Talk:Joachim Peiper

message: It has been commented in at least one book (which I read in 1990s) that discusses his death that 14 July 1976 was Bastille Day, the French national day.  While I acknowledge the coincidence, I wonder if it was quoted as a possible factor in the murder by police? He had been receiving a series of death threats over a period which could have given a politically motivated murder time to be plotted.Cloptonson (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Bastille Day factor?

message: One of the photo captions - 'Tiger I tanks of the 1 SS Panzer Corps Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler close to Villers-Bocage (June 1944)' - doesn't quite make sense. I SS-Panzer Korps was, obviously, a corps headquarters. In Normandy it commanded two fighting divisions, 1st SS-Panzer Division 'Leibstandarte' and 12th SS-Panzer Division 'Hitler Jugend'. By 1944, Tiger tanks did not serve in panzer divisions, but in special battalions attached to corps headquarters, to be sent where needed. I SS-Panzer Korps' Tiger battalion was Schwere SS-Panzer Abteilung 101. If the Tigers are from that unit, the number 231 on the second tank means they are part of Obersturmfuhrer Michael Wittmann's 2 Kompanie, which did fight British 7th Armoured Division at Villers-Bocage. Wittmann is a well-known figure, but the picture does not have much to do with Jochen Peiper. Khamba Tendal (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Nitpick

message: I believe it's more appropriate to classify L'Humanité as a Left publication. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist publication?  

message: I would like to remove this section as redundant - the commendations are listed in the body of the article. Further, the explanation of the nickname "Blowtorch" is not consistent with what appears earlier in the article. 
Compare 
===Recognition===
His leadership of the Sd.Kfz. 251 armored half-track battalion in the Third Battle of Kharkov earned the unit the nickname Lötlampenbataillon or "Blowtorch Battalion", which resulted in his receiving the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold. Three days after his actions on 6 March 1943, he received the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross. Twelve days later, Peiper demonstrated his military skill when he led his unit at full speed through Russian positions in a surprise attack on Belgorod, causing the surprised Russians to flee. Oberführer Theodor Wisch, divisional commander of the 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler, recommended him for the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves, which he was awarded on 27 January 1944.
===Rescue of the 320th Infantry Division===
[Pieper] developed the tactic of attacking enemy-held villages by night from all sides while advancing in his armored half-tracks at full speed, firing at every building. This tactic often set the building's straw roofs on fire and contributed to panic among enemy troops. Peiper's unit gained the nickname the "Blowtorch Battalion" as a result. Another source, however, reported that the nickname derived from the torching and slaughter of two Soviet villages where their inhabitants were either shot or burned. 
I would like to remove the Recognition section, unless there are objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and remove section "Recognition" K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition 

message: [Pieper] developed the tactic of attacking enemy-held villages by night from all sides while advancing in his armored half-tracks at full speed, firing at every building. This tactic often set the building's straw roofs on fire and contributed to panic among enemy troops. Peiper's unit gained the nickname the "Blowtorch Battalion" as a result. Another source, however, reported that the nickname derived from the torching and slaughter of two Soviet villages where their inhabitants were either shot or burned. 
I would like to remove the Recognition section, unless there are objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and remove section "Recognition" K.e.coffman (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Rescue of the 320th Infantry Division

message: There are two quotes that are citing from primary sources quite extensively, looking like a WP:QUOTEFARM and also giving undue weight to this content. I would like to convert them to a narrative with key points.
*The medal's citation described the fierce fighting:
*The official Waffen-SS newspaper, Das Schwarze Korps ("The Black Corps"), described Peiper's actions in Karkhov thus:
Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it appears that there aren't any objections, I will go ahead and rephrase. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive quoting 

message: At another editor's request (please see User_talk:K.e.coffman#Joachim_Peiper), I replaced Agte cites with Parker. Please let me know of any comments or concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits and npov presentation. Kierzek (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parker 

message: I have seen two separate sources recently state the age of Joachim Peiper when he died, was at 66 years of age. The information on this wiki entry lists he was 61. Can anyone help confirm without a doubt on how old he was during his passing? One source dates back to 2010, so that information might just be outdated, and 61 is the accurate age. I just don't want to spread false information, even when dealing with something as minor as age of death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarijx (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of death? 61 or 66?  

message: This article states that Peiper went to the Bad Tölz SS officer training school in Braunschweig.  This is incorrect.  Bad Tölz and Braunschweig are two different locations that are many miles apart.  Bad Tölz is in the extreme south of Germany.  Braunschweig is in north central Germany.  There was an SS officer training school in both locations.  Peiper went to the school in Braunschweig.  My source for this information is the book Jochen Peiper by Patrick Agte, page 11.  It’s true that Agte is a notorious apologist for Nazis, but, he can be relied upon when it comes to basic factual information such as where Peiper went to officer training school.  I will now attempt to make my first time ever edit within the body of a preexisting article in Wikipedia.  Signed:  Stephen W. Richey, April 10, 2017 Stephen W. Richey (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where Peiper Went to Officer Training School 

message: In answer to the posting above regarding confusion about Peiper's age at death, he was born in 1915 and died in 1976.  Doing the arithmetic, he was 61 years of age when he was incinerated by his house burning down on top of him.  Signed:  Stephen W. Richey, 10 April 2017 192.230.163.162 (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peiper's Age at Death 

message: Will someone do me the courtesy of explaining to me why my contribution that Peiper went to officer school in Braunschweig, not Bad Tolz, was deleted?  Signed, Stephen W. Richey, April 12 2017 Stephen W. Richey (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not deleted, just reverted back to a prior WP:RS source; now, that you used Parker for the change, it is okay. Just cleaned it up a bit as to format; btw - this article uses d/m/y and sfn format for the cites. I don't watch this article on a regular basis anymore, so for any other queries, I leave it to others. Kierzek (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why Was My Contribution Deleted? 

message: "He was often seen at the funerals of personalities such as Meyer, Dietrich and Paul Hausser."
Surely he wasn't seen more than once at each funeral?
"Peiper assisted the efforts of these organizations..."
What organizations?2A02:AA1:1012:8DD1:B183:9FDD:69E8:7C71 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every time Dietrich was buried, Peiper showed up 

message: I've made some pretty uncontroversial edits which are mostly about grammar, style, etc. Diffs below:
Reducing repetition:
:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joachim_Peiper&diff=1045681959&oldid=1045681786
Consistent use of unit names, removing claim of glory hound in lead which doesn't summarize what's in the article. 
:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joachim_Peiper&diff=1045681507&oldid=1045680996
I've been reverted with edit comments as follows:
:"Spell out the facts, Br. English, per the instructions"
::(my response): "British English tag is about variant of English (US, UK, etc.) per WP:ENGVAR not an instruction to translate all terms to English"
:"Get over yourself, glorifying Nazis? Whoa!"
:"Dumbing down is an edit war game. What are you about?"
Perhaps the IP editor can explain their rationale? Hopefully it's misunderstanding, but the insult about glorifying Nazis is both inaccurate, and offensive.(Hohum @) 21:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits. 

message: Was he a father himself? 2003:F5:CF0A:75B7:51C9:BCE9:611C:45B2 (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did he fathered children? 

message: “ In November 1943, the LSSAH) fought in battles at Zhytomyr, in Ukraine. In the course of battle, the inexperienced Peiper replaced the regiment's dead commander”
I get it he wasn’t a very nice man, but inexperienced?? This article used to be biased in his favour as some sort of mythical combat legend. Now, some anti-factual wannabe historian is painting him as Private Gomer Pyle. Do better! Bias either way is poor. 24.69.20.123 (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inexperienced? 

message: In the controversial section "Nazi idolatry", I did a three-word minor edit, just to make the article's text less inaccurate and obnozious.  Peiper was a murdering scum, and I propose that no genuine "right-wing American" would disagree with that summary, knowing his history and true record.  Peiper represents the SS military wing of the arrogant murdering monstrosity that was Nazi Germany.  I changed "right-wing American" to the more appropriate and accurate "neo-Nazi American".  I also changed the phrase "practised by right-wing organisations" to "practised by certain right-wing organisations".  Note the European/UK spelling of practised and organisations, not that I care.  But whoever made these BIASED and OFFENSIVE statements may not be aware of their seriousness.  To inform our probable European editor of the long-standing political landscape in America, the predominance of U.S. military veterans from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam---especially in their later years (say, from the 1980's forward)---would identify as some form of "right-leaning" or "right-wing" if pressed to choose, depending on the fairness of the definition of "right-_____" presented.  This typically tends to mean holders of traditional American values and Judaeo-Christian ethics, Contistutional freedoms and the personal values of hard work, faith, and community support.  To link these men and women and their families and their political support with Nazis is supremely biased and uncalled-for; again, perhaps written by someone in good faith who does not know what they are talking about.  If there is a Nazi sympathizing artist producing some form of his or her "art", and it gets around on the internet, and some lazy officer or non-com at the Pentagon took a short-cut and used something off the internet without running its source completely to ground, they are guilty of just being as lazy and stupid as the average person out there in the world looking for some digital image to enhance their writings or website or project, not of being Nazi sympathizers.  And just because they did it when Donald Trump was President in 2019, does not make Nazis of American veterans, nor the active-duty personnel, officers, or commanders of the U.S. Army, nor the DoD, nor the President, nor any other common punching-bag of the ultra-leftist New York Times and the Washington Post newspapers.  As a U.S. Army veteran, I have never met any veteran of any of our wars or peace-time who had any admiration for our enemies except for their toughness in battle and military prowess, not their murdering ways or political Socialism of any stripe.  I am hoping that my three-word attempt to make this article section at least APPEAR to be more fair-minded will not be reversed or rejected by other Wiki editors, who should feel free to improve on it further, but not go back to the way it was.  If it is reverted to what it was before, I will report this article section for bias. Mluklu7 (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the edit. You could have justified it with a couple of sentences though. I don't have the inclination to check, but it's just as likely that someone simply worded this badly; versus it being some "European editor" being malicious. Collegiate editing isn't a battle zone. (Hohum @) 23:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your reply.  I did justify it more briefly in the box below the actual edit.  But I considered that the Talk page here might also benefit the topic by pointing it out.  Note that I invited anyone to improve on my edits further, only not simply revert them.  Please also note that I credited the editor---no matter who they were or where they were from---as probably acting in good faith, not being very aware of how their statements would appear on the American political landscape. Hardly an accusation of being "malicious".  On the other hand, the editor/author---again whoever they are---had little hesitation about accusing a ridiculously wide spectrum of the United States military with being either "Nazi idolaters" or "white supremacists" simply because someone in the communications or historical sections used a colorized photo of Peiper to represent the German military forces during the Battle of the Bulge.  I know their sources were a 2008 book and a 2019 couple of articles by two American newspapers, but I saw no personal assumption of a good faith error by Pentagon staffers on the part of the Wiki author in this section.  I could be wrong, but I looked carefully for it and couldn't find it as it stands now---"badly worded" or not.  "In the United States, Obersturmbannführer Joachim Peiper is an idol...."  "In the U.S. military, the idolatry of Obersturmbannführer Peiper penetrated the official publications...."  "...the DoD publication appeared to celebrate a Nazi war criminal...."  And I agree that collegiate editing is not a battle zone, but I have had far too many negative encounters with Wiki editors who seem to take the opposite view about editing, hence my "leaning in" on this just a bit more than I would otherwise. Mluklu7 (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Leaning in" will normally get worse results than not. (Hohum @) 17:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the sentiment, but my involvement with certain seemingly OCD Wiki editors over the years has severely truncated my contributions and drained most of my advance of good will.  I was the senior national editor of a full-sized old-fashioned newspaper for many years---a veterans' newspaper, historian and author of many historical articles.  I have dealt with some of the roughest killers of enemy troops on earth, and yet my worst experiences with other writers/editors have been some of the self-appointed self-anointed demigods of Wikipedia.  Wiki's only saving grace is that you also have some really stand-up men and women who know the backstory on some of these same twirps and seem to take pleasure in putting them in their place when it is necessary.  But the twirps prevent Wikipedia from securing a better quality (and quantity) of volunteer help in expanding and contributing articles---that and one or two of Wiki's own policies.  No one needs that kind of grief in volunteer work. Mluklu7 (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Right-wing Americans" called Nazi sympathizers in this article: That is beyond OFFENSIVE