Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany/archive1

Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany

 * Nominator(s): (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I found this article in terrible shape last December and decided to rewrite it based on recent research. It went through a very thorough GAN by Vaticidalprophet and a copyedit by Bafflegab. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh
Reviewing this version: Actually, that is it! What a great article on such an important topic, very well written and thoroughly researched! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Second look; version reviewed: That is it; most of the comments are suggestions. Rest, it is simply a perfect article, fully deserving of that bronze star. Thank you very much for your efforts! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First question: If "[t]his article is about the persecution of homosexual men", why isn't it titles "Persecution of gays in Nazi Germany". I know there must be some valid reason (of course), but this question could be added in the on the talk page.
 * I would say that most sources use "homosexual" because "gay" only came into common use decades after WWII.
 * "After the Röhm purge in 1934, homosexuality became a priority of the Nazi police state." — priority as in?
 * I'm not sure what change you're looking for here?
 * I don't think 'homosexuality' became their priority ... finding and convicting them did. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done
 * "the most severe episode in a long history of discrimination" — shouldn't 'episode' be 'period'?
 * I think it meets the dictionary definition of "episode": "an event or a group of events occurring as part of a larger sequence; an incident or period considered in isolation."
 * I think period would have been more appropriate, but either works. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weimar Republic (piped Germany) is linked in the lead, but not in the prose.
 * The first time "Germany" appears in the body, it refers both to the German Empire and Weimar Republic. So I'm not sure how to handle that.
 * "by a German-language writer; " — should mention his name as well.
 * I don't think this would be an improvement as it doesn't matter who Kertbeny was for this article.
 * In that case, suggesting to pipe 'a' inside the link. That maybe will help to avois WP:EGG – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done
 * "after Franz von Papen deposed the Prussian government" — WP:SOB, as well as the article should mention who von Papen was.
 * Added chancellor but I do not know if the SOB should be avoided in this case.
 * Just confirming, "Clemens August Graf von Galen" is his common name?
 * I believe so.
 * "mistakenly believing Röhm would protect them" — There should be a 'that'
 * Fixed
 * "During the first years of Nazi rule" — either 'first year' or 'initial years'
 * Done
 * "more than 600 every week" — should it be 'per week'?
 * Done
 * "In 1945, President Edvard Beneš" — president of?
 * Czechoslovakia, clarified
 * "there was a widespread belief among Germans homosexuality is not inborn but instead could be acquired and spread" — There should be a 'that' somewhere between
 * Fixed
 * ""neighbors, relatives, coworkers, vengeful students or employees, and even angry or jealous boyfriends"" — (1) the prose does not make clear where this quote comes from (2) I think this quote can be paraphrased into the text.
 * Paraphrased
 * "Morality police" redirects to Islamic religious police. I wonder if it is correct in this context?
 * link removed
 * "DAF" is never used again in the prose. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
 * It's one of those Nazis agencies better known by its acronym so I'd say yes.
 * "Police would tell his family why he was arrested" — how about "Police would tell his family the reason for his arrest"
 * Done
 * "during their twelve-year rule" — why not 12 in numbers?
 * It looks weird to me not to spell out low numbers like twelve.
 * Per
 * "first homosexual rights organization","Dirlewanger Brigade", "Hitler Youth", "Mauthausen", and "pink triangle" is overlinked.
 * Fixed most of these. In the first two cases, I think the link helps readers because the mentions are far apart and/or the first one is piped.
 * Few ISBNs need to be hyphenated. Use this tool.
 * Fixed
 * Completely optional, but for the further reading sources, suggesting to add "|ref=none"
 * removed this section. see Talk:Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany
 * Thanks so much for your review! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Will try to take another look soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Lautmann, Rüdiger (2014). "Willkür im Rechtsgewand: Strafverfolgung im NS-Staat" [Arbitrariness dressed up in legality: Criminal prosecution in the Nazi state]. Homosexuelle im Nationalsozialismus: Neue Forschungsperspektiven zu Lebenssituationen von lesbischen, schwulen, bi-, trans- und intersexuellen Menschen 1933 bis 1945 [Homosexuals Under National Socialism: New Research Perspectives on the Life Circumstances of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, and Intersexual Persons from 1933 to 1945] (in German). De Gruyter. pp. 35–42. ISBN 978-3-486-85750-4." — "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFLautmann2014."
 * Removed, thanks! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "relative tolerance of perceived immorality" — quite honestly, can we rephrase this in simpler terms?
 * Done
 * "The German supreme court ruled a conviction required proof the men had had penetrative sex" — 'a conviction which required' or 'a conviction that required'
 * Rephrased
 * "The Nazis temporarily tolerated a few known homosexuals, including Röhm, but never adopted such tolerance as a general principle or changed its views on homosexuality." — Here, we are talking about 'Nazis', i.e. people with Nazi ideologies. So, I think, 'or changed its' should be 'or changed their'.
 * Reworded
 * "There is no evidence homosexuals were" — add 'that' somewhere
 * Done
 * How did deposition of the Prussian government lead to homosexual bars and clubs in Berlin (Germany) being shut down?
 * The police were run by each state/land in this case the Free State of Prussia. Similarly police in the US are usually not run by the federal government, rather by municipalities, counties, or states.
 * "The Vatican and Protestant churches both praised the crackdown" — How about 'Both the Vatican and Protestant churches praised the crackdown'
 * Done
 * "Persecution of homosexuals was an opportunity for career advancement for lawyers and policemen." — How so? Important to mention?
 * OK, removed
 * "and had to perform especially dirty and backbreaking work" — Harsh reality, unfortunately, but do we need to specify 'especially'?
 * More so than the rest of the concentration camp
 * "Homosexual prisoners did not have to wear a badge [...]" v. "Initially, homosexuals were differentiated from other prisoners with a badge bearing capital letter "A" that was used at Lichtenberg." — Am I missing something?
 * The prisons were separate from the concentration camps; the latter being run by the SS
 * "Although not entirely accurate, this statement captured the view of many West German homosexuals." — isn't it OR to write whether a statement is accurate of not, as a fact?
 * Both Schwartz and Grau say that this statement is an exaggeration
 * Satisfied by the changes made. Very happy to fully support this FAC! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest scaling up the graphs
 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:Institut_für_Sexualwissenschaft_-_Bibliothek_1933.jpg needs a tag for country of origin, and could you elaborate on why this is believed to have been under the APC? Ditto File:Buchenwald_Prisoners_Roll_Call_10105.jpg
 * For the first one, the USHMM indicates that NARA and the Magnus Hirschfeld Foundation both consider it public domain but I'm not sure what German license tag would apply. Should I just upload a copy to enwiki? The photograph was found in the NARA archives and my understanding is that German photographs from the Nazi era found in these archives are considered public domain.
 * What specifically does NARA say about provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The USHMM states, "National Archives and Records Administration, College Park Copyright: Public Domain Source Record ID: 306-NT-856-D-1" That's it. I can't find this photograph on the NARA website, but very few NARA images are on their website. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay - do you recall where you heard that all photos from that era fall under APC? I'm not sure that applied to all private photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that when a German-origin photograph is found in NARA archives, USHMM invariably reports it as public domain. Most of these photographs and likely the one in question were taken by employees of the Nazi Party or its satellite institutions. I believe these copyrights passed to the West German government.
 * I'm still looking into File:Buchenwald_Prisoners_Roll_Call_10105.jpg. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Gestapo_radio-telegram_for_list_of_suspected_homosexuals._Transcribed_for_chief_of_police_in_Dortmund.jpg: not seeing that licensing at the source given?
 * You're right, the licensing is wrong. Do you think either PD-GermanGov or PD-text would be appropriate? Otherwise, I could remove it.
 * I think PD-text would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * File:§175_chart_of_convictions.png: what's the source of the data presented here?
 * Not sure, will look.
 * Added sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * File:Stolperstein_für_Willi_Bondi.JPG: is there an OTRS or something to confirm the licensing? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see the issue. Removed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet
Commented thoroughly at the GAN. I left the door open for potential FAC comments, but upon reread have nothing more particularly to say, and I'm sure I've put you through enough at this point :) I support this article for promotion. Given the discussion on talk about further reading (which I saw due to still having the article on my watchlist) I agree with Kavyansh it might be worth making it clear in the wikitext via ref=none or hidden comment that the exclusion is intentional, perhaps explicitly suggesting there the creation of a bibliography article as compromise, but this isn't about article content per se. Vaticidalprophet 03:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Lkb335's Proposed edits
I made an edit that was reverted. In the edit summary, Buidhe suggested that changes should be proposed here rather than made in the article. Apologies for not knowing this; I had thought that we could just make changes to the article, regardless of proposed FA status. I've never made edits to an FA candidate, and was thus not aware of this. Apologies.

I had changed (and once more propose changing) the sentence "One theory holds the Nazis' rise to power was fueled by a backlash against interwar Germany's relative tolerance of alternative sexualities but according to historian Laurie Marhoefer, this played only a minor role." to "One theory holds that the Nazis' rise to power was fueled by a backlash against interwar Germany's relative tolerance of LGBT people; however, recent scholarship disputes this." A few reasons behind this:

1. The term "alternative sexualities" seems an odd choice to me. It implies (unintentionally) that all sexualities besides heterosexuality are "alternative," which itself can be considered a loaded term. The idea the heterosexuality must be the norm is one that queer activists have been pushing back on for some time.

2. Marhoefer is not the only historian to push back on the idea that the Nazis rose to power due to backlash against Weimer-era tolerance; to support that contention, I cited an additional source.

3. Given 2., I think "recent scholarship" makes more sense to use.

I had also changed:

"In 1931 and 1932, the Social Democrats revealed Röhm's homosexuality in an attempt to discredit the Nazis.Adolf Hitler initially defended Röhm but the scandal weakened his place in the party. The Röhm scandal was the origin of the long-lasting but false idea the Nazi Party was dominated by homosexuals, a recurring theme in 1930s left-wing propaganda."

to:

"In 1931 and 1932, the Social Democrats publicized Röhm's homosexuality in an attempt to discredit the Nazis and sow dissent within their ranks, though this was already common knowledge among Nazi party members. Adolf Hitler initially defended Röhm but the scandal weakened his place in the party. The Röhm scandal was a recurring theme in 1930s Soviet and SPD propaganda, and was the origin of the long-lasting but false idea that the Nazi Party was dominated by homosexuals."

My reasons behind the above changes:

1. A key goal of the SPD's outing of Röhm was indeed to try to cause strife within the Nazi party, and I feel as though this section should reflect that.

2. While the Röhm scandal was indeed a recurring theme in propaganda by the SDP and Soviet Union, as far as I am aware, the "gay fascism" myth was part of propaganda used by either the Soviet Union or SDP. This section of the article cites Whisnant's 2016 book, which in turn cites for the relevant information an article by Herzer. The main discussion thread of that article relates to myths of exceptional homophobia within the German left in the late 20s early 30s as compared to other political groups. Herzer does mention many times that the SDP and Soviet Union used Röhm's sexuality as a propaganda piece; he does not refer to them using the myth of "gay fascism" as a propaganda tool. As such, I feel as though the sentence should be reordered to make that clear.

Apologies for any incorrect assumptions above; this area of scholarship is not my specialty.

In their rationale for reverting my edits, Buidhe explained that they were removing "incorrect or excessively detailed edits (Rohm scandal has its own article)." I had not thought that I was inserting any incorrect information or becoming needlessly detailed, but rather fixing errors in the article. For any mistakes I have made, though, I apologize thoroughly.

On another note, we have been discussing on the talk page the potential inclusion of a Further reading section. We have yet to come to a consensus there, and I would appreciate further input.

Thanks, Lkb335 (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lkb, the incorrect edit was piping "Czech lands" to "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia", because the Czech lands also include the Sudetenland. As for the other proposed edits:


 * 1) "Recent scholarship" is very vague and it is not the case that all "recent scholarship" agrees on this point, see . Furthermore, what the backlash was hypothetically against was not just male homosexuality but other "deviance" such as prostitution by women. I've rephrased to "backlash against perceived immorality" in order to be clearer.
 * 2) Herzer's conclusions do diverge from that of other reliable sources on the same topic. Most agree that the Soviet Union and SPD (and others, such as the KPD or various exiled anti-Nazis) did not just stir up the Röhm scandal but also promoted the Nazis as a whole as corrupted by homosexuality. For example, various Nazi leaders such as Hitler, Rudolf Hess, and Baldur von Schirach were speculated to be homosexual, and the Reichstag fire was postulated as the result of a homosexual conspiracy starring Edmund Heines. See Gay Nazis myth. I've added another source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That's fair. I agree with that justification.Lkb335 (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I feel as though I am too new to WP and inexperienced in FAC discussions to form an informed opinion. Staying neutral. I will, however, note that there are still some awkward phrases in the article that I think should be changed (though this is largely stylistic, and based entirely on personal preference):
 * , thank you for your thoughtful suggestions. It is always difficult to judge what is a stylistic preference as opposed to what is "of a professional standard". I note that after consideration you have been able to come to a formal judgement, for which thanks again. Both your comments and your support will be taken into account when this nomination is closed, Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich, leaders of the SS that was a rival to Röhm's SA, supported the purge to assert their control over the Nazi police state." The clause "leaders of the SS that was a rival to Röhm's SA" is quite awkward, and really does not flow well.


 * Reworded
 * The sentence "Some homosexual Nazis ceased participating in the party and others, former perpetrators of violence against Nazi opponents, became victims" is less awkward as "Some homosexual Nazis ceased participating in the party, while others, themselves former perpetrators of violence against Nazi opponents, became victims."
 * Done
 * "It was common knowledge among the homosexual community and German youth in general that non-penetrative sex was not a crime so many accused would admit to such expecting to be released." would be probably be better as two sentences: "It was common knowledge among the homosexual community and German youth in general that non-penetrative sex was not a crime. As such, many accused would admit to the lesser charge of non-penetrative sex, expecting to be released."
 * Reworded
 * "the law also introduced harsher penalties for male prostitution, sex with a man younger than 21, or with a student or employee" the way this sentence is currently written, it could be interpreted as saying there are harsher penalties just for being "with a student or employee;" as such, change to "the law also introduced harsher penalties for male prostitution, sex with a man younger than 21, and sex with a student or employee."
 * "From 1936 to 1939, German police focused on homosexuality as one of its top priorities" when reading this sentence for the first time, I thought it was using police as a plural noun, not a singular, and was thus confused by "its" later in the sentence; I think you can avoid any possible confusion here by changing this line to "From 1936 to 1939, German police focused on homosexuality as a top priority." One could argue that that changes the meaning of the sentence; if so, another, different edit could also work. This is really minor and could just be a problem I have that no one else does.
 * Done
 * "Himmler approved of such methods, arguing without them, homosexuality would spread unchecked in all-male Nazi institutions." I'm a proponent of including 'that' liberally; here is one place I would insert a 'that.' "Arguing without them" can be read as Himmler arguing without the methods, whereas "arguing that without them" removes that possibility.
 * Done
 * "The use of concentration camp imprisonment increased; after 1937, those considered to have seduced others into homosexuality were confined to concentration camps. Persecution of homosexuals was an opportunity for career advancement for lawyers and policemen." These sentences either don't belong together or should be separated by some kind of transition; they're topically different enough to require them, in my opinion.
 * moved
 * Again, all of my gripes are very minor and could rightly be ignored. It's just personal preference at the end of the day. Lkb335 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * More suggestions:
 * "Even castrated men could serve in the Wehrmacht." The "even x could serve in the Wehrmacht" language feels improper here; this is a discussion of military conscription, yes? Making it sound like an opportunity is perhaps not how this should be described. For both this sentence and the one preceding it, I would change the language to something related to the draft or conscription. In addition, unless this sentence refers to castrated homosexuals being drafted into the Wehrmacht, this feels to me outside the scope of the article.
 * Done
 * "The army differentiated between innate homosexuals, who were to be punished, and those who suffered a one-time lapse of self-control." change to "The army differentiated between so-called innate homosexuals, who were to be punished, and those who were said to have suffered a one-time lapse of self-control." This sentence could probably use some elaboration, in addition. How exactly did the military tell the difference between the two?
 * Rewritten
 * "After the annexation of Austria in 1938, the persecution applied to homosexual men in Germany was quickly applied and coordinated by the Gestapo until shortly before the beginning of the war." and the later "The use of regular police after 1939 did not help Austrian homosexuals, and both regular and special courts applied draconian punishments, including the death penalty." Both kind of awkward; I'd combine them into something like "The Gestapo extended the persecution of homosexuals to the newly-annexed Austria in 1938. Gestapo-organized persecution lasted until shortly before the beginning of the war, at which point the regular police took over. Even then, regular and special courts applied draconian punishments to homosexuals, including the death penalty." Even that is somewhat awkward, there might be something better.
 * Rewritten
 * I'd change "Criminal prosecutions of men for homosexuality almost doubled during the Nazi era in Austria." to "Criminal prosecutions of men for homosexuality in Austria almost doubled during Nazi rule."
 * Done
 * "the old Austrian criminal code, which was much more favorable to men charged with a homosexual relationship, applied to non-Germans." Change to "the old Austrian criminal code, which imposed less-severe punishments on men charged with a homosexual relationship, applied to non-Germans." Neither code was really favorable to homosexuals.
 * Done
 * That's enough out of me, I think. I do have concerns that similar awkward phrases appear throughout the rest of the article, but I don't think any possible issues there would detract from the article so much as to prevent it from reached FA status. Support. Lkb335 (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments and support! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Support from Vami
Reserving a spot. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  10:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I apologize preemptively if these comments demonstrate incompetence or cause offense; they are the most extensive I have made for an FAC thus far. I earnestly believe in them, but as usual am willing to talk about or concede on them. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  01:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * German students and Nazi SA [...] The photo this is describing shows exactly two men, one of whom is dressed as an SA man. Revise?
 * Reworded
 * Many homosexual bars and clubs in Berlin had to shut down after police raids. Would it be accurate to more concisely word this as "shut down by police raids"?
 * I don't think the source supports that since it says, "As part of this effort, Berlin’s police force carried out a series of raids against lesbian and gay bars; the police also announced their intention not to issue dance permits to homosexual nightclubs. Business obviously was hurt, evidenced by the fact that some of the best-known establishments, including probably the Eldorado, had closed down by the beginning of 1933."
 * On 6 May, the SA [...] The Sturmabteilung is not linked, nor the acronym "SA" explained; prior knowledge is required what this is an acronym of and what the SA was.
 * Fixed
 * [...] on 10 May in Opernplatz [...] Should be "on the Opernplatz"; it is a city square, not a town.
 * Done
 * They believed they should keep a low profile until the end of the Nazi regime, which was believed to be coming soon. Two "believed"s here.
 * Rephrased
 * There were, however, no systematic persecution [...] Should this be "was" in place of "were", or should "persecution" be plural here?
 * Rephrased
 * [...] convictions remained below the Weimar record set in 1925. How many men were jailed under Para175 in 1925?
 * Added
 * Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich [...] became commander of the SS [...] The SS are, like the SA, also not introduced and explained. Himmler gets something of an introduction later, but Heydrich does not.
 * Done
 * After 1934, the policing agencies were gradually consolidated under the control of Himmler and homosexuality became one of their priorities. Strikes me as redundant, considering From 1936 to 1939, German police focused on homosexuality as one of its top priorities. in the previous section.
 * removed
 * Even castrated men could serve in the Wehrmacht. This fills me with questions.
 * The source doesn't explain why, although I expect it had to do with the desperate manpower situation.
 * I'll strike this off but if in the future one of us or someone stumbles into reading about something that could be used for a footnote here, a footnote here with some information about this would be very useful. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  17:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In 1943, Himmler, who believed the military was not hard enough on homosexuality, [...] Seems to be a missing "that" after "believed".
 * This is another GOCE-ism, changed to your suggestion.
 * Homosexuality was seen as a virus or a cancer in the Volkskörper because it was considered a threat to Germany. This sentence strikes me as being redundant, considering the preceding sentences.
 * Removed
 * The trials were of limited efficacy in their intended purpose of discrediting the church. I recommend replacing "church" with "Catholic Church".
 * Done
 * The police would tell suspects they would get a lighter punishment if they confessed, threatening indefinite detention in a concentration camp if he did not cooperate. Suggest replacing "if he did not" with "if a suspect did not".
 * Reworded
 * An unknown number of men who were found unfit to stand trial were confined to psychiatric hospitals. Do the sources say if this led to any murders of these prisoners via Aktion T4?
 * No information on this, although some homosexual men were killed in Aktion T4 (see "death penalty")
 * The use of concentration-camp detention [...] homosexual concentration-camp prisoners [...] What is this hyphen for?
 * It was added by GOCE; I do not have an opinion one way or another so removed it.
 * Himmler did not consider a time-limited prison sentence was sufficient to deal with homosexuality, [...] The "was" here is unnecessary. And what exactly is meant by "deal with"? If, as the the rest of the sentence implies, he means for a homosexual man to be made heterosexual, why not condense the sentence to "Himmler did not consider a time-limited prison sentence sufficient for eliminating homosexuality."?
 * Done
 * [...] Himmler argued SS men who had served sentences for homosexuality should be transferred to a concentration camp and shot while trying to escape. This doesn't work; was Himmler advocating creating conditions that would entice escape attempts, or arguing that these particularly homosexual prisoners should just be murdered with this as the bullshit justification?
 * I'm guessing the latter but none of the sources that discuss the speech explain what "shot while trying to escape" means, while Westermann's paper doesn't deal with homosexuals at all. We agreed to the footnote at the GAN in order to clarify, and I've also added quote marks around "shot while trying to escape".
 * Zinn said while all homosexuals in Nazi Germany suffered from the indirect effects of criminalization, their lives cannot be reduced to fear of arrest and they retained a limited degree of personal freedom. This feels like there are some missing quotation marks.
 * It's not an exact translation, rather paraphrased.
 * It is estimated 100,000 men [...] Recommend either "An estimated 100,000 men" or adding a "that" before "100,000".
 * Done

Below are highlighted pieces of prose that I've clipped because I do not find the content within them to be presented neutrally (a disclaimer for the honor of the nominator and my friend: Buidhe's stance on Nazism is "it is a horrible abomination" and her work over the years on this topic has been unerring). These clippings are taken (presumably) from Nazis or otherwise explain their views, which ordinarily we cannot chase with "[which was/this is] the worst shit ever" or a more civil, neutral, and/or comprehensive version thereof. The approach taken in this article seems be to let the Nazis and speak for themselves and likewise the odious character of their ideas. This is the approach I too would take. But. The euphemism "enhanced interrogation" is presented, rightly, in quotation marks, but "shot while trying to escape" is not. Some Nazi nonsense such as "voluntary" castration is presented with quotation marks, others are not. So, I believe that the way to include these things but divorce them from the voice of Wikipedia is to use more quotation marks or reword certain sections to make explicit that what is included without the use of quotation marks are Nazi, not Wikipedian, ideas (like [...] it was initially seen as a temporary re-education measure.). – ♠Vami _IV†♠  01:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Neutrality; voice of Wikipedia
 * Vami, part of this is that MOS:SCAREQUOTES are not supposed to be used. Although clearly I did not follow this 100%, I guess it can be difficult to demarcate the opinions associated with the article topic with the non-opinions of the encyclopedia. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your detailed review! I'll let you know when I've got through all of these comments. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * [...] and those who suffered a one-time lapse of self-control. As is, this Nazi viewpoint is given in the voice of Wikipedia. I recommend quotation marks around "suffered a one-time lapse of self-control" if that can be substantiated by the source or a rewording ("The army differentiated between those whom it believed [..]") if not.
 * Well, I'm not sure this is 100% a Nazi viewpoint. At this time, it was not unusual for straight-identifying men to engage in homosexual acts on occasion. The Nazi persecution is often considered as being directed at "homosexuals" or "homosexual and bisexual men", but it was based on behavior rather than difficult to measure internal sexual desires.
 * The Göring Institute offered treatment to homosexuals referred by the Hitler Youth and other Nazi organizations; by 1938 it claimed to have changed the sexual orientation in 341 of 510 patients and by 1944, it claimed to have cured more than 500 men of their homosexuality. The institute intervened to reduce sentences in some cases.[96] The converse of the Nazis' persecution of homosexuality was their encouragement of heterosexual relations, including extramarital sex, for racially desirable people. I recommend quotation marks around "treatment" and "cured", as of course homosexuality is not a disease, or some rewording such as replacing [...] it claimed to have cured more than 500 men of their homosexuality. with "it claimed to have eliminated homosexuality in more than 500 men."
 * Partly done, used your suggested wording without scare quotes.
 * Meisinger believed "enhanced interrogation" of homosexuals was appropriate because they conspired in the same way as communists. Is "conspired in the same way as communist" quoted from Meisinger?
 * Not exactly. Removed sentence
 * [...] among other prisoners to keep [homosexual prisoners] under control. I would perhaps word this as "to [socially] isolate [homosexual prisoners].", as "under control" without quotation marks reflects Nazi belief and with them is vague, with possible meanings ranging from, again, "under control" according to Nazi belief, to planning insurrection.
 * Done
 * In May 1935, the Prussian police detained 513 accused homosexuals in protective custody. The article thus far would suggest that this custody was anything but protective.
 * Protective custody (Nazi Germany) is the term used in RS, although you are correct that "protection" is not the actual purpose
 * Add link? – ♠Vami _IV†♠  17:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned 3 times and linked on the first mention. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah shit, didn't notice. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * [...] Hitler argued homosexuality in the Hitler Youth should be punished by death to protect youth from being turned into homosexuals [...] It is made clear this is Hitler's take, but I feel everything after "punished by death" should be cut.
 * Done
 * I believe I've addressed everything. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Very pleased to Support now :) – ♠Vami _IV†♠  17:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review
I'll pick this up. I look forward to forensically dissecting the sourcing tomorrow, UTC. Are spot checks required? SN54129 23:06, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Noting for the record that I have insufficient German to focus on those references. And that's that. As for the sources themselves, the books utilised are all published by respected houses (LIT Verlag, Campus Verlag, Der Gruyter, Bloomsbury) or university presses (Cambridge, Toronto, Nebraska, Yale, Columbia, Harvard, and I suppose even Oxford), and likewise are the full-length works the chapters are extracted from. Likewise, the journals are all established peer-reviewed academic publications. A thorough search of library and scholarly databases indicates no substantial commission of any work that one otherwise expect to be used. No spot checks; coords get paid for that sort of thing.Source review = pass. Obviously, though, I must oppose this article's promotion on the grounds that it has far too many footnotes. Cheers,  SN54129  17:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Kathrin Braun's chapter needs page numbers (77–98).
 * Thanks for your review. Page ## added. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * After an editor's first successful FAC spot checks are not usually required, but any reviewer can check any sources they wish, for any or no reason. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)