopers were referred to as "Stoßtruppen", not "Sturmtruppen" anyway, which is why I prefer to refer to them as "'Shock' troopers", though "storm", "assault", "blitz" and "shock attack" are all sort of synonymous so naturally these can all be prefixes to "troop(er)". D Boland (talk) 08:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation[edit]

Just a minor thing, really. I pronounce it as Stur-mab-tay-lung. I usually can't pronounce new words properly until I've heard them, so its probably incorrect.

Remembering my German rules of pronunciation, it should be sturm-ab-tie-lung. --oknazevad 04:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The first one is correct. Andreas 09:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Andreas: sturm-ab-tie-lung like "mile" or "tile", not "fail" or "sail", to put it in other words. Dieter Simon 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Äh, well: the pronunciation of the ogg file sounds strange to me: I can't hear the N in the "ng" sound. Is it just me?--217.227.44.104 14:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The above spellings are reasonable, but don't forget that, in German, ST at the beginning of a word is pronounced "SHT". I also corrected the mistranslation of 'abteilung' from 'division' to 'detachment' -- it was used in the German armed forces as 'battalion' during WW2. CsikosLo (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm german and it's Sturmstaffel and Sturmabteil!! With this kind of questions you could look at the german Wikipedia!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.146.105.54 (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Blackshirts[edit]

So what were blackshirts? The SS or an Italian Fascist militia? This article makes both claims. The blackshirts article claims the latter. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:24, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) Never mind. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 21:25, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Following the Night of the Long Knives[edit]

What happened to the SA after the Night of the Long Knives and during World War II ? What did all it's members do, and what was it's organizational role? Who joined it?

  • The article doesn't really say too much. - Matthew238 23:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What would you want added, what is missing, Matthew238? Dieter Simon 01:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm also interested in this. Following the night of the long knives did most rank and file SA members leave the organisation? Or did they still maintain a huge membership? I know that the SS became much more important after the night of the long knives but the SA hardly ever get a mention after this event. It would be great if someone could expand on what they did during the war, membership numbers etc. If indeed anyone knows these details. --Wikipediatastic 15:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Me three. I mean, what did these hundreds of thousands of guys do after the Night of the Long Knives? Join the SS or the Army, or were they generally middle-aged by the time the war broke out? I think if nothing else it would shed some light onto the sociology of National Socialism, and discrepancies between stereotyped images of street-brawling thugs and aristocratic SS officers (which often get conflated into a generalized stereotype of "Nazis"). Also I think it would clarify why some people like to defend the socialistic origins of Hitler's movement, and how that argument has a certain amount of validity.Historian932 (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    • see Night_of_the_Long_Knives entry for a pretty good description of the aftermath, including the change in number of members. Although I don't remember where I read it: 1) there were wide sweeping arrests and detention of SA members. Some were executed and some released. 2) The SA stopped being a significant organization, because its powers had been removed and any remaining members feared for their lives.

I would like to know the song of the SA that my cousin liked to sing, even though he hated them. Saltysailor (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Brownshirts[edit]

I think this article should be moved to brownshirts as that is how they are usually described in English. Also the term stormtrooper should be dropped as that word has a specific meaning in English (see the article on stormtrooper) --Philip Baird Shearer 01:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Google:

  • about 31,400 English pages for brownshirts SA -wikipedia
  • about 28,900 English pages for brownshirts SA -Sturmabteilung -wikipedia
  • about 16,000 English pages for Sturmabteilung SA -wikipedia
  • about 13,400 English pages for -brownshirts SA Sturmabteilung -wikipedia

So there are about 3,000 articles with both words in them and brownshirts is about twice as common as Sturmabteilung --Philip Baird Shearer 01:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Brownshirts is a "nickname" for the SA given by English sources. It also can refers to any member of the Nazi Party. I totally oppose such a move. Also, even without checking, I am sure that violates several portions of the Wikipedia naming conventions. -Husnock 03:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I would also oppose such a move. The correct name is Sturmabteilung, and the nickname (both in English and German) was brownshirts (Braunhemden). Andreas 09:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per Husnock - redirects are all that are needed. Ck lostsword|queta! 16:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, too, "brownshirts" was a nickname. Dieter Simon 01:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Röhm a Homosexual?[edit]

While reading the article, I had stumbled upon this in the History section: :"Röhm was unpopular in the party because others saw his ambition as threatening their own, and because he was a homosexual." Although I was slightly amused by the "and because he was a homosexual" statement, unless there is a verifiable source for this, it should be removed. 68.106.55.187 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC) Ahh, I guess I'm wrong. :) -- 68.106.55.187 06:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"After Hitler had spoken for some time the meeting erupted into a free-for-all in which a small company of Ordnertruppen distinguished itself by thrashing the opposition" does that mean thrashing as in beating up or thrashing as in throughly out-arguing?

Fighting is the best read, Nazis don't have terribly good reason or a reasonable platform. 2605:A601:566:1900:3953:69B9:8943:1961 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

difference between this and Stormtroopers[edit]

According to the article, Sturmabteilung gets frequently translated as stormtroopers. Is there a legitimate difference between the two, as the stormtrooper article seems to be about World War I, and does this merit a {{Distinguish}} ("not to be confused with...") tag on each page or maybe even a merge if these are, in fact, similar things? Valley2city 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Sturmabteilung#Stormtroopers_not_just_Sturmabteilung Rchan89 01:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Excusing Hitler[edit]

I've been intently working on the article Night of the Long Knives, and some of its ancillary articles. As I initially found them, these articles seemed to share a common myth: that Hitler was hoodwinked by others in the party, including Göring, Himmler, and Heydrich, into believing that Röhm was planning a putsch against him, and that Hitler only very reluctantly ordered Röhm's arrest and death.

This is most emphatically not the case. Hitler was an shrewd political operator. He gained control of the movement, kept control of it during his time in prison, and used it to seize absolute power in Germany by remorselessly calculating the usefulness of his subordinates, and had no compunction about eliminating them if they had become a hindrance to him.

This is precisely what he did in ordering the purge that became known as the Night of the Long Knives. Röhm and the SA were very useful to Hitler during the years of his ascent because they could be counted on to terrorize political opponents. Because of that, Hitler tolerated the notorious reputation of the SA and its leadership for drinking and brawling. He also therefore tolerated Röhm's homosexuality.

One Hitler had seized power, however, there was no longer a need for a private militia that could smash up political meetings. He now had the full apparatus of the modern state, including the police forces, jails, and concentration camps to take care of that.

Röhm and the SA had outlived their usefulness to Hitler. That alone might not have resulted in a purge. However, Röhm's politics and especially his insistence that the SA supplant the Reichswehr was direct threat to the traditional army, including Hindenburg. By 1934, Blomberg, Hindenburg, and the rest of the army leadership made it clear to Hitler that if Röhm and the SA were not immediately brought to heel, they would declare martial law.

Once Hitler knew he had to act, he did so relentlessly. Hitler ordered Himmler and the rest to fabricate evidence implicating that Röhm was involved in a plot, so that he could later show this "evidence" to a grateful nation. It is very similar to Hitler's modus operandi when he fabricated evidence of a Polish raid on Germany, in order to create a pretext for the invasion of Poland.

Every serious history of the era, by reputable historians, agree on this: Hitler wanted Röhm eliminated because he was a threat to the army and, to a lesser extent, the Nazi's principle supporters among the wealthy and the middle classes. Hitler did not reluctantly order the purge because other Nazis had fooled him. Let's get our facts straight. --Mcattell 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


No mention of homosexuality?[edit]

Perhaps there should be mention of the large role homosexuality played in the SA, especially as it pertained to the leaders and the Night of the Long Knives?

I agree, I think this is an important point as it very much changed the course of the SAMantion 22:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WE can't do that "every one knows" gays are only progressive lefty liberals they can't be hardened criminal psychopathic thugs, it would ruin their nails, after all this is 2007 and we are so clever, 3. that would at once ruin the dogma of stereotypes presented by the left and right, gay and anti-gay, tolerant and intolerant factions of western politics (G8 nations) in their delusional crock of dung.--Xaoskeller (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Power Shift[edit]

In the section of the article devoted to Conflicts with other Organizations, the tone suggests that Hitler achieved his early positions in government through less than democratic means. In one case the wording is that Hitler "took power," and another has him "seizing" power. This is somewhat misleading, since unlike many dictators, Hitler was elected, and was in fact the head of a political party. The elections in question would hardly have met the criteria for fairness or legitimacy, but one of the noteworthy (and frightening) aspects of Nazism is that the German voters were all too willing to elect Hitler. He didn't have to park tanks in front of the government offices and announce that he was in charge (and he didn't have tanks or a military that could have staged such a coup anyway). Again, there's no question that many if not most Germans quickly realized that the election was dubious and that Hitler had no intention of maintaining any semblance of representative democracy. But in the beginning at least, it's not entirely correct to suggest that there was a seizure of power. C d h 12:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Not clear about what the SA did[edit]

Im was hoping to use this article to help me with some school work, but whilst reading it, it hardly helped me with what the SA actually did. I ended up going to my libary for the first time ever! Just thought people might want to know, seeing as mine is a first hand opinion with only a little information about the SA.--82.9.116.89 17:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to my mind in connection with the Brownshirts was Kristallnacht in 1938, which isn't mentioned at all in this article (though the Kristallnacht article mentions them prominently). The way this article is worded, it sounds like the Brownshirts didn't much matter by that time. All in all, it seems quite a soft touch. I actually believe that the worst damage caused by the Brownshirts was their intimidation of political opponents in the early period, when the Nazis had a plurality but before they restructured the political system to consolidate their power. Shanen (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Besides some other needed ce work, I also added, through copy edit, a section as to Kristallnacht. It is a good example of their infamous work, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 02:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the dilemma seems to result from an internal conflict within Germany. I know, my father´s father was SA, my father´s older brother was SS. I myself, if I´d been able to invent a time machine ( which Jewish religion attests myself to hold the destiny monopoly for ) might have compelled myself to tell them: Don´t support the holocaust. There are so and so billions of people in the world, an before I actually invent the machine in 2004,

they´ll consider your crazy and irrational conspiracy theorists, so whatever you do will cause the world to develop against your your own convictions due to your obvious inability to defend them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.35.51.152 (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Grp181t.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Grp181t.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment moved from unnecessary subpage[edit]

hm, yes well, I'm studying the SA and Weimar democracy and this article fails to make nay mention of the banning of the SA between 1928 and 1930 by Chancellor Heinrich Bruning, its just that several GCSE textbooks claim that happened, and lets face it-they probably know best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.25.223 (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2008‎ (UTC)

Conflicts with other organizations[edit]

"The SA were more radical than the SS, with its leaders arguing the Nazi revolution had not ended when Hitler achieved power, but rather needed to implement socialism in Germany. Despite its sympathy for its own brand of socialism, the SA would often pick street fights with Communists and Social Democrats."

Incoherent. National socialism is a form of socialism. The SA might have had a different practical application of socialism than the rest of the NSDAP, this point isn't touched upon, but to insinuate that the SA was targeted due to it being socialist is nonsensical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.149.167 (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2008‎ (UTC)

Existing vandalism in this article[edit]

Regretfully I tried to revert vandalism by two different anons, some parts without realizing that there were two different IPs(?) involved, one of which misreverted the other. Vandalisms refer to the use of terms Fuzzy Kittens and FK which changed different original words. I have no time left at the moment but article needs to be compared with what was originally there. I will come back to this as soon poss. to rectify this. Dieter Simon (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Have now reverted the rest of the vandalism. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Category:Nazi organizations vs. Category:Nazi SA[edit]

Category:Nazi SA is itself a category within Category:Nazi organizations. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

British or American spelling in articles with neither British or American subjects[edit]

Should an article be changed to American spelling if it does not concern a British subject? No, not according to the guidelines laid down in Wikipedia: Manual of Style, quote:

Retaining the existing variety
Shortcut: WP:RETAIN
"If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor."

This article was started with British spelling and has no reference to an American subject, so there really is no reason to change it to American spelling. Have changed it back to its original spelling. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

SA?[edit]

Hi. Correct me if i am wrong but isnt it SS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.26.60 (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

SS? Why so? (S)turm(A)bteilung. As per first sentence in article. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Looking for SS? -- Thinking of England (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
As Dieter Simon points out, it would not be SS. This article is about the SA which was the early "parent" (Nazi Party) organization the SS was under until right after the "Night of the Long Knives" of June 1934; then the SS received the "reward" of independence.Kierzek (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Correct me if i am wrong but isnt it SS" The comment shows the writer doesn't understand the subject and did not read the article - give me strength! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.116.241 (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not surprised, so many people want to be "spoon fed" these days; not to mention the horrible spelling and grammar used, nor lack there of, in writing. Kierzek (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Members, not employees[edit]

Men joined the SA organization as members and that is what the definition should be; the member was then given a membership number. It was not like there was a job opening and one goes in for a postion and then is hired. Many SA positions or work was voluntary in the early years. Sir Ian Kershaw, in his book "Hitler" for example, refers to them as members. Kierzek (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC) Footnote-I had to add back in the word "employees" to the info. box for it to read & show it (the way the box was set up); I did add the word "members" to the section as that is more correct. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dr Michael Siegel photos[edit]

First, the photos show the man being led on a "walk of shame" by SS men, not SA men. So the proper place for a photo on same would be the SS article or the Orpo article as they were "auxiliary policemen", at the time. Second, I assume the original post war description is being used by the many adjectives thrown in there. It would be more accurate to say in brief: This photo from March 1933 shows Jewish lawyer Dr Michael Siegel being marched "in shame" across the Stachus square in Munich by SS men, who functioned as auxiliary police at the time. Also, one photo would convey the point of what the poor man was going through at the time. Therefore, for the reasons above, I will rv the good faith edits at this time. Kierzek (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of word "maxims"[edit]

Seems kind of insensitive considering it's a Hebrew word and still holds identity as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.5.79.64 (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm? It is from the Latin "maxima propositio". 137.53.241.1 (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


"thrashed" is just oh so jolly isn't it ?[edit]

The term "thrashed" seems either archaic usage, and/or inaccurate. It could mean anything, form beating them in a verbal confrontation. to almost killing them. Which is it? Please be more specific. I believe what you are trying to say is that the brown shirts violently attacked and physically injured their opposition. Please be clear what you mean. "After Hitler had spoken for some time the meeting erupted into a melee in which a small company of SA thrashed the opposition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.50.134 (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Homosexuality[edit]

I've found some sources claiming that the brownshirts were a majority gay organization. This obviously is a difficult topic to broach and I feel it should be prefaced by noting that gays were also and ultimately victims of the holocaust, and by pointing out things like the fact that Hitler passed a law that homosexual fraternization was a death penalty offense for SS and police men (law passed in 1941, see page 265 of Dagmar Herzog's "Sexuality and German fascism" ISBN 9781571815514) and things like the existence of the 1936 Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion which was responsible for tracking homosexuals in Germany.

That said, and the importance of such prefaces conceded, I would like any interested parties to find scholarly or at least published sources/evidence for these claims, so we can discuss how to include them on the page. So far I've found The Pink Swastika (written by gay historian Richard Plant makes such claims, as well as some articles by Rabbi Dr. Jack Nusan Porter. More sources and proof of these claims of wide spread homosexuality amongst the Brown Shirts would be appreciated (the more scholarly the better). Feel free to place them in the below section of this talk page. -Jobrot (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The senior leadership certainly was. The rank and file who joined simply because they were unemployed and wanted to fight in the streets, not so much. -OberRanks (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Some of this topic is mentioned and cited in the Ernst Röhm article; so some of the info. can be copy edited over from there to herein. Kierzek (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Move Revert[edit]

I reverted the move to "Brownshirts" as this is not an academic term and is not in fact used commonly in academic sources. Something like that also needs to be discussed with consensus. Right now, there is none. -OberRanks (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with OberRanks; "Brownshirts" was a slang term and there is no consensus for the move and it was not discussed at all. Kierzek (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:COMMONNAME, there is no other common name in English for this organization. BMK (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Storm Detachment, Stormtroopers, Shock Troopers, to name but a few. Brownshirt is actually hardly used at all in academic sources. In fact, most serious works on Nazi Germany and the SA tend to avoid that particular name. -OberRanks (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Brownshirts is NOT the academic common name; Stormtroopers (SA) or Storm Detachment (SA) would be more appropriate. Kierzek (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not an academic encyclopedia, it's a popular one, and WP:COMMONNAME is the controlling policy, not academic usage. Our articles should, whenever possible, use English-language titles. (And, yes, I've read several shelves worth of reliable sources, so you can drop that, please.) I believe that "Brownshirts" is the most recognizable English-language name, which is why I made the WP:BOLD move, but I would agree to "Stormtroopers (Nazi Germany)". The disambiguator is necessary to differentiate them from the original "stormtroopers" used by the Reichswehr in World War I, and I don't think "SA" is sufficiently well known to our general (non-specialist, not academic) readers. BMK (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've struck out a response to a comment you edited out post facto, while I was responding. BMK (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I know I originally suggested this one, "Stormtroopers (Nazi Germany)" but then edited it out post facto as I thought about the fact that the SA was formed and started back in 1920 and as you know, the Nazis did not come to national power until January 1933; I do agree they need to be distinguished from the original First World War German "stormtroopers" units used by the Imperial German Army (Deutsches Heer). They were only a party organization so how about "Stormtroopers (Nazi Party)"? Kierzek (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
How about "Stormtroopers (Nazi Party)"? BMK (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I think by the above, we two agree, at least. Kierzek (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Let's see if we get any other comments, pro or con, about "Stormtroopers (Nazi Party)". BMK (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Kierzek (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

History of Issue[edit]

This is an issue which has been raised on several articles over the past twelve years and it has always caused problems and debate between the two opinions of translating all German names or allowing Nazi titles and organizations to stay in their original form. Without listing all the points made over the past decade, the key item here is that Nazi Party paramilitary groups and titles occupy a very unique place in Wikipedia since in 90% of the time, English texts refer to these groups by their original German name. This is why we say "Untersturmführer Schiller" instead of "Junior Storm Leader Schiller" or "Gauleiter Krutz" instead of "Region Leader Krutz". It is also why other Nazi articles have remained in their original form such as Einsatzgruppen, Sicherheitsdienst, SS-Totenkopfverbände, etc etc. The point is not to discredit the opinion that we should translate German names, only that in the case of Nazi articles it generally causes more harm than good. For instance, the moment one article is changed to the English equivalent, then we have the problems with changing all SD articles to "Security Service", all early armed SS articles to "Political Disposition Troops", the SS-Hauptamt article becomes "SS Main Office". The list goes on and on. So, to summarize with two points: 1) In most cases its best to leave these alone and that's exactly what I think should happen here 2) This is a major discussion going back 12 years, probably more. It needs to be decided by editors on noticeboards and receive the attention it deserves. I don't think the three of us should come to any decision by ourselves (not that this has even been suggested, but this needs to be discussed a great deal more). -OberRanks (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE BMK (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 June 2015[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN BY NOM BMK (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)



Original request - 2015 June 5[edit]

See section #Revamped format below
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.

SturmabteilungStormtrooper (Nazi Party) – Per WP:COMMONNAME, our articles should be located at a common English-language name for the subject, if one is available, rather than at a foreign-language name. In addition, the current name of this article is not widely known to the general public, who are our audience, so this move is suggested. BMK (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as nom, per the discussion in the thread above this. BMK (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Since you are the nominator, there is really no need to vote twice. -OberRanks (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
      • "Support as nom" makes it quite clear who I am, it's a standard formulation for these discussions. BMK (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly for the reasons outlined in this thread. Also this is the proper name of a Nazi Party paramilitary organization and is cited as such in thousands of sources. Google alone has over three hundred thousand hits [2]. My main worry here is this will start a snowball-forest fire with the translation of Nazi Party organizational titles, in particular that the same argument here could be applied to so many others. Best to just leave this alone. -OberRanks (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. With that said, I do agree with OberRanks in the majority of what he has written above herein and in the "History of Issue" section on this page. As this article is for common English language readers, who we write for, I have to agree as to this one that the proposed title change is acceptable to me. There are many articles concerning the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany which should NOT be changed as to their article titles and they should be looked at one-by-one (if and when it comes up) with a critical eye and with discussion, accordingly. Thereby allowing consensus be reached. Kierzek (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that moving this article does not imply the necessity to move any other specific article, since there are no English-language common names for them. Obergruppenführer, for instance, has no common English equivalent. BMK (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Its translated as "Senior Group Leader", but not often called as such. I have seen it written as such in a few books as well as called that in some documentaries. "Group Leader" for Gruppenführer is a bit more common. -OberRanks (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the historians, scholars and academic sources refer to the SA by its actual German name. Also, I believe "Brownshirts" is more commonly used instead of "Stormtroopers". Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 13:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • And my point is that WP:COMMONNAME is controlling, and not academic usage. We are not an academic encyclopedia, we are a popular encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to unnatural parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • See the thread above this. "Stormtroopers" was originally coined in World War I for small units of the German Army. They are completely unrelated to the "Brownshirts" of the Nazi Party. BMK (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Has anyone actually ever searched for Sturmabteilung? I lived in Germany for five years and I still probably can't pronounce it correctly. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stormtroopers (Nazi Party) - is there any evidence that the proposed title is more widely used than any others? I normally see the organization referred to by its abbreviation in English, SA, in parallel with the SS and SD. SA (Nazi Party) would IMO be a better option. Parsecboy (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I also have no objection to "SA" or "SA (Nazi Party)" as an article title. Folks, here is part of the problem, if "Sturnabteilung" is an awful titles, as Timothyjosephwood saus (and I agree), then we need to come to some agreement on what a new title should be. That means not simply going with one choice, but coalescing around a number of possibles and narrowing it down. BMK (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's why I said I opposed the suggested title, and provided what I think to be a better option. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed new title. Stormtroopers is far from the most common name applied to this organization. I could support Parsec's suggestion of SA (Nazi Party) as SA is by far the most common name I see in my readings.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I originally (above) on this page also suggested: Stormtroopers (SA) or Storm Detachment (SA); with that said, I could support SA (Nazi Party), but not "Brownshirts". Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:NOTSHOWCASE and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not here to present the self glorifying shit of prejudice and self-glorifying groups and organisations. These were not anything such as being the warriors of Thor or some such. They were a physical paramiltary troops who for the most part were like the rest of the German people, not fully understanding various of the terrible outcomes of Nazi policy. NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia and, in the context of potential neo nazi revivals, I do not consider that this is a move we can ethically make. GregKaye 19:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • What is it about "Stormtrooper" that you think is unethical, especially considering the direct translation of the German name is "Storm Detachment" or "Assault Division"? There is nothing particularly "sefl-glorifying" about "stormtrooper" -- in fact, the connotation to me is quite negative, implying amoral or immoral bullying and violence, so much so that I was surprised when I first read that the phrase was first used by the German Army in World War I. I don't quite see how you get from there it being "unethical" to you the word to describe the SA. They were thugs, indeed, but after being worked over by Göring and Röhm, they were at least disciplined enough to march coherently and follow orders, so much so that they worried the Army quite a bit. BMK (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this particular option, as I don't think it is the common name. I would support SA (Nazi Party), per Parsecboy. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I rarely ever see "stormtroopers" used in English-language texts to refer to the SA. Sturmabteilung is used more commonly in English texts, even though it's a non-English word. --benlisquareTCE 06:26, 6 June 2015 (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.

Revamped format - 2015 June 6[edit]

As I think is quite obvious, the format above is getting to be quite complicated to follow as to who supports what options, so I'd like to take it as general discussion, and implement a format that I've been successful with before. (See Talk:Broadway (Manhattan)). I'll list the various options that have been suggested, with the current title first and the alternatives in alphabetical order, and then each editor can say which of these various options he or she opposes or supports. Supports can also be ranked by preference (1st choice, 2nd choice, etc.). If I've missed an option, it can be added to the bottom of the list. The closing admin can then weigh the votes and determine where (if anywhere) a consensus lies. (Incidentally, this is the system used by ArbCom in determining final decisions on arbitration cases, so if the closing admin is confused by how to weigh the votes, an arbitration clerk can be contacted for guidance.)

I will contact every editor who voted above and ask them to return here to re-vote under the new format.

Here goes:


  • Sturmabteilung (current title)
    • Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME, articles should be in a commonly-used English-language name, if one exists. BMK (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support there is nothing wrong with the current title. The group are known by this name and I think that, if anything, the German helps identify the topic. GregKaye 12:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Just a reminder that WP:COMMONNAME says: Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term "COMMONNAME". Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. BMK (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Mr Ken, it might do you well to read the rest of the article titles criteria, and particularly the section on WP:NATURAL disambiguation. RGloucester 04:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I apologize if I'm giving unwanted advice, but might also not want to bold messages to other users. In "Internet-ize" its the equivalent of yelling at someone (although all Caps is worse). May itals instead? Anyway, good job managing this vote with all the options. -00:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support. It is the proper name of the organization. It is naturally unambiguous. It is the correct common name used by reliable sources in encyclopedic register. It is immediately recognizable as the German organization.--Boson (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to unnatural parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support: This is the actual name of this paramilitary group and the name itself is referred to frequently in English texts. Changing this to a slang term or abbreviation also sets a dangerous precedence with the translation of all German ranks and titles on Wikipedia (see the history of this issue) which could cause a snowball forest fire affect. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak Oppose; I do believe this is an article where there is a stronger argument for the name to be "anglicized" for our general readers for whom we all write. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose it is my view that people searching for this topic would type in "SA", not "Sturmabteilung" (assuming they could spell it). It is far more common. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support proper name of this organisation, using this name, avoids the need for disambiguation in the title and use of colloquialisms.--KTo288 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support: The common name used in English-language literature by far, outnumbering the alternatives, even though it's a non-English compound word. --benlisquareTCE 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Full name is generally only used once and then all references are to the abbreviation SA in everything that I've read; just like SS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support per Boson's comments. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support. The organisation's original and official name is "Sturmabteilung". The fact that this is the English Wikipedia does not mean all articles must be named in English language words, full stop. There has never been a single unique English name for this organisation, and anyway it is better known by the original German name. JIP | Talk 08:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support. A move wouldn't make it easier to get here, and one of the first things you should learn about the SA is what "SA" stands for. Srnec (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Brownshirts
    • Support (1st choice) - I believe this to be the most used name in English to describe this organization. BMK (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment Even without the space between the brown and the shirts I am unsure if the topic is completely clear. Wiki has articles such as Little black dress and "Brownshirts" may be confused as talking about a textile product rather than a politically motivated group. GregKaye
    • Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME, since it is not the correct encyclopedic register (as used, for instance, by Encyclopedia Britannica). It is more a term I would expect in contemporary journalism, propaganda, etc. --Boson (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per WP:AT – Not in the encyclopaedic register, unrecognisable. Common shortening is "SA", as used by the Britannica. RGloucester 14:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)/
    • Oppose This is a slang term and is not in fact mentioned frequently in academic sources. There is no compelling source data that I have seen thus far to indicate the majority of readers refer to this group by this term as opposed to another. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Slang term. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose Colloquialism.--KTo288 (talk)
    • Oppose: Not used as commonly as SA or Sturmabteilung in print media. It's also rather colloquial. --benlisquareTCE 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Brownshirts (Nazi Germany)
    • Oppose - Incorrect disambiguation, as they were founded before the Nazi "seizure of power" in Weimar Germany BMK (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME, since it is not the correct encyclopedic register (as used, for instance, by Encyclopedia Britannica). It is more a term I would expect in contemporary journalism, propaganda, etc. Natural unambiguity is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. It is unclear whay the plural is used (organization or individuals). It is also incorrect disambiguation.--Boson (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to unnatural parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose This is a slang term and is not in fact mentioned frequently in academic sources. There is no compelling source data that I have seen thus far to indicate the majority of readers refer to this group by this term as opposed to another. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Strong Oppose. Slang term and time-frame is misleading and not correct as the SA was formed in 1920, long before the Nazis came to national power. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose it is my view that people searching for this topic would type in "SA", not "Brownshirts". It is far more common. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose Colloquialism.--KTo288 (talk)
    • Oppose: Per my rationale under "Brownshirts" above. --benlisquareTCE 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose as per KTo288--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Brownshirts (Nazi Party)
    • Support - but only if disambiguation is determined to be necessary. BMK (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support (1st) This, I think works best. GregKaye 12:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - per WP:COMMONNAME, since it is not the correct encyclopedic register (as used, for instance, by Encyclopedia Britannica). It is more a term I would expect in contemporary journalism, propaganda, etc. Natural unambiguity is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. It is unclear whay the plural is used (organization or individuals).--Boson (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to unnatural parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose This is a slang term and is not in fact mentioned frequently in academic sources. There is no compelling source data that I have seen thus far to indicate the majority of readers refer to this group by this term as opposed to another. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose as again, slang term which is not used that often. I can say at least the time-frame is correct as it always was a party organization. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose it is my view that people searching for this topic would type in "SA", not "Brownshirts". It is far more common. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose Colloquialism.--KTo288 (talk)
    • Oppose: Per my rationale under "Brownshirts" above. --benlisquareTCE 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose As above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • SA
    • Oppose - I do not believe that this is the dominant use of "SA" in English among all the possibilities listed in the current disambiguatin page SA BMK (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I do not believe that this is the dominant use of "SA". It is not immediately recognizable and is ambiguous. --Boson (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose – Ambiguous. RGloucester 14:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose This is an abbreviation of the proper name. Use the proper name instead. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose – as only a abbreviation; although used often once the proper name has been stated in an article or book. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose it is my view that people searching for this topic would type in "SA", but this should be on a dab page, not the article title, as it lacks clarity. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose Not primary use of acronym, ambiguous when full name isn't. As with all acronyms, when used in other articles how would it be introduced, even if in all subsequent uses it is abbreviated, on first encounter it would have to be explained in full. This cannot be the article title nor as a redirect as it is used forbthe disambiguation.--KTo288 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --benlisquareTCE 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose, needs a disambiguator.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose SA is a disambiguation page and this is clearly NOT the primary topic. It is also highly ambiguous. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • SA (Nazi Germany)
    • Oppose - The disambiguator is inaccurate, as the SA was founded more than a decade before the Nazi "seizure of power". BMK (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Natural unambiguity is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. The disambiguator is inaccurate. --Boson (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to unnatural parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose This is an abbreviation of the proper name. Use the proper name instead. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Strong Oppose – only an abbreviation and time-frame is misleading and not correct as the SA was formed in 1920, long before the Nazis came to national power. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose it is my view that people searching for this topic would type in "SA", but this should be a redirect, not the article title, as it lacks clarity. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose misleading when compared to proper name--KTo288 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak support, close, but not the most accurate disambiguator.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • SA (Nazi Party)
    • Support (second choice) - Correct disambiguation. BMK (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Natural unambiguity is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. --Boson (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to unnatural parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose This is an abbreviation of the proper name. Use the proper name instead. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support (first choice). Used very often and the full proper name can be explained in the first sentence of the lede. Further the full name can be a re-direct to the article page. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support it is my view that people searching for this topic would type in "SA", but this should be the article title, as the dab adds clarity. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose Its a bit of an all or nothing with the SA title space, those who want a move can't have it because its a disambig. So how sure can movers be that, a "general reader" will know to append Nazi Party to the search term in order to arrive here. Of course they'll arrive here eventually via the disambig page, but since thay do so already this move achieves nothing--KTo288 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support Dunno about anyone else, but when I type in a search term I usually get a few of the most popular article choices, so mayhap that will occur with this one as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support This prevents confusion with other uses of the term Sturmabteilung and places it in its proper historical context in terms of time. Intothatdarkness 17:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per KTo288 and per WP:NATURAL. Srnec (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Stormtroopers (NB: Heading changed from singular to plural after comments were made!)
    • Oppose - Too generic. Does not differentiate between the original stormtrooper units used by the German Army in World War I, or the usage in Star Wars etc.
    • Oppose - Too generic (i.e. ambiguous). Specifically used for different German troops, so misleading. It would require changes to other article(s). Refers to individual individuals [changed after heading was changed] rather than organization. Problems with choice of singular or plural. Boson (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose – Bizarrely singular, and also too generic. RGloucester 14:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose: Generic term, more associated with Star Wars. I think this would cause confusion as to what this article is about. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Too generic; could get people looking for "Stars Wars" "stormtroopers" is right. Where is my blaster! Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per Kierzek. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose-Agree with everybody else, way too generic.--KTo288 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose: More relevant to Star Wars than to the third reich. --benlisquareTCE 01:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose as per the many comments above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose clearly not the primary topic of "Stormtroopers", there being the famous WWI troops and the Star Wars topic. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Stormtroopers (Nazi Germany) (NB: Heading changed from singular to plural after comments were made!)
    • Oppose - Again, incorrect disambuation, as the organization was created before "Nazi Germany" existed. BMK (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Specifically used for different German troops, so misleading. It would require changes to other article(s). Natural unambiguity is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. Refers to individual individuals [changed after heading was changed] rather than organization. Problems with choice of singular or plural. Incorrect disambiguation --Boson (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to unnatural parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose: This is not the name of the organization but rather an English speaking term for its members. Not appropriate for the article title. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Strong Oppose - agree with BMK in explanation why. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose not an organisational name, but rather the name of the members used by some sources in English. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose re everybody else.--KTo288 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose misleading, per Boson -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Stormtroopers (Nazi Party) (NB: Heading changed from singular to plural after comments were made!)
    • Support (third choice) - Disambiguation is correct. BMK (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Specifically used for different German troops, so misleading. It would require changes to other article(s) . Natural unambiguity is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. Refers to individual individuals [changed after heading was changed] rather than organization. Problems with choice of singular or plural. --Boson (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose per WP:NATURAL – Natural disambiguation is always preferred to unnatural parenthetical disambiguation. RGloucester 17:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose: This is not the name of the organization but rather an English speaking term for its members. Not appropriate for the article title. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Support (second choice), if it is to be changed; correct time-frame as it always was a party organization. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
      • All of these should have been plural - that's my mistake, which I've corrected. BMK (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose not an organisational name, but rather the name of the members used by some sources in English. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • OpposeIf he whole point of this exercise was to find a more natural title in English for readers who are not experts in the topic, this fails spectacularly, the reader would need to know a lot of the context to look for this topic in the search box using this.--KTo288 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Storm Detachment
    • Weak Support: This is the literal translation of Sturmabteilung and it would be difficult to argue against a direct translation of the article into English. Still, I only weakly support this as I think its best to leave well enough alone and keep the German title. -OberRanks (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose terrible literal translation, doesn't help at all, lacks clarity. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Neutral If the article has to be moved, which I oppose, this is the least bad option, unlike those options with disambiguators, at least it can be used in articles without having to resort to piping. However, again I have to ask would a general reader, who is not an expert on the subject for whom this move exercise is being conducted, know to look under this new name. The new name has all the shortcomings of the old with none of the benefits.--KTo288 (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose, still too generic and not even a good translation from the German, which would be "storm detachment/unit". Stormtroopers would be Sturmtruppen, not a word that the German military often used.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose, not as to the translation, which I have seen used; however, my main concern is the average reader will have no real idea what this means or will perform a search for this specific term. Kierzek (talk) 03:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose - I've never seen this used textually, only as a potential translation of the german name. BMK (talk)
    • Oppose Hardly ever seen this nickname being used in any written media. I find that people prefer to translate Sturmabteilung as "Storm Unit" or "Storm Section". Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Strong oppose RECOGNIZABILITY per Jonas Vinther -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Discussion other comments go here
  • Seems to be that the consensus is for this to stay put at Sturmabteilung. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This vote reminds me of the line from that song "they stabbed it with their steely knives, but just can't kill the beast!" -O.R.Comms 03:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, then OberRanks, remember, "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave!" Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Given the results here, I see no need to continue the discussion, so I'm closing it as "WITHDRAWN BY NOM". Anyone who disagrees with this close and wishes to re-open it may do so with no argument from me. My thanks to everyone for their participation. BMK (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"S.A."[edit]

The usage and primary topic of S.A. is under discussion, see talk:S.A. (corporation) and talk:S.A. for multiple discussions. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

no, this is a strange distraction from the above. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 13:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a talk page, there can be multiple discussions going on. And one of the names for this is "SA" though in reality, in books, "S.A." is also used, so is related to the topic of this article. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup 70.51.203.69, its very much appreciated.--KTo288 (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

SA structure confusion[edit]

The text indicates that SA Gruppen were over SA Brigaden, which were over SA Standarten. Bbut the diagram at right indicates that both Standarten and Brigaden were directly under the Gruppen. Both cannot be correct. Rich Rostrom (Talk) 21:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it as subordinate to the Brigaden were the smaller regiment-sized Standarten. Truthfully, the chart could be better and I see why you mention the layout. Kierzek (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Size of the SA?[edit]

The article omits any information whatever about the numbers of the SA - a serious lack. The Encyclopedia Britannica OL gives 400,000 by 1932, and 2 million in 1933. I have addded this to the article; also, discussion of how the size of the SA allowed Hitler to pressure Hindenburg into making him Chanecellor and the Reichstag to pass the Enabling Act. Rich Rostrom (Talk) 22:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

It can be added; but a good WP:RS source should be used and I don't mean Encyclopedia Britannica. I will have a look at it later. Kierzek (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I added some detail and RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Maxims[edit]

Either the German versions or the English versions of the purported maxims are obviously wrong (or misleading). In one case the English says something slightly different from the German; in the other case the alleged German version ("muß dem Boden gestampft werden") is not correct German, though it purports to be a quotation from a (presumedly German) brownshirt. The English versions of the maxims were apparently added with this edit on 2 August 2004. As far as I can tell (without access to the printed book), the English versions are correct quotations from the cited English book, but the book does not have the original German. It appears that a footnote (Chapter 8, footnote 17) has a reference to Theodore F. Abel, The Nazi Movement (New York: 1965), p.100, which is not cited in the Wikipedia article but may (or may not) have the original German. There appears to be a paperback reprint of that book, dated 2012 and a 1938 version titled "Why Hitler Came Into Power". So perhaps someone has access to one of those. Since the German was apparently added much later, in this edit on 1 April 2016 and is incorrect, it may be that it was incorrectly backtranslated by the later editor, although it looks as if it were intended to show the original German quotation (from the "Brownshirt"). If (and only if) the mistranslation is due to the author of the cited book, we probably need a sic. In any case, the English-speaking reader should be alerted to the incorrectness of the purported quotation or its translation, which is obvious only to those who understand both languages. So we need an actual quotation of the original German, with confirmation of its source. We could just remove the German, but I am not too happy about reproducing a purported verbatim quote from a German only in (possibly mistranslated) English. Alternatively, we could remove the whole section. It is apparently based on this text from the cited book (where "we made it our maxim" may be just a – translated – figure of speech):

One Brownshirt recalled that "we made it our maxim that 'terror must be broken by terror'; furthermore we felt that all opposition had to be stamped into the ground."

--Boson (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC):

The content of this section does not seem to be adequately supported by the cited source, and no clarification has been provided, so I will remove the section. --Boson (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
You say "as far as I can tell (without access to the printed book)", and then proceed to remove the section on the grounds that it is not supported by the cited source - that is, the book you do not have access to. I have restored it until such time as you do have access to the printed book, or an electronic version of it, to support your contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I have ordered the book, and will check the contents when it arrives. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The Abel book does not appear to have the German version, only the English.

That we took recourse to drastic action and that many of our opponents came to feel the hard fist of the S.A. goes without saying. For we made it our maxim that "terror must be broken by terror"; furthermore we felt that all opposition had to be stamped into the ground.We could show no consideration for he individual when the destiny of sixty million people was at stake. (Abel, p.100, quoting an SA's autobiography [3]

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Given the above, I have restored your removal of the section, not because of the translations, but because the Abel book is clearly the source of both of these "maxims". I think it would be acceptable to use the first ("terror must be broken by terror"), as it is quoted by the SA man and identified as a maxim, but the second ("all opposition had to be stamped into the ground") is clearly his own formulation, and is not quoted nor identified as an SA maxim, as opposed to a description of their state of mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!
I would prefer to leave it out completely, though – with a better source than a third-hand quote from a single brownshirt – a mention of the maxim (?) 'Terror can only be broken by terror' (Terror kann nur durch Terror gebrochen werden) might be appropriate in a paragraph about their tactics. Given the sensitive nature of the topic, I think we need to use an English translation that is close to the original German. But considerations of editorial ethics would probably require something additional, in order to distance Wikipedia from any apparent acceptance of the retaliatory and unavoidable nature of the violence that might be implied by the slogan.
--Boson (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I believe we should await BMK's findings since he ordered the book in question to review. With that said, I don't really believe the section is necessary. Kierzek (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to say that the book hasn't arrived yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
No hurry as to this matter. Let us know what you find; once you receive the book. Kierzek (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK, I'm now in possession of the book Why Hitler? The Genesis of the Nazi Reich by Samuel W. Mitcham Jr. Here is a transcription of what it says on page 139:

[Referring to a previous quotation about the SA going through the streets of Berlin, looking for fights.] Fight they certainly did. One Brownshirt recalled that "we made it our maxim that 'terror must be broken by terror'; furthermore, we felt that all opposition had to be stomped into the ground."17

Footnote #17 says: "Theodore F. Abel, The Nazi Movement (New York, 1965), p.100"

So, some thoughts on this:

  1. As seen here and noted above neither Mitcham nor Abel appears to have the German version, so it shouldn't be used in the article.
  2. As noted above, this is from the memoirs of a single SA member, so while "terror must be broken by terror" is quoted, and most probably was said in his SA group, it's really impossible to tell whether this was an official "maxim" of the SA, or whether "maxim" is being used more loosely, and might have been translated as "slogan", "watchword", "saying" etc. Even if we accept "maxim" as the best possible translation of what the stormtrooper wrote, we cannot tell if this was a maxim that was generally used throughout the SA or simply in that one group. The doubt concerning this means, I think, that having it in the article under the section heading "Maxims" is inappropriate, and not really supported by the source.
  3. The other "maxim" -- "All opposition had to be stomped into the ground" -- isn't even presented as a quote, and could simply be the stormtrooper's observation of the prevailing attitude in their group. It should certainly not be presented as an official maxim.
  4. Given #2 and #3, I believe Boson was correct in removing the section in its entirety.
  5. That being said, I don't see why there would be any objection to including the information presented by Abel and Mitcham somewhere in the article, in the form of "One stormtrooper wrote..." (obviously not copyvioed or closely paraphrased).

Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

BMK, I concur and thanks for the effort you have put into this matter. Kierzek (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Provenance of purported Sturmabteilung emblem[edit]

I had previously deleted the supposed Sturmabteilung emblem, first because I thought it was vandalism, and then because it lacked any citations whatsoever. The ADL (and Strafgesetzbuch section 86a) notwithstanding, I can't find one iota about its provenance, much less any Nazi era photographs or publications featuring it. Furthermore, all of the other sactioned symbols have fairly specific or very specific names. If there's no documentation or reportage of SA personnel wearing it as part of their regalia, forsooth there are no citations forthcoming, savvy?

P.S.

Subjectively speaking, this looks like a contemporary white power gig to me. It looks suspiciously modern. kencf0618 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Uniforms%20and%20insignia%20of%20the%20Sturmabteilung

It looks like a contemporary white power logo to you, because the contemporary white power logos are based on the SA logo, I believe - but I'll look into its provenance. (Would you like to see the logo I made for a production of Brecht's The Roundheads and the Pointheads for the "Hat-knockers", who are Brecht's version of the SA?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The link you provide shows only rank insignia and emblems, not a general SA logo, so it's not very helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'm just going to list some links that may be helpful in determining the legitimacy of the emblem:
There's more along those lines. So, that's not a slam-dunk -- those aren't reliable sources, but at least it says that someone didn't create a logo and upload it to Commons in 2007, or, if they did, they're also in the business of making ersatz stickpins and badges and selling them to antique dealers. I'll keep looking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It is a correct facsimile of the historical emblem, as shown in RS books I have; to remove it as "vandalism" shows a lack of historical knowledge on the subject matter. Here is the emblem on the handle of an original SA dagger. http://www.quanonline.com/military/military_reference/german/blades/sadagger.php
Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm still waiting for citations from 1919-1945; anyone can slap an insignia on anything and claim authenticity. The NSDAP and Hitler himself were very keen on the power of symbolism and regalia, so there should be documentation from the early and mid 20th-century to cite. Y'know, fliers, photographs, internal documentation, court documents and the like. The SA were brawlers, but even they had a bureaucracy, and the Germans were very thorough, being German, and I'm just getting crickets regarding this particular emblem. kencf0618 (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The photo per the link I provided speaks for itself, not to mention the links per BMK; WP:deadhorse. Kierzek (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

See File:SASeniorRanks1931.jpg - that's a poster the Nazis themselves made in the early 1930s showing the symbol of the SA. -O.R.Comms 01:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's exactly the sort of citation I was seeking. Many thanks. kencf0618 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken's change of "paramilitary wing" to "paramilitary organization"[edit]

Beyond My Ken - can you please explain why you are changing this? At first your edit summary said The SA wasn't technically part of the party. I pointed out that the lede would have to be fixed before the short description. Then, instead of changing the lede, and without an edit summary you changed wing to organization - so it said functioned as the original paramilitary organization of the Nazi Party (NSDAP) - this doesn't change the meaning at all, but it is not an improvement in terms of prose. I checked Campbell, which is used as a source in the article and he uses paramilitary wing - what is the problem with the word "wing" ? Seraphim System (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm changing it because the SA was not a "wing" of the Nazi Party, it was a semi-autonomous organization, more or less under the control of the Party (more at some times, and less than others). Stormtroopers were not necessarily members of the Party and, in fact, in one period it was forbidden to be a member of both. Their semi-independence was part of what inflamed the Stennes Revolt, and was eventually settled by the Night of the Long Knives. The Nazi Party had many associated organizations which were not, technically, a part of the Party itself, but were expected to follow the directions of the party. The SA was the most important one of these. These are facts, known to anyone familiar with the history of the SA, and because of them "wing" is not the best description. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I've removed the deceptive "wing", and rewritten it as "the Nazi Party's original paramilitary". This is sufficiently descriptive and does not get entangled in the complex relationship between the NSDAP and the SA, which is not appropriate for the lede sentence. (In a business organizational chart, the SA's organization structure would be parallel to that of the Nazi Party, but underneath the Fuhrer, who headed them both, with a dotted line connection between them. As far as I know there was nobody else within the Nazi Party -- other than Hess and then Boorman as Hitler's personal representatives -- who had direct authority over the SA. Even the Gauleiters did not directly control the SA units in their regions -- see Goebbels' continuing problems with the SA in Berlin, including the Stennes Revolt.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok, maybe I'll look into it more sometime. I'm not really familiar with the history of the SA, I just stumbled through while adding short descriptions - this one I just imported directly from Wikidata. But it sounds like there's a lot going on with this that I'm not prepared to get into right now. Seraphim System (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
I have to agree with BMK. And like several of your other recent edits on SS related articles, please use discernment before changes. Kierzek (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)