Talk:Johann Shmidt (Earth-616)

Citizen V and the V Battalion

Citizen V and the V Battalion features the Red Skull in a fb with someone resembling Emil Stein from TOS II#1.

Shmidt/Schmidt

The OHOTMU Hardcover series #9 gives the spelling of his and his daughter Sin's name as Shmidt, without the "c". Eetmi 16:41, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

How many reference sources use the "c", most of them?

Roygbiv666 -- 02:55, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

Master Edition Handbook uses the "c". Deluxe Edition and the '89 Update don't. The original series...has his real name us "unrevealed." Seems to be three to one, with one source abstaining.

--GrnMarvl14 03:36, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'd lean towards the recent A-Z Hardcovers since those are a LOT more recent than the others. Eetmi 00:06, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Same. And since both Red Skull's and Sin's profiles omit the "c", then I'd take that as being the accurate spelling. At least until the NEXT Handbook entry on either one changes it back.

--GrnMarvl14 01:48, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

How often is his name given in actual comic stories? I think just considering the OHOTMU type stuff is a bit limited. You only need one editor to miss something, and suddenly "Peter Parker" is "Petor Paker".

Roygbiv666 -- 03:25, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Schmidt is certainly the more common name and considered a "proper" german spelling, as the combination sh for that sound doesn't exist in german. The spelling Shmidt exists as well, but especially in Russia and the States and also quite often in Jewish families - now wouldn't that be a weird twist. ;) Marvel used Shmidt on several occasions for German soldiers in their war mags, but I always considered those typos and/or bad knowledge of German. Is there a reason for copying an obvious error, even if it's in the OHOTMU?--edkaufman 10:57, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Because it's more accurate, continuity-wise. Maybe German's different in the ol' 616.

--GrnMarvl14 17:14, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

no doubt, a few things are very different, i.e plain "wrong" in the 616s. I still agree with Roygbiv666 (especially when considering the linguistic facts): This is a simple editor's typo. We all know how Marvel depends on dedicated fan-scholars to set things right when they mess up or miss things. Stick with the c. --edkaufman 00:56, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, this is a nightmare. My heart wants to follow the hardcover series (like it's written by the hand of God), but my head says use common sense. :(

— Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • contribs • email) 22:51, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

The Handbooks seem fairly definitive on the issue (Red Skull's listing in Acts of Vengeance is Shmidt). Marvel.com also omits the "c." As does the Marvel Directory. And, again, it's not JUST the current Handbooks that omit the "c." Mark Gruenwald was behind most of the original Handbooks. WHILE writing Captain America, in many (if not all) cases. To me, THAT'S definitive above all else. And Shmidt seems fairly common in the real world.

--GrnMarvl14 23:13, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the handbooks are authoritative. If they weren't, we could stop doing our work alltogether, most likely. That still doesn't mean they make sense all the time: you're right, the spelling without the c exists in the real world, though you get about 200 times less hits than the spelling with the c on google. I just checked the online phone book for germany and I got 9 hits. schmidt gets me 10'000+, which sounds about right, since it's the german translation of smith. Again, I may be wrong, but as far as I remember, the c-less spelling is almost exclusive to russian and/or jewish families (it would be one of those family names forced onto jewish families in order to make them easily recognizable as jews). Now I'm not saying it's impossible (and in fact, it would be one hell of a weird character twist if the red skull was jewish), but it seems very, very unlikely. I can see how it would be weird (on priciple alone) to deviate from the OHOTMU - but we do deviate when it comes to reality numbers, with the explicit intention of getting our information into the handbooks at one point. Whatever decision we reach, we should put a brief synopsis concerning the confusion under "notes".--edkaufman 01:24, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

We really only deviate on reality numbers when there isn't an existing reality number they utilize. And, when it comes to names, shouldn't we defer to the official published sources? Especially when there's more than one that uses that name? I mean, barring a recent revelation, shouldn't we trust the official sources to be accurate? Should we really second-guess their spellings? I understand if the real name was only referenced twice, and misspelled one of those times. Then I'd be all for going with the common sense name (Schmidt, in this instance). Makes sense. But at what point are we just thinking we know better (than the official material)? I'm all for placing a note on the page to note what's more accurate in terms of "this is how the real world works." That's good information. That's solid. That's interesting (to a nerd like me, at least). But shouldn't our baseline be the official word (or spelling, in this case)? Though, if we keep it at Schmidt, we need to make sure to move Sin's page back.

--GrnMarvl14 02:46, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but:

How often is his name given in actual comic stories? I think just considering the OHOTMU type stuff is a bit limited. You only need one editor to miss something, and suddenly "Peter Parker" is "Petor Paker".

03:45, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

But it's not just one instance. Shmidt is in three Handbooks stretching across two of three decades. Sin's profile (his daughter) uses the Shmidt spelling. His listing in Acts of Vengeance uses Shmidt. In every instance in which his last name is mentioned in the Deluxe edition, it's Shmidt. For it to be repeated over several Handbook iterations would take more than one editor making the same mistake. More than one writer making the same mistake. Whereas the ONE Handbook with Schmidt...that COULD be attributed to an editorial mistake. Especially since it IS more accurate in the real world. Seem to vaguely recall another character whose name is commonly misspelled because it's NOT spelled the common way. Wish I could actually remember who it was, though.

--GrnMarvl14 20:27, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. Aside from OHOTMU books, when the Skull's name appears in comics, do they spell it with a "c" or not? It is conceivable that each OHOTMU edition just copies over data from the last one. What is the preponderance of usage overall for the spelling of the Skull's real name?

23:21, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

The Twelve: Spearhead #1: "And if that wasn't enough, there's a good chance we are going to run into the Reich's highest ranking officer, obergruppenfuhrer Johann Shmidt." That work?

--GrnMarvl14 01:17, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's "one" for "Shmidt". Again, to belabor the point - how often are the different spellings used in stories?

01:43, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to count up every single time his last name is mentioned and determine the spelling from that? Cause that could take a while. So far, we've got numerous Handbooks and an in-continuity reference all using the same spelling. Why is this not enough? Because it's uncommon? In a universe where characters are named Mar-Vell, Thanos, and Cal'syee...is Shmidt that odd?

--GrnMarvl14 03:01, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't actually trying to be difficult. Even for comics stuff, I really don't care. I just think 'preponderance trumps OHOTMU, that's all. No big deal. 04:02, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

definitely agree: the horse is dead. arguments have been made, two possible solutions are clear: either leave it, and add a note saying why we deviate from the OHOTMU, or change it and add a note that it was different before and that it may be a typo. Now, how do we proceed? Is there like a final vote?--edkaufman 16:04, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Roygbiv666, you're not being difficult, I'm just genuinely wondering what it's going to take to convince you guys that it's accurate. Literally, will it take going through every single appearance and counting up the Shmidts vs the Schmidts, or will a certain number suffice? As is, it seems that we have several Handbooks and an in-continuity reference versus...commonality and a vague remembrance. What issues have him referred to as Schmidt, aside from one Handbook (which, since it's one out of numerous versions would be the aberration, NOT the Shmidt)?

--GrnMarvl14 17:55, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it would take, because he's a fictional character. Accurate is whatever the writers say it is. What is the primary source of info - is it comics or OHOTMU? There's no birth certificate to check, my only point is that if there were 132 stories using the "c" and only 3 without, the answer is clear. Why not just say OHOTMU says no "c", but alternate spellings exist?

21:11, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there are 132 issues where he's called Schmidt...but give me some issue numbers. Not some "maybes", but some actual issue numbers. I've provided several where it's Shmidt. Should this be how we do things now? Someone says a spelling's more common and we go with that over the people who continuously provide references to the contrary?

I'd be fine with a note...but does that mean we should go through every character who has a name that isn't the common spelling and put the same note? I mean, Jonathan is the more common spelling of that name. Do we need that note on Johnny Blaze's page? Or Chamber's? How about Valkyrie? Brunnhilde doesn't appear to be the common spelling of her name. Kathryn's not the most common spelling of that name. Should we add a note to Katheryn Twoyoungmen and Kathryn Immonen's pages? Why not go with what the Handbooks and the one clear reference that's been brought up say? If it's wrong...we can move it back. No note's needed unless we need to add notes to EVERY page that has an uncommon spelling of a name, and if people have questions, we can point them to this discussion on the talk page. And if we find out that all along it was Schmidt...feel free to blame me and say "I told you so."

--GrnMarvl14 00:17, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

He's called Shmidt the first time his real name is given, in Captain America #298. His father's name is spelled Shmidt, and his name is given with the same spelling no less than six times. He's been mis-spelled Schmidt a fair few times, but that's simply because it is the more common spelling, so people assume. However, the original spelling, one still in use in the comics as shown by the Twelve one-shot, and the one used by the handbooks is Shmidt. The handbooks aren't accidentally spelling it Shmidt all those times; it's deliberate, because it is the correct spelling for the character. Lokiofmidgaard 00:35, March 14, 2010 (UTC) Additional - it's spelled Shmidt again in Captain America #300, when the Skull dies, and again, this time with Mark Gruenwald writing (it was J.M. DeMatteis writing the earlier issues) and with a different editor in Captain America #350 when the Skull is revived. It's spelled that way at least five times in that issue. There's five years between those issues, more than enough time for readers to have ponted out that the spelling is more commonly Schmidt, yet they stuck with Shmidt, suggesting the choice was deliberate (or, at least, the choice to stick with the spelling was deliberate). Lokiofmidgaard 01:12, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, now that's research. Good job! Sounds like it's Shmidt then.

03:03, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

no more with the horse metaphor - it's dead, rotting and, frankly, it smells already, so let's please bury it. The comics say it and so do the handbooks. So Shmidt it is. Fine. There is however, a big difference to Brunnhilde (the original spelling in the Nibleungenlied of the valkyrie's name is brünnhilde, two n, check wiki; the one n version is the anglicized version) or Kathryn (which is a common enough alternate spelling) and this case. There is no logical, scientific, linguistic or cultural reason for him being called Shmidt, as I pointed out before. The only reason in Germany in that era for a person to be called Shmidt was if they were Jewish, which, I'm sure we agree, the Skull is not. No indication in the comics and probably not a gigantic cynical cultural joke being played here. It is simply a typo or bad research. As if a Japanese character was called Ling. Doesn't work. That is the reason why we should put a note. It is not just an uncommon spelling, it simply doesn't make sense. I agree we can change it, since it's Marvel which decides what to call their characters. But the fact that we have been debating this for wto and a half months alone merits a note.--edkaufman 03:55, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

But why doesn't the Brunnhilde case deserve a note as well? And, again, the Jonathan issue. We have three different spellings, something that threw me until I saw the different spellings confirmed by the Handbooks. I'm not against a note, but I don't see why this instance is so much more special than the others.

--GrnMarvl14 19:07, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

just noticed: Brunnhilde is already spelled with two n, that's close enough for me since the letter ü is commonly replaced with a u in English. The Black Widow, which in a similar way was given culturally wrong for ages, has a note on her name as well. I don't doubt Shmidt is deliberate on Marvel's part, but it's not the "correct" spelling for the name, not with the cultural background of the Skull. That's what merits the note.--edkaufman 09:15, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well, with Black Widow, that's a change they also made in the Handbooks. Giving her Natalia Romanova as a real name, then noting Natasha Romanoff as being an anglicization (technically, it refers to her last name as being anglicized and her first name as being the informal version of her true first name). But, okay, as long as it's a cultural note and not just a note solely because it's spelled differently, then consider me on-board. If it was solely because it was different or uncommon, then we have a huge number of those that we'd need to add to as well, or else look odd for not doing so (and we'd likely have the entire discussion again when they were raised).

--GrnMarvl14 18:06, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read all of this... But since I am German... there is no Name "Shmidt" in Germany. There are several way to spell it (Schmitt, Schmid, Schmidt) but "Shmidt" is definitely not a German Name. It's as wrong as Nightcrawlers "Schweinhund" (it would be "Schweinehund" ;)). Beast of Averoigne 10:57, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Vandal of the Handbooks confirmed Shmidt as the correct spelling for the Skull. So it should be moved I guess. ;-) Beast of Averoigne 12:08, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

And the new Red Skull miniseries is using Schmidt again. Thanos6 23:38, July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Shmidt remains the official spelling, Schmidt remains a common error. Nothing new about it. Lokiofmidgaard 00:34, July 19, 2011 (UTC)

First Appearance?

I've got a bit of an issue (ha ha) with listing the Red Skull's first appearance in Captain America Comics #1. If you read the story it's not Johann Shmidt, it's George Maxon who was the Skull in that issue and in issue #3 (which he dies). Now someone on here notes that Shmidt first appeared in Captain America Comics #7.. (Marvel's website and constant other references state it was CAC #1... even though it was Maxon not Shmidt).. I would argue both, as I would say that Schmidt's first appearance was in Young Allies #1. It was published in the Summer of 1941 (So likely June) which is four months earlier that CAC #7 (October 41). Now some might argue after the publication of Young Allies 70th Anniversary Special #1 that it was a fictitious story a wartime comic book printed on Earth-616, however, one of the flashbacks shows the Young Allies fighting the Red Skull early on in their adventures, and the Marvel Handbooks with profiles on the Young Allies have stated that the stories are all likely true all be it highly embellished. Also, all the Young Allies related characters (with the exception of Bucky and Toro) have their first appearances in Young Allies #1. That is good enough for me to say that Young Allies #1 is the first appearance of the Johann Shmidt Red Skull.

Anyone else want to chime in?

Nausiated 03:28, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Check the citations. Shmidt and Maxon both appeared in Captain America Comics #1. Lokiofmidgaard 04:00, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

ht & wt, hair & eye Deletions

Marvel Encyclopedia has his original and cloned body ht & wt, hair & eye colors (Page 245 Full page spread). Please don't turn his hair black as it is brown (see picture of him as child) Capam 03:45, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

DOD?

Is the Dust of Death worthy of its own page? The Next X-Man (talk) 00:20, December 12, 2013 (UTC)Next X-Man

Separate page for the Clone?

The new clone skull fro uncanny avengers is rapidly developing into his own character, incurring injuries receiving prosthetic, meeting characters, and numerous other pieces that could be covered in a separate article.Please reply on my talk page.--FossilLord 16:38, February 10, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This Red Skull has been mentioned to be a copy of the Red Skull in a cloned body. That alone should be enough reasons to give him a separate page.

--The ADour-incible ADour (talk) 06:23, July 20, 2014 (UTC)

Split

It was established in Thunderbolts (Vol. 5) that the real Johann Shmidt had been hiding in a secret vault in Latveria since 1941, with the Johann Shmidt we know being revealed to actually be a "pretender". Given the year Shmidt is said to have gone into hiding, I think it's safe to assume that he did it after his first defeat at the hands of Captain America, which almost drove him to commit suicide per what I've read in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A to Z #9. The Red Skull's appearances following said event should be attributed to the impostor per this retcon.
TMAO (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I would wait to see how this develops further. The "pretender" had done far too much and known too much to be just another nobody. I would rather wait at least until Red Skull's next non-cameo appearance to see how this is treated going further. HBK123 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it'll be addressed anytime soon given the events of Thunderbolts (Vol. 5) #4, but I'm ok with waiting (the Red Skull's page hasn't been properly updated for quite some time now anyway).

TMAO (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I've just re-read the series and I think we could just handwave the Red Skull in the vault as being yet another clone of Shmidt, since they do call him "a contigency personality" and a "backup" in Thunderbolts (Vol. 5) #3. Also, despite the Thunderbolts talking with this Red Skull as if he was the original and him acting like it (that could be attributed to him simply boasting), he himself talked as if he was Shmidt's legacy rather than the real deal in Thunderbolts (Vol. 5) #4 (this reminds me of the confusion that was the conclusion of the Kindred storyline). Anyway, I think it's safe to say nothing should really be done for now. If someone picks up this story thread in the future and confirm the Red Skull in the vault to really be the original, then we'll have work to do here. I'm removing the split tag for the time being.

TMAO (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)