Talk:Pink triangle

Lack of detail

The pink triangle was not only used for Homosexuals. It reads more like a contemporary magazine article than a encyclopedic one. Rapists, Pedophiles, Zoophiles also were branded with the pink triangle.

This comment is offensive. Can it be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 19:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

NO. We do not remove comments just because YOU don't like it. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The community interned using the pink triangle were accused of a variety of sexual crimes. I believe it is deeply offensive and disrespectful to describe them as rapists, pedophiles, zoophiles, or homosexuals, because it does not accurately describe the imprisoned population in contemporary language, but instead adopts the language of Nazi authorities. This labelling and over-simplification of the German queer community during WWII is especially toxic, because instead of describing victims of violence with contemporary terms of respect, it adopts the oppressive and violent language Nazis used. Can we please archive this comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 19:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Inappropriate Use of a Modern Construction

It is not appropriate to talk of the people persecuted for homosexual behaviour in nazi Germany and occupied europe as 'gay' as 'gay' is a more modern construct and was not in common usage at the time. Neither the victims or their captors would have thought the victims as 'gay'. Using 'gay' in this article misleads the reader into assuming the modern construction of homosexuality was shared by those in nazi Germany. 121.79.22.16 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is not the most appropriate way to refer to imprisoned people badged with a pink triangle. However, referring to 'gay men' erases the trans women who were also there. Is there a better phrasing which will include all of the assigned-male-at-birth queer prisoners? Strand (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources

This article cites several sources, which is good. However, not a single fact or figure in the article is attributed to any of the sources. It would be much better if we could match up a source to some of the statements. Does anyone have access to any of these sources (or others) so that we can add some foot-notes to some of the statements in the article? Johntex\^talk 01:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Citation means the attribution of actual, not the listing of potential, sources, but you are correct, this article should cite sources. Hyacinth 13:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be at least a blurb about criticism. None of my friends like this symbol, as it is was the Nazis made us wear. It would be as if I, as a Jew, decided to wear a yellow armband with a Star of David as a symbol of Jewish Pride. Most gay prefer the rainbow flag as something chosen by themselves rather than something the Nazis made us wear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.191.14 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This comment is twelve years old, and this article is now well-sourced. Can we archive this discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Masculine or feminine?

Currently we have this: "The pink triangle... was one of the Nazi concentration camp badges, used by the Nazis to identify male prisoners in concentration camps who were sent there because of their homosexuality... pink was chosen not because it meant the wearer was feminine, but because they liked other men." This is specifically marked as being an unsourced (and therefore unreliable) statement.

Even so, I think it's worth mentioning that a recent BBC News article states just the opposite about pink changing from being a man's to a woman's colour. It says this: "What prompted the switch is unclear, but it had been made by the time Adolf Hitler ordered the classification of homosexuals. Those deemed "curable" were sent to concentration camps and labelled with a pink triangle. This suggests that by then, pink was associated with femininity." I know the text says it "suggests" an association with femininity (and doesn't address the shape of the badge at all), but it certainly doesn't support the theory given here. I suspect this should be replaced, or at least added to what we already have here. leevclarke (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wondered about this. If – as is commonly asserted – pink was for boys in the early 20th century, or more correctly, pink was not specifically and universally associated with women and femininity yet at the time (see List of historical sources for pink and blue as gender signifiers, which regrettably has few sources for Europe and almost none for Germany; most are for the US by far), why was pink chosen in the first place? Also, the choice of pink, contrary to the BBC article, does not inherently prove any gender association. After all, both possibilities are realistic: Gay men were associated with femininity or a female nature (per the theory of sexual inversion), but it is equally possible that the color referred to the male rather than female gender of their sexual partners. Of course it's also possible that neither is the true reason and the real explanation is different. Consider the list in Nazi concentration camp badges#Single triangles: all kinds of "sexual offenders" received pink triangles, not only gay men. On the other hand, lesbian women apparently received black triangles (the symbol for "asocial elements"). What is needed to answer this question are sources for the cultural associations pink had in Germany prior to 1934. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe mentioning pink as a feminine color is a non sequitor in the context of this article. Currently this article uses neither the term masculine or feminine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Triangle is Inverted onto its Base as Gay Pride Symbol?

I don't have a citation for this, and so have not altered the entry, but have always understood that when the pink triangle is used as a symbol of gay pride, it's reversed from the position in which it was visually employed in concentration camps, so that the triangle's base is no longer one of its points. (This newer position is the way the triangle is displayed in the famous Silence = Death graphic developed by ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power). If someone has a citation ducumenting this, I think it would be an interesting addition to make. Codenamemary (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree and will see what i can find. -- Banjeboi 00:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Without any evidence for this distinction, I'm removing the comment to this effect in the graphic. 76.218.68.67 (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What burden of proof needs to be met to describe a triangle, either as verted or inverted? This strikes me as common knowledge/contemporary language usage, and I'm not sure that we'd need to cite anything to describe the triangle in either orientation. Strand (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"Homosexual men"?

There's an edit-war ongoing over what kinds of people the pink triangle was assigned to. The point of contention seems to be whether it was assigned only to homosexual men, or if other "queer people" (such as trans women) were given the triangle too. One of the pillars of WP is that, if we state something that isn't obviously factual, it needs citations to support it. It's a reasonable supposition that some of those identified as homosexual men were trans women... but it isn't our job to suppose. We need to cite reliable sources that say so.

Strand's preferred solution seems to be to use the more general term "queer people", but there are problems with that. The first is that it retroactively assigns a label that most of the people in question would not have identified with... and probably would've actively objected to. This is a long-debated – and settled – matter of WP policy. Similarly, we don't say that the men in 1940s camps were "gay" because that was an identity they would not have associated with either, whereas "homosexual" was the term in general use at the time, and is the English analog of the term the camp operators used. It's at least historically appropriate. Second, "queer" is a very broad term, and implicitly includes (at least) lesbian women. But (according to everything I've read) it is not true that lesbian women were imprisoned with pink triangles. It's just as important that we be precise as it is to be inclusive.

We don't know that all of those who wore pink triangles in the camps were homosexual men – it is likely that many were instead bisexual men, falsely identified heterosexual men, trans women, or some other identity – and we should try to avoid declaring that they were. However, they were identified as homosexual men – we know that, because that's what the Nazi documentation says – and it's safe to assume that at least a large plurality of them were in fact male and homosexual.

Both of the edit-warriors here have made legitimate points. I believe I can address those points, and would like to make an attempt by editing the article with them in mind... without being reverted. So if either of you have criticisms of my version, please address them here on this Talk page. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I found two online assertions, both within seemingly well-informed context, that trans women prisoners wore inverted pink triangles. Unfortunately, neither of these is from WP:RS.

Quora: Trans women who were sent to concentration camps wore inverted pink triangles…. And trans men wore inverted black triangles.
Tumblr: In Nazi Death Camps, interned homosexuals and transgenders were forced to wear upside-down pink triangles.

I'm afraid we must wait for future publications to sort this out. KalHolmann (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I found a couple other sources (cited in the article)... they aren't great, but I think they're acceptable, given that it's a fairly non-controversial claim. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@JasonAQuest: Hello, can you help me figure out why the claim that queer, assigned-male-at-birth prisoners wore the pink triangle requires the level of citation that it does? This is general knowledge in queer communities. Is the sensitive nature of this topic causing excessive scrutiny to be payed to a minor concern? Strand (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Just because you believe something to be obvious doesn't make it so. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I was triggered by this offensive phrase. My apologies.

Can someone please add a content notice? On twitter while they had silenced me I stated I wouldn’t edit anything for a week, and I’m not joking. It’s clear that I learned a personal limit here, which means exposure therapy is working. Strand (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia does not use content warnings. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Jason A. Quest, I support your analysis above as to why broadly substituting "queer" in this article is problematic. As you indicate, linguistic anachronism risks distorting the pink triangle's historicity. But I find your second point even more persuasive. Wikipedia tells us, "Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender. … It can be preferred because of its ambiguity, which allows queer-identifying people to avoid the sometimes rigid boundaries that are associated with labels such as gay, lesbian, or even transgender." This encyclopedia article, however, ought to avoid ambiguity. In describing the pink triangle, let's strive for precision, not political correctness. KalHolmann (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. It's a subtle distinction, but in working on the History section, I've been careful to use the specific adjective in use at the time: i.e. in the 1970s, most groups identified as "gay", in the 1980s it was more likely "lesbian and gay", and by the timeframe of the "safe space" symbol "LGBT" is appropriate. For example, I know that there were bisexual people involved in "lesbian and gay" organizations in the 1980s (because I was one of them), but "lesbian and gay" is what the groups were called (and "gay" is what I called myself back then), so that's how we should describe them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture

The "in popular culture" section seems like a bad way to handle the information under that header. The Rocky-Horror item was originally included as an early documented example of the symbol being appropriated, not just a random example of it appearing in the media. The Robert-Randolph-Davis item seems more an example of a small-scale memorial than an example of pop culture. Also, "in popular culture" sections are magnets for trivia, inviting people to add every sighting of a pink triangle they find, so I'd like to get rid of that heading itself. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur that this section is a candidate for deletion. The Rocky Horror section read as a non sequitor, and I'm not sure the Robert Randolph-Davis section is notable enough for inclusion. I recommend deleting this entirely, but don't have a strong opinion here. (If this page has a In popular culture section I won't lose any sleep over it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 20:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the Davis claim per WP:IPCV. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the appearance in RHPS is a noteworthy example of the symbol being self-applied in the mid-1970s, prior to its broader use in the 1980s, and should be included in the History section as such. -Jason A. Quest (talk)

I've added it to the History section, as one of several 1970s media references to the symbol (and easily the best-known). The citatation of the Medium.com article serves to verify that the description of Frank's outfit is accurate, and I think it is reliable enough for that purpose. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

When is Citation Needed acceptable for Pink Triangle?

There are several uncited sections of this article? What burden of proof do we need to retain these? Should we just delete them until evidence is provided? —Strand (talk • contribs) 13:12, August 25, 2018‎ (UTC)

The need for citations is roughly proportional to how likely the information is likely to be challenged/questioned. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Significant whitespace

A few paragraphs in this article contain two related topics, and should be two paragraphs instead of one. May I do a pass introducing significant whitespace? Strand (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

My suggested white space changes have been made in my fork of this article Strand (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

The community identified with pink triangles was not "homosexual men"

Currently, this article is inconsistent and clunky in how it describes the community who were assigned pink badges. On twitter, I said

If we want to be specific, the pink triangle was used by Nazis to identify queer prisoners who had been assigned-male-at-birth.

If we call them "homosexual men" we're using a Nazi-constructed social category. [(tweet)|https://mobile.twitter.com/Strabd/status/1033080653741416448)]

Can we come to a consensus on how to refer to the group of prisoners as a whole? "Homosexual male" is deeply offensive as trans women are erased by this phrasing. We need an alternative. What are your thoughts? Strand (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with how the article handles it currently (which I believe is a little different from when this comment was added), which is to identify the literal category and also to describe in modern terms whom it included. The Nazis didn't create the category of "homosexual men"... in the 1940s that's how nearly the entire Western world – including a substantial number of these people themselves – thought of them all. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur with Jason A. Quest. We are not using a Nazi-constructed category. Our references to homosexual men do not erase transgender women, whom we recognize under that term. I commend Jason for his three dozen conscientious edits of the article this month, and for his patience in responding to complaints on this talk page. KalHolmann (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• BTW, can we please give it a rest with the erasure rhetoric? It's really getting tiresome. Gaps in the historical narrative happen for many reasons, and disagreement about how best to present a topic doesn't mean someone's out to erase anyone. EEng 18:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert by flighttime -- trans women in the lede

Trans women were interned, and this is significant enuf for the lede. Please de-revert. Strand (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur and have added bisexual men and transgender women to the lead. KalHolmann (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ty KalHolmann. Strand (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Revert by flight time -- active voice in the lede

I believe the more correct phrasing is "were" not "identified by authorities as" as the former is active and avoids the Wesel word authorities. Please de-revert. Strand (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. We cannot state in Wikipedia's voice that everyone who was so identified was in fact homosexual, bisexual or transgender. If you can provide WP:RS reporting that no one was misidentified in this seemingly arbitrary process, by all means share it here. KalHolmann (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

perhaps we can resolve this by being more specific, and indicate who identified the prisoners and also describing the arbitrary process? These prisoners weren’t just identified by authorities… :handwave: Strand (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

In our lead, to support saying "they had been identified by authorities," we cite Richard Plant's book The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War against Homosexuals (1986). Plant writes (p. 110) that Paragraph 175 was revised in 1935 "to extend the concept of 'criminally indecent activities between men.' It permitted the authorities to arrest any male on the most ludicrous and transparent charges. From the beginning, courts and judges took it upon themselves to decide what, in their minds, constituted criminal indecency. … The specialists in the Ministry of Justice were not satisfied until anything that could remotely be considered as sex between males was labeled a transgression." By 1943, however, as Plant writes (p. 145), the "proper authorities" had shifted from the judiciary to the Gestapo, who could condemn offenders to death. This information is too detailed to be incorporated into the lead, but might fit elsewhere in the text if supported by editorial consensus. Personally, I'm satisfied to leave it as "the authorities," which regarding Nazi Germany is a fairly well understood concept. KalHolmann (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Saying "identified by authorities as...." is plenty clear. Exactly which Nazi German authorities were making the decision isn't particularly important. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

As the wise man said, an ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation. EEng 23:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)