Jump to content

Talk:Pink triangle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 26 September 2018 (Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Pink triangle/Archive 1) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconGermany Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
As the wise man said, an ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation. EEng 23:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_triangle&oldid=861228438"