Talk:Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany/Archive 2

Untitled

 * Please sign your posts on talk pages.

Comparison
I'd be interested to know why this page discusses homosexual death rates in comparison to other groups, but not with Jews in particular? It seems an odd ommision given the nature of the holocaust. --Axon
 * Presumably because, unlike the Jews, those other groups were imprisoned to be "reeducated", and might someday be released (according to an earlier paragraph). --Arteitle 07:32 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Recent Contributions & Gay Holocaust "Myth"
''As with many historical issues relating to homosexuality  and the Holocaust , there is dispute over whether claims of a "gay holocaust" are exagerrated. Some authors, such as Lively and Abrams, dispute the claim that there was a "gay holocaust", and some historians for decades have argued over the claim that large-scale murders of groups besides Jews were carried out during the Holocaust , claiming that the Holocaust was a uniquely Jewish experience''

The Holocaust was not a myth so I deleted that addition. If you look at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website you can find pictures of gay men in concentration camps. And in Europe, esp. Germany many monuments have been erected to remember the gay men that perished in concentration camps.

Gay men may have suffered unusually cruel treatment in the concentration camps.

Gay men did suffer unusually cruel treatment. This is from the USHMM site, " many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, beatings, and murder." Beatings from other prisoners.

Since such "anti-homosexual" laws were widespread throughout the western world until the 1960s and 1970s, the idea that gays were systematically persecuted under the Nazi regime emerged only in the 1970s.

The idea wasn't created in the 1970s. Many gay men only felt safe to speak of the atrocities committed after the repeal of anti-gay laws. See USHMM website.

And in response to the anon that deleted the conversion paragraph. Nazi Germany did try to force gay men to convert to heterosexuality. See below quote from USHMM:

"Nazi Germany did not seek to kill all homosexuals. Nevertheless, the Nazi state, through active persecution, attempted to terrorize German homosexuals into sexual and social conformity, leaving thousands dead and shattering the lives of many more. "

Homophobia Within Article & Unfounded Claims
I just conducted an extensive research into the topic using various encyclopedias and Holocaust organizations. The claims that had been placed into the article purporting the Nazis were friendly to gays and had a large gay membership are false. Please cite all sources before making any revisions. January 20th.


 * Please sign your posts on talk pages.

Oversight—trans-narratives not included
I'm assuming that this was just an oversight by the original authors of this article, however, there is no mention of the transgender women who were also persecuted in Nazi Germany. It's my understanding that the pink triangle was assigned to anyone assigned-male-at-birth, whilst the black triangle was assigned to anyone assigned-female-at-birth. Thus, trans women were socially categorized with homosexual men, and trans men were socially categorized with lesbians. However, in contemporary usage, claiming a trans woman is a homosexual man is a deeply offensive insult. Can we respect the trans victims of Nazi violence by decentering 'homosexual' in the description of these queer prisoners? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strand (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah this article should clearly be moved, there is no way to really know if these people were all homosexual, many could have been bisexual or trans.★Trekker (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Common name and WP:Verifiability, the article should not be moved. And what would we title the article? "Persecution of LGBT people in Nazi Germany"? "Persecution of homosexuals and transgender people in Nazi Germany"? Trans narratives are not included because the sources are not about transgender people (that we know of anyway). We can't just rename an article to include mention of transgender people because it's possible or likely that some of the people who were identified as homosexual men or homosexual women felt that their sex assignment was wrong. Also, identifying as transgender was not a thing back then. Excluding third gender aspects in other societies, there was no transgender culture. I know similar can be stated about openly identifying as homosexual back then and gay culture. But same-sex sexual attraction was understood enough for men or women with the same attraction to come together. Similar cannot be stated of being transgender. If there are any reliable sources discussing the Nazis persecuting gay men and lesbians who might have been transgender, we can include that in the article, but it should be included with WP:Due weight. And even in that case, the current title would still be the common name. As for bisexuals, it goes without saying that a bisexual man or woman was treated the same. Such distinguishing did not exist the way it does today. And even today, many people still think of bisexual men as simply gay men. We could consider changing "of homosexuals" to "of homosexuality" to be inclusive of bisexual people. But again, it starts with the sources. The sources need to cover the bisexual aspect first. And since "homosexuality" can refer to sexual orientation or to behavior, and one cannot persecute a sexual orientation (but rather the actions that partly result from sexual orientation and therefore the people engaging in the actions), "Persecution of homosexual behavior in Nazi Germany" would be a better title than "Persecution of homosexuality in Nazi Germany." Even so, I think editors would rather keep the title focus on people rather than their behavior. After all, they were not only persecuted because they engaged in homosexual activity, but also because they were believed to be homosexual. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So pretty much we should ignore bisexuals and transpeople because it's easier that way, nevermind that it's inacurate and insulting. Nice to know.★Trekker (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, we follow Wikipedia's rules. We avoid speculation unless reliable sources have speculated. And if reliable sources have, we then base a title change and inclusion of text on WP:Weight (and on WP:Precise with regard to article titles). Avoiding writing unproven narratives as fact is what any good writer would do anyway. We don't get to write about what we think took place during the Holocaust. No one does. Nothing insulting about it. Many would state that it's insulting adding conjecture to historical information, especially for a topic like this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And changing the article's title to "Persecution of LGBT people in Nazi Germany," for example, while the article only addresses gay men and lesbians (and people believed to be gay or lesbian) would be a bust in anyway. Editors would argue to move the article right back so that it accurately reflects the article's content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move as proposed. stated it most... concisely. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 17:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust → Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany – More concise name that accurately describes the subject of the article and sidesteps the issue of whether such persecution is considered part of the Holocaust, which some argue is restricted to Jews or to those who are persecuted for racial reasons. Catrìona (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Clearly the suggested title encompasses both the Holocaust and the Nazi Germany as a whole. MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 00:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Concise.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Jewish exclusivity"??
"The conception of Jewish exclusivity in the Holocaust went unchallenged in the early years of study on the subject" is both uncited and false, as is most of what follows it. While it makes sense for the article to note how LGBT persecution by the Nazis fits into academic & mainstream Holocaust awareness, the uncritical claims of "Jewish exclusivity" need to go. The old Soviet Bloc was especially guilty of downplaying or totally omitting Jewish victims from their memorials (e.g. the Babi Yar memorials). Jews weren't even added as a specific victim group at the Auschwitz Museum until the 60s, even though they made up the vast majority of victims there.
 * that's certainly a valid point. I've added a source and revised the beginning of the paragraph, which now reads "The Holocaust was the only time in history that an entire ethnic group (the Jews) were targeted for complete annihilation, regardless of their identification or place of residence. However, Jews were not the only group to be targeted by the Nazis, leading to a debate as to whether non-Jews count as Holocaust victims."


 * I think this is a better and more succinct statement of the dispute, which avoids the Soviet issue. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 23:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of LGBT life in Germany prior to the height of the pruge
There is a notable lack of information on the LGBT nightlife that was vibrant in Germany prior to the height of Nazi rule. As this quickly diminished over time with persecution, does this aspect of homosexual life in Nazi Germany deserve more discussion in this article? Third500 (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Third500

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fake heterosexual marriage for gay.jpg

"For a variety of reasons lesbians were not widely persecuted"
might be an idea to expand upon this. for those in the know (not me) it may be worthy to mention the reasons, and the "number of recorded cases of lesbians imprisoned in concentration camps" as is appropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.102.50 (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sachsenhausen Concentration camp homosexual.webp

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sachsenhausen Concentration camp homosexual.webp

Obfuscation
Regarding 's, it's not NPOV to refer to Nazis as right-wing and as conservatives. Masking that and relabeling literal Third Reich Nazis as "traditionalists" is POV-pushing. The fact that the Nazi Party was far-right is well-established. NPOV doesn't mean neutral content, but neutral portrayal and weight. This kind of whitewashing Nazi-related pages is heavily suspect.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 02:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Labeling Nazis as just "conservative" is farther from the truth as labeling them as just "traditionalists".  The Nazis were, in fact, extremist national conservatives, which are similar to traditionalist conservatives.  While "traditionalists" is not entirely true, it is at least more NPOV than the more broad term "conservatives".  That said, I would support replacing "traditionalists" with "national conservatives" when referring to Nazis and neo-Nazis, but not replacing it with "conservative" in all other cases.  "Traditionalist" and "conservative" are so similar that they could be used interchangeably.  Since, generally, people today refer to themselves as either liberal and conservative, using "conservative" in an incriminating manner is more POV-pushing than the seldom used "traditionalist", especially when referring to extremist beliefs.  It would be like replacing "communist" with a more broad term, like "socialist" or "liberal". - ZLEA T<b style="color:#6B8E23">\</b><b style="color:#6B8E23">C</b> 18:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how this topic was resolved or if it was and apologize for weighing in now if the point is moot but the Nazis don't exactly fit into the modern paradigm of political inclinations; scholars will often just refer to them as "National Socialists." The Nazis did attract support from across the political spectrum, but did eventually reject Traditionalism, "conservative" is so broad in this context that it could describe elements of almost every political movement (just like the Nazis also labelled themselves as socialists, an extremely broad political term in 1930s Germany. I agree first and foremost that the nazis were extremists and would add specifically from the "Far-Right"; while this is a partisan label, it is still one widely agreed upon by academics. Hope this helped. OgamD218 (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Post-war#Early Holocaust and genocide discourse
This section contains sentences which lack a NPOV. It needs some editing to correct this. For example: 'The debate on the Gay Holocaust is therefore a highly loaded debate which would result in an international acknowledgement of state-sponsored homophobia as a precursor to genocide, should the proponents of the Gay Holocaust succeed.' Also: 'It is, however, what Michel-Rolph Trouillot terms "an age when collective apologies are becoming increasingly common" as well as a time when the established Holocaust discourse has settled and legitimized claims of the Jewish, Roma and mentally ill victims of Nazi persecution, so it could be seen as an appropriate time to bring attention to the debate over the Gay Holocaust, even if the issue is not settled.' --TrottieTrue (talk) 04:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources, WP:WPNOTRS
This article contains a number of dubious claims, citing the "morning star" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Star_(British_newspaper) The article in question is authored by "Ryan Williams" a "Unison Cymru Wales LGBT+ officer." I cannot find any reference to any primary source, and I am concerned that neither the author or publisher are credible.

If anyone can find a reliable source for said claims it would be appreciated. --Billbarrelrider (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Masculine vs Effeminate Subculture
It would be worthwhile to expand the discussion concerning the internal battle between the masculine and effeminate segments of the gay culture in Germany. There is a brief mention of Roehm's affiliation with the masculine gay subculture, but it is only in passing. However, the truth is that this distinction is an important key to understanding the Third Reich's seemingly "schizophrenic" persecution of the gay population, particularly males. For example, the anti-Semitic, pedophilic Adolf Brand, was the publisher of Der Eigene, and he was vehemently opposed to the "soft" homosexuality espoused within the Sex Research Institute under Hirschfeld's leadership. Brand and Roehm were just two of many gay men in Germany who directed rage and ridicule at homosexuals who they viewed as weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.117.77 (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

1928 elections—NSDAP views on paragraph 175
this claims that "One of the homosexual organizations issued an open letter to all the political parties prior to the parliamentary elections in 1928, where it asked about the stance towards the penalization of homosexuality in Germany. Representatives of NSDAP replied with the following: 'Common needs before individual ones! It is not important whether you or I live. What matters is the life of the German nation. And only one who fight can live, because to live is to fight. And fighting is something what only mature people are capable of. Maturity, in turn, means propriety, especially in love. Free love and lack of restraint is a vice, so we reject it, as we reject anything what is harmful to our Nation. Anyone who supports the love between two men or women is our enemy. We reject anything that can turn our nation into the toy in the hands of our foes, because we know that life is a fight and it is insane to think that people will be friends just like that. History of nature tells us that might gives right. And the stronger will always succeed when confronted with someone weaker. Today we are those weaker, but soon we will be strong ones. But this can happen only when we will be able to multiply. This is why we do reject all unbridled passions, and especially love between men that deprives us from the last opportunity of shaking down the chains that has been put upon our nation.'" Trying to confirm this in a reliable source. (t · c)  buidhe  07:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Third500. Peer reviewers: Tatazaifendou, Vandyfan123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The “Further reading” section
Buidhe, I am greatly disturbed by your recent editing of this article. I cannot fathom why you would be so hellbent on removing the testimony of gay survivors of Nazi persecution from a “Further reading” section of this article. Such testimony is of the utmost importance, both historically and ethically. Virtually all readers of this article will be interested in such testimony. What could possibly be motivating you to remove it? To say I am shocked and shaken by your editing would be quite the understatement.

Similarly, I don’t understand why you would be so insistent on removing the sources by Plant and Rector. As far as I can see, the article currently lacks any sources widely available in English exclusively focused on their subject. A large majority of English speakers reading this English-language article on this English-language Wikipedia will be unable to read German. They need something in English for further reading.

With the sole exception of one of the Seel memoirs, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum cites all the sources that I restored in its relevant online bibliography. The Grau was already present. They are obviously oft-cited and respected references. Antinoos69 (talk) 11:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The sources from Plant and Rector are not considered entirely WP:RS by modern scholars. Plant's book was important early on, but has now been superseded by newer and better research. As for eyewitness accounts, there is a stronger case for keeping them, but these are not the only ones that exist. Ultimately I think all the relevant books would be better covered in a bibliography article. Per WP:ONUS, the further reading section should not be included unless there is consensus for it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, none other than the USHMM appears not to share your assessment of Plant and Rector. Unless you can cite reliable sources sharing your assessment, that assessment is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Unless better sources in English can be provided, readers need to be directed to Plant and Rector, as I previously argued. The removal of survivors’ testimony is absolutely inexcusable. They are not mere “eyewitness accounts.” Your persistent attempts at erasure here are downright revolting, to be honest. They are the actual victims of what is being discussed here.


 * And you should remember that the “Further reading” section had long been a feature of this article until it was quite unceremoniously and, I believe, surreptitiously removed. I don’t believe any edit summary indicated its removal. I came back to the article after a hiatus to find the section quite mysteriously removed. By whom, I wonder? Was it you? So there was never any clear opportunity to have a consensus for the section’s removal. I merely copy and pasted it back, rearranging the entries, adding the Plant and Rector. Plant had been cited within the article. So I find it disingenuous to represent the “onus” issue quite the way you do. Perhaps we should have an RfC on the matter. Antinoos69 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why some accounts and not others? Why Seel and Heger but not the two books about Rudolf Brazda or, arguably more representative of anti-homosexual persecution, the recent book about Gottfried von Cramm or this paper about Bruno Balz? Why Gad Beck instead of Walter Guttmann or Jerry Rosenstein? Whatever selection we make is going to be arbitrary unless the list is too long to fit in the article.
 * As for Plant, I read this in one of the sources cited in the article, but I forget which one. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty new to WP, so I understand if my opinion has less weight here, but it seems to me that a further reading section would only really help the article, not hurt it. Grau's Lexikon zur Homosexuellenverfolgung 1933-1945 in particular seems to qualify as WP:RS, given that his 2014 book is cited here as a reference. Lkb335 (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you know of other books written by survivors, by all means add them. All the ones I know of are included. Once you recall where you read about Plant, you can get back to me, with citation info. You have failed to establish a consensus here for removal of the section. Two editors disagree with you. You don’t own the article.
 * Now, I really insist that you explicitly explain your motivation for removing this section, without resorting to absurdities. I’ll be honest, I am suspicious of your motives here, extremely so. Look at Evolution. It is a longtime FA with a “Further reading” section that clearly doesn’t include all available sources. So so much for your argument. Antinoos69 (talk) 07:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that Grau's book is a reliable source, but so are plenty of other sources not cited here. Which ones to list is rather arbitrary. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused as to your argument. As I understand it, it's this: there are many good sources on the topic not currently in use in the article -> choosing which ones to include in further reading would be arbitrary -> we should include no sources in further reading. Apologies if I'm misconstruing something, that is not my intent, but that argument doesn't really make sense to me. As I understand WP:Further reading, there is no particular requirement about avoiding arbitrariness; rather, there should just be a focus on including a few high-quality sources. "Preference is normally given to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect of the subject, and to works whose contents are entirely about the subject of the article, rather than only partly." I agree that that likely excludes some of the sources previously included in the Further reading section, but, just using Grau's book as an example again, it seems pretty comprehensive. Lkb335 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't object to including just Grau's book in a further reading section, if that's what you're proposing. (This is what we had before Antonioos' edits). But I do object to the inclusion of sources that are of lower quality than those cited in the article (as Antonioos is arguing for) as well as arbitrarily selected primary sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * When I say "arbitrary", I mean that the usual policies of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV continue to apply. Antonioos wants to cite three memoirs, two of which are about concentration camps. Only a small minority of homosexuals persecuted in Nazi Germany were held in a concentration camp, so that's a balance issue. If we were to include a balanced selection in that sense, it would require by my count at least 16 other books, at which point it would be way too long overall. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed there are any memoirs at all in the further reading section here. Frankly I think it's a balance issue to include even one. A "see also" section with links that included articles on those books, maybe. But further reading? Certainly not. I'm especially concerned that two of them are by the same author. @Antinoos69, consensus is not a head count, and you can hardly call something "consensus" when there are only three editors involved in the discussion, especially when the one who you're taking as agreeing with you doesn't even refer to the memoirs at all in their comment. But if you must play a numbers game, well, fine: as a fourth editor, I think the FR section should be removed, and I see nothing surreptitious whatsoever about the FA nominator - who is one of the FA co-ordinators and quite aware of the current FA standards - removing it from the article.
 * Evolution is not a good example to look to - that's been a FA since 2007. Standards have changed, and the article has of course been edited since. I don't know if it would pass FA review; I can spot a bunch of WP:MOS issues with it in a quick skim. -- asilvering (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my position as I don't think it's clear: I think a FR section would be nice to have, but one with very different items than the one currently included. As I mentioned earlier, I think Grau's Lexikon zur Homosexuellenverfolgung 1933-1945 seems suitable, though, as I said elsewhere, this area of scholarship is far from my specialty, and I could very easily be wrong (I often am). Lkb335 (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs to be as listed in the sexism wiki page
Systemic murder and prison for homosexuals by thee nasi when little persecution of lesbians by them should be an example on the wiki sexism page 2600:1700:D591:5F10:6CAE:6E54:32C7:36F4 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Changing title of article
I think we should rename it "Persecution of LGBT People in Nazi Germany", for the reasons that the Hirschfield Institute was a transgender treatment facility, and transness is not in any way related to sexual orientation. Snokalok (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Article is specifically about homosexual men. There's a separate article Lesbians in Nazi Germany and potentially anoher article about trans people could be written assuming sources exist (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is that the Nazis didn't distinguish in any meaningful way between trans women and gay/bi men: any of them would have been regarded as "male", and thus "homosexual". Some language in the article explaining that it's about "those identified by the Nazis as homosexual men" might address that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

The article for lesbians is specific, but when I clicked through to here, the article uses "homosexuals" and "homosexual acts" in most places. The title and first few instances at least should be changed to "gay men" so it's clear that this article is about gay men. LikeableEditor (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Not wrong but the current title follows cited sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

date in Number of convictions under Paragraph 175 over time inaccoret
the blue section of the graph is roughly between 1904-1919 while it is show as the same as the orange 1919-1932 section.This should be changed Roma enjoyer (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended protection
How is this article protected currently? I saw pending changes needed to be approved earlier, but that doesn't seem to be the case any more. Correct me if I am wrong, but is there any chance we could add extended protection? Holocaust topics are usually protected, and the homosexual aspect only makes it more vulnerable to attacks. I don't think autoconfirmed is sufficient. Maybe it would be if it weren't featured today. There are already instances of vandalism. Ppt91 (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
A word of thanks is due to all editors who have developed this important article, and congratulations on making Featured Article on the home page. Cnbrb (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , your ears must be burning. Cnbrb, I agree with the praise, though I have my doubts that buidhe isn't a dozen professional historians stacked up in a trench coat. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * May I also add a thank you. Incidentally I was reading about this topic last week - it is absolutely shocking how the "Gay Nazis" myth continues to be upheld by less-than-commendable members of society. --SinoDevonian (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"This article is about the persecution of homosexual men"
Such information should be in the lead and perhaps in the title. Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Xx236 I would highly disagree. 73.175.213.243 (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xx236 I would highly disagree. 73.175.213.243 (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree, if this article is explicitly not about the persecution of lesbians, the title should probably be "Persecution of homosexual men in Nazi Germany". Throughout the article are references to "homosexual" that are actually only to men as far as I can tell. This is a biased way to phrase things. For example it says Before 1933, homosexual acts were illegal in Germany under Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code but if you look at Paragraph 175 it indicates it applies only to men. Seems to be a rather male-centric way to approach the phrasing of this article, but perhaps some editors well-studied in this history can offer advice. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)