Talk:Pink triangle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent changes

The recent changes stem from me. The English Wikipedia doesn't recognise users form Wikipedia Germany. I hope there are no linguistic mistakes, 'cause I'm not a native speaker. -- Lysis 4:08 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

'... even though gay sex was prevalent in the strictly gender-separated Nazi camps.' Does anyone have a source for this? - Wgsimon 03:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is unclear what, if anything, needs to be done to resolve this concern. Can we archive it?

Numbers

Between 10,000 and 600,000 gay men and women

This range is rather wide. Is there no reasonably accurate figure? -- Evercat

Follow the link to Homosexuals in Nazi Germany for an explanation of this range. -- Kimiko 21:10 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi! I'm from Germany, and even happen to be gay. But what's more, I can say I know the most important literature regarding the topic. The number is quite unrealistic. Such numbers stem from the early 80's, when there was no research that had been done on homosexual men. But the picture of historians has changed a lot since. We now know very much about the extent of persecution. The number of gay camp prisoners wearing the pink triangle ranges between 5,000 and 15,000 (at most). 100,000 men have been implicated in legal proceedings, about 50,000 were convicted to serve a sentence in jail. And about 5,000 to 15,000 have been dragged into the concentration camps by the Gestapo (see also Paragraph 175). I will also provide some links in the next days. By the way, only very, very few lesbians were sent to concentration camps because of their identity as lesbians, and none could be imprisoned, because lesbianism was not punishable as such. Only fornication between men was. -lysis 2:21 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• "However, a commonly accepted rough estimate of the prisoners who wore the pink triangle is 5,000 to 15,000. For non-Jews, they certainly had a death toll above average. The reason for this might be that they were often alone and sometimes avoided and singled out at a distance because they had been branded as gay (even though gay sex was prevalent in the strictly gender-separated Nazi camps.)"

I removed the above paragraph as a source absolutely needs to be given. Giving a number, high or low, without a source is POV. Even if the numbers are added in good faith, they are used to push POV. Also, I'd want a source saying any kind of sex was common in Nazi concentration camps. Hyacinth 13:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The numbers in the article are much more accurate today. Can this be archived?

Broken Link

The following was placed in the article, so I have moved it here... "A short explanation of the origin of pink and other queer triangles ~ Broken link, goes to the page of someone names Jase. Please, someone more knowlagable then me fix this" Oscroft (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It is unclear how this section provides relevant discussion to the article as it exists, can it be archived?

Pink Triangle (HiFi)

Pink Triangle Ltd was a UK HiFi manufacturer, their first and most successful product was the Pink Triangle Turntable (launched in 1979). This sold in modest but significant quantity, but was never as successful as the similarly priced Linn Sondek LP12. As the company folded in 2003 there are few web references, eg http://popular.ebay.co.uk/consumer-electronics/pink-triangle.htm John a s (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence for a persecution of lesbians because of being lesbian

There are two main research reports on the fate of lesbians in Nazi Germany: The one is published as "Nationalsozialistische Sexualpolitik und weibliche Homosexualität" - it's the work by Claudia Schoppmann to be promoted for a doctor's degree, the other is "Kontinuitäten der Ausgrenzung" a report on the fate of "anti-social" (= black triangle) detainees at the Ravenbrück concentration camp by Christa Schikorra - also a work to be promoted for a doctor's degree. Schikorra doesn't report any case of a lesbian being persecuted as "anti-social" in Ravensbrück. Schoppmann reports two women one of whom was a black triangle detainee in Ravensbrück and the other is not documented in the archives of Ravensbrück as well as Flossenbürg. The woman who was a black triangle detainee in Ravensbrück is Mary Pünjer a jewish women and being punished because of "Rassenschande" (having a sexual relation with a non-jewish person). The person that is not researchable neither in the archive of Ravensbrück nor in the archive of Flossenbürg is a person mentioned by a pink triangle detainee in Flossenbürg who met her in this camp recognized her as a lesbian, as he reported in a short epsiode to an author within a long interview regarding his fate during the nazi period of time and his impressions through the history of Eastern Gemany afterwards. Thus we are not able to find another source for this women with the name of "Else". All other lesbians reported to be persecuted by the nazis were subject of persecution because of their jewish heritage or because of some kind of political resistance or other political reasons. -- etz 23.35, 05 April 2010 (CEST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.153.65 (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Pink triangle and Jewish star

The article refers to the superimposition of a Jewish star and a pink triangle in Nazi Germany. My grandfather was one of the first Jewish men in Czechoslovakia who volunteered to wear both symbols, and unfortunately not everyone was 100% supportive. To this day, I have family members who insist that Papa may have chosen the wrong year to come out. I guess we could argue all day as to whether it was an astute decision on his part or not (given the political climate at the time) and still not come to any firm conclusion, but that wouldn't get us anywhere. Do we have any reliable figures on how many people wore both symbols? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.55.212 (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

My condolences on the deep and unforgivable trauma inflicted upon your family by Nazis. I am unaware of any source which would provide an accurate count of the prisoners who were both Jewish and queer. Is this concern still relevant to improving the quality of the article?

Disambiguation page?

Seems there are several uses of "Pink Triangle". Should we create a disambiguation page, and perhaps move this article to Pink triangle (symbol)? In addition to the two uses currently displayed in the hatnote, the Burnside Triangle in Portland, Oregon is also nicknamed "Pink Triangle". ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Another Believer It would be great to see a section of this article devoted to the symbol's contemporary use. MassiveEartha (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pink triangle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025220641/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/pink_triangle.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/pink_triangle.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Triangle direction

I've twice reverted an anonymous IP address that changed the triangle in the intro from flat-on-top ("pointing down") to flat-on-bottom ("pointing up"), with the edit summary "this is a reclaimed symbol": see this 2nd edit for an example. There's no WP:RS that flat-on-bottom is the defining direction; there is, of course, plenty of documentation of the original orientation being the defining. I don't think that just using emotional-loaded words like "reclaimed" is sufficient to change the intro image for the article; it sounds more like the anonymous IP just doesn't like to think about the triangle pointing one direction instead of the other and has decided for us that one feels better. For what it's worth, right now there is a brief claim in the intro text that says "Originally intended as a badge of shame, the pink triangle (often inverted from its Nazi usage) has been reclaimed as an international symbol of gay pride and the gay rights movement, and is second in popularity only to the rainbow flag." That was added in 2006, unsourced, and tagged in 2007, until removed on 2009-07-21; but the next day, in this edit from 2009-07-22 it was restored with a source that just says"'San Francisco Neighborhoods: The Castro' KQED documentary." and doesn't specify which claims in that sentence were covered by the source, or what part of the source covered it. I find it suspicious that a source was added in 2009 implying that it happened to cover all 3 claims of an unsourced sentence from 2005. And how is a documentary about a gay neighborhood a reliable source for the claims in it? I assume flat-on-bottom use is widespread and can be documented; but that doesn't mean it's the defining orientation. Anyone have any input on this triangle orientation thing from this month, or the questionably-sourced Castro sentence from years ago? --Closeapple (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC) FWIW, the KQED documentary did cover that the symbol was pointed down, now is often pointed up and also reclaimed and is second only to the rainbow flag for LGBT symbolism. The Castro is the LGBT district neighborhood of San Francisco and the documentary by KQED, certainly a reliable source, covered the history of the neighborhood into becoming the gay hood. Both symbols are part of permanent displays in the Castro and have ongoing history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:2CF8:54E5:44CE:1239 (talk) 05:18, 27 April 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Gay Activists Alliance

The following is from A Feminist Dictionary (aka Amazons, Bluestockings and Crones: A Feminist Dictionary):

"Many gay people have taken up [a] Nazi symbol — the pink triangle that homosexuals were forced to wear in concentration camps ....It has come to be used as a symbol of gay defiance in the face of persecution, repression and annihilation. It was uncovered [in England] in 1971 by a man in the Gay Liberation Front, Alan Wakeman, who read in a Jewish library about the whole elaborate system the Nazis worked out with interlocking triangles to signify all they persecuted — Jews, Communists, gypsies, gays, people with disabilities and so on. Although he wrote about it, and although a wreath in the shape of a triangle was placed on the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day, to commemorate homosexuals killed in war — it didn't take off as a symbol until the Gay Activists Alliance produced a 'Gays Against Fascism' badge incorporating the pink triangle to counter the National Front in its rise in 1977." "Politically (as a reminder both that homosexuals died...in concentration camps, and that the struggle of gays can't be separated from a wider struggle) and aesthetically (reclaiming pink!) [the pink triangle is] very satisfying." It is sometimes used with the apex pointing down or (deliberately to reverse Nazi practice) up. (Ruth Wallsgrove 1982, 10)
– Kramarae, Cheris; Treichler, Paula A., eds. (1985). "Triangles". A Feminist Dictionary. London: Pandora Press. ISBN 0863580157.

I did not see a mention in the article regarding the origin, and rise of use, in Britain, and thought this background information would be of interest to editors of the subject. Ruth Wallsgrove is a scholar and feminist writer (Spare Rib magazine, off our backs, Feminist Review, etc.). The "Wakeman" in the quoted text is Alan Wakeman: http://www.unfinishedhistories.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/web-1970-1985-glf-badges.jpg @ Alan Wakeman, Unfinished Stories, http://www.unfinishedhistories.com/interviews/interviewees-r-z-3/alan-wakeman/. Pyxis Solitary yak 15:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

page needs major rework

This page neglect lots of aspects for the persecution of people send to concentration camps under the pink triangle. For example refusing to acknowledge them as victims of the war (and thus denying any compensation), refusing to prosecute any member of the Nazi regime on this topic, the denial of this topic after the war that results in historians today admitting they don't have a clue about how many victims there are, etc.

All of this while their is a page that covers this far better: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.244.129 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed: After the war

The article says "After the camps were liberated at the end of the Second World War, many of the prisoners imprisoned for homosexuality were re-incarcerated by the Allied-established Federal Republic of Germany." and the reference given is https://libapp.shadygrove.umd.edu/omeka/exhibits/show/the-era-of-the-holocaust/homosexual-prisoners yet it makes no such claim, unless I overlooked something --Johannes Rohr (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

"Badge of Shame"? No, just an indication of the reason for incarceration

The Nazi regime hat set up a system of identification of the prisoners in the concentration camps by various the reason for their incarceration by the color of the triangle and additional marks for other criteria. See File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1993-051-07,_Tafel_mit_KZ-Kennzeichen_(Winkel).jpg and File:Kennzeichen_für_Schutzhäftlinge_in_den_Konzentrationslagern.jpg. The colors where red for politicals, green for ("professional") criminals, blue for emigrees, violet for Bible Student movement, pink for homosexuals, and finally black and dark grey for "a-social" and generally outcasts. These categories could in addition to be idetified as jews by underlying a yellow triangle with the tip above, forming a star of david. The red triangle was and is used as proud self-identification of those political currents which were prosecuted by the Nazi state, and the pink triangle in the initial years of the gay liberation movement. The red triangle is part of the official sign for the Union of Persecutees of the Nazi Regime in Germany. --L.Willms (talk) 07:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

In principle, each and every prisoner in the Concentration Camp had his color badge to categorize the prisoners. This color coded triangles were not to be carried outside. Only Jews were required to identify themselves in public as outcasts with the yellow david star, beginning in the mid 1930ies. This puts into question the classification as "badge of shame" in the article. --L.Willms (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources indicate that the badges also served to establish a social "pecking order" within the camps, with some prisoners holding a higher/lower social status based on the color of their badges. (Hint: pink badges didn't lift one to a higher status.) -Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Pitting each against every other, that is the purpose and effect. Divide and conquer. So there might be "criminals" pecking the "politicals", "homosexuals" the Jehova Witnesses, politicos the homos and "a-socials", and what have you. It requires a conscious effort to convince each and everyone that "we are all in this together". Besides, this was a very burocratic scheme thought out in some office, which was bound to break down with increasing numbers of people thrown into the camps, especially when the war began. Also, the prisoners uniform was meant to be white with vertical blue stripes, or grey with blue stripes in winter. But since the manufacture was decentralised, the colors could not be uniform. Anyway, the red and pink triangle have been used as badges of honor after the war, the red one right away and still active (see Union of Persecutees of the Nazi Regime), the pink triangle at the beginning of the gay liberation movement, later replaced by a rainbow flag. The pseudonym Rosa von Praunheim is a reference to the pink (rosa in German) triangle. At events commemorating the concentration camps, former inmates come clothed in the blue stripe prisoner clothing. Cheers, --L.Willms (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

As a "badge of shame" in public, the red and pink triangles would have been counterproductive. It would show in public that there are people who are not part of the oppressive regime. It would make it possible for "reds" to find co-thinkers, and gays to find partners. But the fascist regime rules mainly by terror, instilling the fear in all people that "you can't know if the unknown other" is not a spy or fink. --L.Willms (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a point to make about the content of the article? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Allied imprisonment of gay men

The snopes reference may not be accurate. Note the holocaust encyclopedia claims gay men were released when the camps were liberated. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/gay-men-under-the-nazi-regime Garyvines (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"Most notably, sexual relations between men remained illegal in Germany throughout much of the twentieth century.1 This meant that many men serving sentences for allegedly violating Paragraph 175 remained in prison after the war." This doesn't refute the Snopes reference, it confirms it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Origin of pink triangle

This article lacks an explanation for the use of a pink triangle by the Nazis. The triangle part isn't an issue for me because they used triangles of various colours. (But if someone can see why it was a triangle rather than a square or a circle, let's include it.) Rather, it is the color for which I would like to know the origin. The article, and the reference it cites, say simply that "...the use of a pink triangle was established for prisoners identified as homosexual men..." Why pink? Why not orange, or purple, or a bright yellowish green? (And one could also ask why yellow was chosen for Jews.) Someone must have come up with the prisoner color scheme.

For that matter, there is no source for the use of pink prior to the Nazis. I am aware that the "pink for girls, blue for boys" trope is a 20th-century invention which simply resulted from two paintings being side-by-side. So, did the Nazis consciously choose pink for homosexuals as representing effeminacy? In that case a citation would be welcome. On the other hand, did the choice of pink have a different source, or was it entirely coincidental such as having an excess of pink fabric?

I will continue searching for a reference on this point, but would welcome any leads. Possibly the answer lies in the development of prisoner symbols in general. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

weezer

Who else here cause of a weezer song 38.158.183.131 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)