Talk:Horst Wessel

Why is him being a Gangster and an Alleged Pimp mentioned before him being a nazi?

Wessel is only notable for being a Nazi, and for his introduction to Nazi mythology after his death. Sure, his death may have been related to prostitution, but it was also related to Nazis fighting communists. If not for being a Nazi he wouldn't have been known at all, fading into obscurity, a statistic about violent crime in Germany. Him being a Nazi should be given priority in the lead, followed by a mention of the pimping. Clone commando sev (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

See above post from 6th June. The modern left-wing have no regard for obvious truths such as this, a truth you quite rightly point out. Because this vile man was a Nazi they throw both academic objectivity and neutrality out of the window. Because, yeah, when someone mentions the name "Horst Wessel," the first thing that comes to anyone's mind is a pimp gangster. Ludicrous. Like Larry Sanger says, these people call the shots on this website, so don't expect it to change. And don't bother pursuing this any further, else you be accused of whitewashing the Nazis (no joke.) 82.37.67.100 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I very much agree, and struggle to find adequate reasoning, as do the people who are defending its inclusion in the lede. It is a flagrant violation of MOS:LEADBIO, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:UNDUE. Anyone pretending like allegations of pimping is somehow more significant or notable than his Nazi martyrdom is either POV editing or participating in bad faith. The fact that this has been in the lede for so long is a legitimately troubling sign of the state of this article. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, upon examining the change logs, the contentious edit in question was made by an anonymous user who did so boldly, without any discussion, was soon reverted, then re-added by Beyond My Ken. Said edit when then reverted again by about at least a dozen different users, with Beyond My Ken re-reverting the vast majority of them for no valid reason. He then stated the following in this very talk page:

I've reverted your edits, returning the article to the status quo ante, except with the additional citations. Please get a consensus on this page to make the changes you wish to make. To my eye, your suggested changes amount to an attempt to whitewash the character of Wessel, which is the last thing this article (or any article on a Nazi) needs.

in a bizarre attempt to categorize blatant MOS:LEADBIO & WP:UNDUE violation as "attempts to whitewash the character of" a Nazi. This suggests serious POV conflicts from Beyond My Ken as well as an entitled sense of ownership vis-à-vis this article. Ken also immediately started touting this contentious edit as the "latest good version" in edit summaries despite this obviously not being the case. It was a bold edit made without any discussion let alone consensus, and was immediately reverted, only for him immediately defend it as the LGV. This is suspicious behavior, and leads me to suspect bad faith, specifically that they want to put negative material in lead of the article because Wessel was a Nazi martyr. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, let's take extraordinary steps to ignore citations from reliable sources so as not to sully the good name of a Nazi martyr. I suggest that you PUT DOWN THE STICK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the material is sourced or not. To be placed in the lead of an article, it must comply with WP:NOTABILITY per MOS:LEADBIO, otherwise it violates WP:UNDUE. If you want to mention Wessel's alleged involvement with prostitution within the article body via cited sources, by all means. It does not however belong in the lead. Wessel is known for being a Nazi martyr, not for his alleged involvement with prostitutes.

By your logic, Isoroku Yamamoto should have him labeled as a "frequenter of prostitutes" in the lead since, according to Yamamoto's own wife, he was closer with his favorite geisha than he was her. Or perhaps we should put the fact that Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian and a supporter of animal rights in his article's lead? There are plenty of sources to back that up.

Yet neither of those do, because they would violate the notability clause of MOS:LEADBIO. Stop trying to give undue weight to Wessel's alleged prostitution involvement via awkward, unencyclopedic language kludged into the lead. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Who are you behind the IP number? Do you have a Wikipedia account, and are you editing with an IP to avoid scrutiny? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

So not only do you refuse to participate in discussion either here or in the dispute resolution, but your only recourse is to attack my Wikipedia account and demand I be blocked? Can you not provide a shred of logic to either defend your unwarranted reverts or refute my reasoning? You aren't doing yourself any favors here. I have yet to see you provide adequate reasoning for defending content in the lead which violates MOS:LEADBIO. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I've discussed the issues with good-faith editors before, and I'm willing to discuss it with good-faith editors in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Your rationale in those discussions has been equally scant and wanting. I'll just take your remark as a concession by you that you're unable to produce sufficient reasoning to justify your edits. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

First time I got a notification here, I do have to ask what your obsession is with referring to a vile Nazi as a pimp and a gangster before all else? Let alone stating that this is what this person is known for? It's absurd to say the least, and I agree with previous statements that it's fine to include such info in the body, but it has no place in the lead. 77.164.171.122 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle I am still waiting for you to show me where the alleged consensus for the changes you reverted to was formed, per the claim in your edit summary. 47.219.237.179 (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

He was not a pimp. That was a slur spread by his Communist rivals after his death. Why is there all this discussion? What he was, was a leader of street thugs who beat up their opponents, then lied about it being self-defense, all with the aim of setting up a Nazi dictatorship in Germany. He was bad enough without making him look worse. 2A00:23C7:E287:E001:74E3:39E6:7C7:74E0 (talk) 12:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Lede Sentence

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.

---

Which of the following lede sentences should be used for the article on Horst Wessel? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

A. Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a German street gangster and, according to some sources, a procurer of prostitutes who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

B. Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party.

C. Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a German pastor's son and street fighter who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party

Please answer A, B, or C with a brief statement in the Survey. Do not reply to other editors in the Survey. That's what the Discussion section is for.

• Copying over from the discussion below to make it visible. Proposal by User:Asilvering. Copied here by Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC).

  D. Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party, who became a major propaganda symbol in Nazi Germany following his murder in 1930 by two members of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD).

Survey

• D, with apologies to Robert McClenon. These all suffer the same problem: none of them actually mention what he's notable for. I've left an alternative solution in the discussion area below. -- asilvering (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• D' (D prime) See below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• F (see below) okay with re-write of "the procurer scene". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• D' (D-prime), identified below, with reasons in Discussion . I've suggested Option F as a compromise below. WillowCity^(talk) 18:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC) Pinged for this RfC by FRS
• D, but B and C are acceptable. Definitely not Option A and thus also not option E (AKA D-prime) which contain novel information and two references that damage what was a clean LEADCITE lead. They also contain information that he was not notable for, and contain the unhelpful "according to some sources..." which should be discussed in the main, not the lead. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• C, proposed option F in Discussion is also perfectly acceptable but I feel it reads somewhat more difficult where C is more straightforward. C holds an impartial middle ground when put next to A or B. In my opinion, both of the latter are too skewed to one side of the coin. Proposed lede C does not put unnecessary emphasis on either subject's life as a street fighter/pimp, nor does it glorify or downplay his Nazi career for which he was/is known. It's to the point and concise Vydrakk (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• D, or something to that effect - Wessel is only ever remembered as a focus for Nazi propaganda. In fact I'm not entirely convinced that Wikipedia should treat this topic as a biography of an individual at all. The 'notable' aspect of all this wasn't Wessel's life, or even his death - it was the myth created around his life and death subsequently. Treating it as a 'biography' risks giving undue credibility to the mythmaking, even if done with the best intentions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
• D, good job by Asilvering putting this back on track, and note that also AndyTheGrump makes a good point. As for the gangster/pimp material, I don't see it established that it is either sufficiently central to the topic or sufficiently well evidenced to occupy a central part in the main body of the article (in fact, the term "gangster" occurs nowhere else on the page); in consequence, I don't see it as having a prominent place in the lead either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
• D, per Andy and FPaS. In so far as an answer is also asked about the 'pimping' accusation, IMO based on discussions above, it should only be included to the extent that context can be given (that both sides sought to propagandise, therefore this may be a slur by those who sought to discredit him posthumously). This probably means low down the lead, or solely in the body. Whether true or not, the ++ and -- 'myths' about him are part of the narrative of the posthumous propagandising, even if not actually of the life. Pincrete (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
• D, Per all the discussion leading up to this RFC, as it removes the weird undue importance given to pimping and mentions his use as a propaganda symbol. Clone commando sev (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Er, none of the above? He isn't notable for any of those things. What makes him notable is his murder and subsequent use in propaganda. The first sentence should be something like: "Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party, who became a major propaganda symbol in Nazi Germany following his murder in 1930 by two members of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD)." -- asilvering (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• I have no objection to Asilvering's suggested first sentence above. The second sentence should then mention his history:

D'. (D prime) Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party, who became a major propaganda symbol in Nazi Germany following his murder in 1930 by two members of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). Wessel was a street gangster and, according to some sources, a procurer of prostitutes[2][3] who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader"), the lowest commissioned officer rank in the SA. He was turned into a Nazi martyr by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• Placing this claim in the first sentence of the lead (Option A) seems unduly prominent, given that it’s in no way the main source of the subject’s notability. My background is social history, so I find this aspect interesting (particularly given that issues of discipline and sexual morality contributed to the rift between the SS and the SA that culminated in the Night of the Long Knives, although I know mention of this in the article itself would be both SYNTH and beyond the scope). That said, I do think the “procurer” element bears noting elsewhere in the lead, since his death was bound up with his relationship with Jänicke. But I wouldn’t put it in the first sentence. (Edited to clarify) WillowCity^(talk) 18:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I have no problem with option D per Asilvering, but the sandwiching in of D-prime and the confusing labelling of it is out of order as it is a restatement of the cause of the content dispute, but with additional text added in about being a propaganda symbol. The RfC is specifically trying to resolve the edit warring over the "gangster and according to some sources, a procurer of prostitutes" text. As such the options are designed to resolve that sentence only. Beyond My Ken chose not to participate in the dispute resolution [1], but I expressed there my concern that an RfC should not result in a frozen lead. I am perfectly happy with:

D. Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party, who became a major propaganda symbol in Nazi Germany following his murder in 1930 by two members of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD).

and if we want it as an option D, I see nothing wrong with it, might even !vote for it. If we stuck to the three options, I would see no problem with adding in about being the propaganda symbol afterwards. But D-prime is rebadged option A and does not focus on what he was actually known for. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that D' is simply kicking the content dispute to the second sentence, and I do not think D' is an acceptable lead. -- asilvering (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  The content is referenced and relevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Would any of the opposed editors be so kind as to clarify the basis for their position on the content dispute more broadly, for the uninitiated? I was brought in here by FRS, and I've reviewed the talk page and read the article in full, but I'm really not clear on the argument against including this claim (with attribution, and bearing in mind that MOS:WEASEL doesn't apply to lead sections). Is it just the fact that it was promoted by the KPD? From reading the article and a few cited sources, it's clear that Wessel navigated the underworld of 1920s Berlin. If this was a BLP, exclusion would make more sense to me, but I'm just having a hard time understanding the opposition here. WillowCity^(talk) 01:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'd kinda like to know that too, since it seems to me that - without impugning anyone's motivation whatsoever - it appeared to me that some editors who objected were simply being overly fastidious about sullying the reputation of Wessel.

  People who joined the various street-fighting organizations, such as the SA, the Red Front-Fighters (RFB, Communist) or the Reichsbanner (Social Democrats), were very often from the very lowest social classes, so it would not be surprising that many of them were petty thieves or pimps. Because of the spotlight that Goebbels threw on Wessel, historians have researched his life more than the vast majority of Weimar street fighters, so it seems odd to ignore that information, when it specifically has relevance to Wessel's murder. Indeed, some historians see the death as being the result of a personal conflict over a prostitute, with the political context being secondary. I don't think we know enough to make that determination, but we certainly know that Wessel was what he was, and we should say so, especially since it throws an ironic light on his transformation into a Nazi martyr. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  These are my thoughts exactly. As I noted above, following the Nazi ascent to power, the leadership tried to straighten-up (pun partially intended) its image and distance itself from the thuggish SA rank-and-file that helped fuel their ascent. So these claims about Wessel are unsurprising, given what we know about the SA.

  I know we don't write our articles to be clickbait, but as an uninvolved Wikipedian, I was much more interested to continue reading the article after I saw that claim in the lead. And while I'm assuming good faith, I'm wondering if there's a principled, policy-based explanation that doesn't involve shielding the reputation of a Nazi street-brawler/Goebbels golden-boy. WillowCity^(talk) 04:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'm honestly shocked to hear objection to option A cast as "shielding the reputation of a Nazi street-brawler/Goebbels golden-boy". Are you suggesting that it is worse to be a street fighter and a procurer than it is to be a nazi propaganda icon, and that placing that information somewhere other than the lead sentence is somehow rehabilitative? I object to options A-C, especially option A, precisely because they are doing a rhetorical sleight-of-hand that minimizes the fact that he was a nazi. -- asilvering (talk) 06:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  No, that is a significant misreading of what I've written. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  Since it's a direct quote of WillowCity, and not you, I'm not sure why you think this could be a reading of you at all, mis- or otherwise. -- asilvering (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  (just for the record, my poor wording wasn't an attempt to suggest that Wessel has any positive reputation to speak of. I think I understand your position better now, I've tried to give a fair summary of both views in the table below) WillowCity^(talk) 00:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

  WillowCity, in response to your question, my first involvement here was in this section: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#First statements by editors (Horst Wessel). I quote: Uninvolved editor, but I have been watching this page on and off for a while and have read talk discussion and sources, particularly the ones recently added to the lead. Although an RfC may be called for, I am not certain it will achieve the best outcome here. There has been edit warring over a sentence in the lead, but I believe there is room for a suitable compromise. My belief is that those wanting removal of the sentence have rightly identified that the information about Wessel being a pimp is neither certain nor particularly due, and the addition of citations to suport it there have damaged a clean lead in a good article; its inclusion in the lead does not summarise main text, so it is novel information. Siemens (2013) does discuss this aspect, and shows that although the allegations that he was a pimp were perhaps made as cover, they are also plausible. But he was not particularly known for being a pimp/procurer, and so it is undue in the lead. This information should be in the main text, suitably summarising Siemens. It should not be excised altogether. Other treatments of him do not stress this aspect, but any suitably detailed discussion of his life and death would surely mention it. As regards the gangster allegation, the wording there might be tweaked (I am not sure 'gangster' is quite right), but it is a summary of the main text and in line with treatment by, e.g., Britannica. My concern with an RfC on the lead is this: It might lead to a frozen lead, either with novel information not supported by main text, or with that information excised but not transferred to main text, where it should be. There might be a temptation then to brook no changes to that lead, which would prevent movement towards something more nuanced. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am also previously uninvolved (I am here because of a notice given to WP:GERMANY), and again agree with Sirfurboy. -- asilvering (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Okay, I now have a better understanding of the merits of both sides, and I've compiled a table that I think summarizes the arguments (but please correct me if I'm wrong), which I think may help the closer if no agreement can be reached (EDITED to reflect/clarify positions):

Include	Exclude
The sentence underscores the dishonesty of Nazi propaganda about Wessel, and the irony of "martyring" such a figure	The sentence distracts or detracts from the things that make Wessel truly vile (namely, his Nazism)
We should not shy away from unflattering portrayals of this individual	See above; gangsterism and pimping are far less objectionable than being an SA officer
Several sources (particularly Siemens) indicate that Wessel's death was as much personal as political, and that it implicated his status as a possible procurer	There is certainly no historical consensus that Wessel was a procurer, and, in any event, the claim is not particularly notable in relation to this historical character
See above; Siemens notes that the claim is plausible	Primary sources dealing directly with this claim, which may have originated as KPD propaganda, are lacking
Material that is adequately cited in the body need not be cited in the lead, and MOS:LEADCITE allows us to dispense with inline citations based on editorial consensus	The sentence requires inline citation, which would be stylistically undesirable in an otherwise "clean" lead
The claim is mentioned in the body, as MOS:LEAD requires	The lack of discussion and analysis of this claim in the body makes it inappropriate to include it the lead, which should concisely summarize the article’s main points

I think the best solution would be to find some sort of compromise that can cover off the issue without requiring inline citation. So, without changing my vote yet, I'll propose Option F (since D' has been referred to as Option E):

Horst Ludwig Georg Erich Wessel (9 October 1907 – 23 February 1930) was a member of the Sturmabteilung (SA), the paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party, who became a major propaganda symbol in Nazi Germany following his murder in 1930 by two members of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD). Wessel, who became a Sturmführer ("Assault Leader", the lowest commissioned officer rank in the SA), was involved in street crime in Weimar-era Berlin, and quarrels within the procurer scene may have contributed to his killing. He was turned into a Nazi martyr by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.

This has the advantage of borrowing directly from the Randall source; it does not directly allege that Wessel was a procurer; it avoids the word "gangster" which is somewhat ambiguous; and I think it may be general enough that inline citation can be avoided. Tweaks welcome, of course. WillowCity^(talk) 17:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally OK with this, but suggest a rephrasing of "the procurer scene", which isn't very encyclopedic and makes it sound like some kind of hip subculture. How about "quarrels between procurers of prostitutes may have contributed..."? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this table is a fair summary of the arguments for and against any particular wording of the lead. What the "against" are in this table is "counters to the arguments made by the 'for' side", which is not at all the same as "arguments against including particular information in the lead". For example, gangsterism and pimping are far less objectionable than being an SA officer is a fair read of what I wrote in response to your comment, but I wrote that because you had said I'm wondering if there's a principled, policy-based explanation that doesn't involve shielding the reputation of a Nazi street-brawler/Goebbels golden-boy; I simply do not see how not-including this information would shield this Goebbels golden-boy's reputation. But the argument for not including this information is very simple, and completely grounded in policy: the point of a lead is to note what is notable about the article subject and to summarize the body of the article. -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it may not be the argument for exclusion, but it’s still an argument against inclusion (albeit a counter-argument to the suggestion of "whitewashing"). And my intention with the table is to distill the various arguments (by you and others) in what I see as the core dispute: including the “procurer” claim in the lead. The notability argument is already covered off, but I’ve added the “lead follows body” critique and what I imagine would be the main counterpoint. And I’ve retitled the headings to be more neutral (since “for” and “against” may be reductive/misleading) WillowCity^(talk) 15:26, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding using cites in the lead, I think the style argument (against cites in the lead vs. a "clean lead") is extremely weak. LEADCITE doesn't disallow cites in the lead, it simply allows them not to be used if the information used and cited in the body, an entirely different thing. A significant percentage of leads on Wikipedia include cites, and LEADCITE says "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." If, however, one considers the clean lead argument to be strong, the answer is simple: include the material, with citations, in the body of the article, and then remove the citations from the lead, leaving the significant material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyond My Ken (talk • contribs) 19:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Time to close? - This RfC has been open well over a month now. The result appears clear and has already been implemented. All the same, I am involved so could someone uninvolved close it please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I pinged User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, who made an edit identified as implementing the RFC result. Will give them a day or so to respond (has been inactive a few days). DMacks (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Robert McClenon as per my comment on 26 January, can we close this? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

References

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.