Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Röhm scandal/archive1

Röhm scandal

 * Nominator(s): (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

First, there's the Nazi who became the world's first openly gay politician—in 1932. Then, there are the anti-Nazis stirring up a scandal against him, wielding every pre-existing homophobic canard and inventing a new one: that "the heart of the Nazis’ militant nationalist politics lay in the sinister schemes of decadent homosexual criminals". Perhaps the most interesting aspect of it is as a microhistory in Weimar-style competitive authoritarianism. When your elected representatives start beating each other up in parliament, that's when you know democracy is dead... I'd like to thank Usernameunique for the GA review. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh
Placeholder; will take a look soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments; most of them are just suggestions, feel free to ignore those which you don't feel helpful:
 * Lead:
 * Are there other historians than Marhoefer who believe that Röhm was world's "first openly gay politician"?
 * None that I can find, but I also cannot find sources claiming someone else earlier as the first.
 * Interesting case! So, in all these 90 years or so after the scandal, we have just 1 scholar claiming the he was world's "first openly gay politician", and no other noting that detail explicitly. Strange! The way you have mentioned that in the article, writing it as Marhoefer's opinion, is just fine and acceptable. But, I'm reluctant to believe that. If that is true, I'd expect a lot of commentary in other sources. No mention of anyone else as the first openly gay politician does not make Röhm the first ... How about removing Marhoefer and the quote, and writing something like "Röhm has been mentioned as one of the first major openly gay politician"? Just a thought. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is true, I'd expect a lot of commentary in other sources I wouldn't necessarily expect this because it's not the kind of information that tends to get picked up on in scholarly sources. According to my research, all the others claimed as first openly gay/lesbian politicians are all from decades later. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see what other reviewers think, though, I trust your judgement on that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "He was also homosexual, although he tried to separate his personal and political life" — what does 'He' mean here? specify.
 * "and was appointed leader of the Sturmabteilung" — shouldn't "Sturmabteilung" be in italics?
 * From the MoS: "proper names (such as place names) in other languages are not usually italicized". Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * "by his Social Democratic opponents" v. "Although the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD)" — (1) Social Democratic Party is linked twice in the lead when it should be just on the first instance, (2) why mention the complete name of the party on both the instances?
 * "Communist Party of Germany (KPD)" — 'KPD' is never again used in the lead. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
 * Homophobia could be linked
 * "Nazi Party leader Adolf Hitler" — (1) Hitler is linked twice in the lead (2) the lead already mentions that Hitler is the "Nazi Party leader", I see no need for repetition.
 * Done all
 * Rest of the article:
 * "are placed in men from the cradle … If the struggle" — Add a non-breaking space between 'cradle' and the ellipsis.
 * "For example, in 1927" — I am not sure if writing "For example" in an encyclopedic article is fine or not. Is there a better way of presenting that?
 * "probably, also because of his inclinations... [which] offered a useful point of attack at any time" — Add a non-breaking space between 'inclinations' and the ellipsis. Also check for other instances in the article.
 * "The leader of the Berlin SA, Walther Stennes," — Walther Stennes is here linked to Stennes revolt than his bio article
 * "and his Pupenjungen" (male prostitutes)" — shouldn't the definition and parenthesis be inside quotation?
 * "Röhm-Röhrbein-Ernst Triple Alliance" — do the sources here discuss what the 'Triple Alliance' means in this case? If not, should be we linking it to Triple Alliance (1882)?
 * The source is in German and the German word used (de:Dreibund) seems to be unambiguous in referring to the 1882 alliance.
 * "large circles of Berlin party comrades are informed about the gay clubs" — I'd prefer a citation immediately after the quote.
 * "these Pupenjungen, these damned" — Pupenjungen is linked twice in the prose
 * "possibly Otto Strasser" — probably attribute inline as to who thinks that it was probably Strasser
 * Multiple reliable sources say it was probably Strasser, so I do not think attribution is correct here.
 * Fine – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "For example, in September 1931" — same as previous comment on "For example" (also for various other instances in the article)
 * "and the former Nazi Eduard Meyer." — Mostly, you use . Here, it isn't used and "Eduard Meyer" is directly linked to the German Wikipedia? Suggesting to be consistent.
 * It's not recommended to use ill when the topic would not be notable by enwiki standards. Meyer appears to be only known for his fairly minor role in this scandal, so WP:BIO1E would apply.
 * Well, I learned something new today! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "for the forgery" — is the definite article necessary here?
 * "and killed himself in prison" — will using the word "suicide" be appropriate/better in this context?
 * I think "killed himself" is unobjectionable but I know many of our medical editors object to "committed suicide".
 * Fine then. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "After this affair," — At the start of a every new paragraph, you'll need to specify what "this" means.
 * "in Heimsoth's lawyer's safe" — I didn't understand this
 * Removed as insufficiently important
 * "The existence of the letters was most likely leaked by a Nazi, possibly Strasser" — who thinks that the main is possibly Strasser?
 * Removed as sources actually disagree on this
 * "It was especially difficult to obtain evidence for a crime committed in private." — does this statement has anything specific to do with the Röhm scandal, or is a general statement?
 * It is true generally but also for Röhm's specific case according to the cited source: "After Röhm’s return to Germany, prosecutors tried at least five times to convict him under Paragraph 175. None of the charges stuck, partially because the evidence for such a private crime was difficult to obtain."
 * "during the 1932 German presidential election in which Hitler was running against Paul Hindenburg" — probably worth mentioning that Hindenburg was the incumbent president.
 * "the SPD printed and mailed 300,000 copies of the pamphlet" — exactly 300,000 or approximately 300,000? (Thanks to Gog!)
 * The sources are not clear on this, just saying (Marhoefer) "printed 300,000 copies"
 * There are high chances that it is an approximate value. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it would be original research to clarify one way or another when it's not supported by the sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be, but ... can we IAR here? Not a major issue for me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "On 6 April, shortly before the second round of the presidential election" — can we write it anyway different. It wan't exactly 'shortly', it was 4 days before the second round.

That is it for now. An Excellent piece of work. Nice to see this article at FAC withing 2 weeks of its creation! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "I’ll beat him to death" — fix the quote mark (’ to ')
 * "DVNP" is used just once in the prose. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
 * It is nearly universally used in English language sources and likely more recognizable to English speakers than the spelled out translation
 * " “above all the Reichstag building is not the right place to take revenge or vengeance with a series of ear-boxings" " — fix the quote mark (“ to ")
 * "One of these was Kurt Tucholsky," — avoid starting a sentence by a number.
 * I believe that only applies to Arabic numerals and not spelled out numbers.
 * All right then. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I am assuming that "§175" means "article 175"
 * It does.
 * But we can't change it, because it is in direct quotation, right? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternately, if you think it's confusing, I could replace with a slightly different translation from Woods: "We oppose  the  disgraceful  Paragraph  175  wherever  we  can;  therefore  we may not join voices with the chorus that would condemn a man because he is a homosexual." (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and replaced the quote. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "In contrast to the left-wing press, homosexual activists emphasized the hypocrisy of the Nazi Party in condemning homosexuality while harboring homosexuals in its own ranks." (emphasis mine) — the sentence is quite repetitive; I have boldfaced everything that is repeated.
 * "carrying their hangman’s rope" — fix the quote mark (’ to ')
 * "in the Hitler cabinet" — "in Hitler's cabinet" would flow better, I think
 * "The worldwide bestseller The Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror (1933) — Our article on The Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror never tells that it was a "worldwide bestseller". And even if it was, do we need to specify it in this article?
 * Yes, because it shows the prominence of the allegations being made.
 * "killed during what he termed the "Night of Long Knives"" — didn't he termed it "Night of the Long Knives" (emphasis mine)
 * The following source and no corresponding footnote. "There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFReichardtzur_Nieden2004"
 * Reichardt, Sven; zur Nieden, Susanne (2004). "Skandale als Instrument des Machtkampfes in der NS-Führung: Zur Funktionalisierung der Homosexualität von Ernst Röhm" [Scandals as an instrument of the power struggle in the Nazi leadership: on the instrumentalization of Ernst Röhm's homosexuality]. Skandal und Diktatur: Formen öffentlicher Empörung im NS-Staat und in der DDR [Scandal and dictatorship: forms of public outrage in the Nazi state and in the GDR] (in German). Wallstein. pp. 33–58. ISBN 978-3-89244-791-7
 * Removed. It was cited in a previous version of this article, but I seem to have replaced all the references to it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your review, Kavyansh.Singh! I fixed everything except that which is specifically noted above. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ – a few replies above. Looking much better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * One last thing: I think that Rohm scandal (currently redlinked) should redirect to this page. Apart that and minor issues above, I support the nomination! Great work, Buidhe! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review

 * Suggest adding alt text
 * File:Ernst_Röhm_(1887-1934)_München,_Germany_(Weimar_Republic)_1924_Hauptmann_Bund_Freikorps_Epp_uniform_Iron_cross_etc_242-HF-0377_001_Unrestricted_No_known_copyright_(cropped).jpg: where is that licensing coming from? I'm not seeing it at the source link
 * File:Reichstag_building_in_the_Album-von-Berlin_0041.jpg: is it correct to say no author is credited anywhere in the source? If so suggest specifying that in the author field. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image review, Nikkimaria! I fixed the first one with which is supported by the source (PD-US-alien property probably applies as well). For the second one, I changed to  per this commons discussion on German anonymous works. It must be more than 120 years old as it was published in 1900. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

 * What makes the following "high quality reliable sources":
 * https://notchesblog.com/2018/06/19/queer-fascism-and-the-end-of-gay-history/?
 * I think this qualifies because Laurie Marhoefer is a notable historian (the blogpost is largely based on her book Sex and the Weimar Republic) and Notches is an academic blog sponsored by Birkbeck University's Raphael Samuel History Centre. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:STRAIGHT - "Knoll, Albert (2017). "»Es muß alles versucht werden, um dieses widernatürliche Laster auszurotten«: Homosexuelle Häftlinge in den frühen Konzentrationslagern"" - the guillemets should be converted to straight quotation marks.
 * Done
 * I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no signs of copyright violations.
 * Otherwise everything looks good. I may or may not be back to review in full. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the review! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Struck the dealt with item, leaving the other out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Unwatching now. Good luck! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Funk

 * I was just reading about this issue the other day, interesting to see it has a dedicated article. Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure if he goes without saying, but link Hitler in the image caption?
 * Done (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Eldorado (pictured in 1932), the most famous gay establishment in Germany[2]" Add to the caption that it was frequented by Röhm, to establish connection to the article?
 * "Both men saw their homosexuality as compatible with Nazism" Any rationales given?
 * Weimar could be linked.
 * Done all of these except the second one. I don't think sources give a straight answer for why Röhm and Heimsoth thought this. The sources do say 1) they opposed effeminate homosexuals, 2) Röhm was a misogynist and supported all-male organizations based on fraternal comradeship rather than fatherhood. Other Nazis saw reproduction as the only legitimate purpose of sexuality. Some of this could be added, but I'm not sure it's directly related to the scandal. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "leading Joseph Goebbels to" Present him? Even Hitler is presented, though I'd believe more people know who he was.
 * Done
 * "The allegations against Röhm also found their way into election posters and stickers" Any examples we could show?
 * Good question! I am not finding any with a Google search, and regardless they would probably be under copyright. There are some interesting caricatures here, the first of which will go out of copyright in US in 2027.
 * "The scandal was unpleasant for the Nazi Party,[46][36] but it did not affect the Nazis' electoral performance" Nazis' could just be "their" to avoid repetition.
 * Done
 * "One of these was Kurt Tucholsky" It would almost be relevant/interesting to state he was Jewish, unless the sources don't make this point.
 * Interestingly, although several sources mention Tucholsky's comments on the affair, none of them note that he was Jewish.
 * "they nevertheless rejected sexual denunciation [de] as a tactic" Wouldn't outing be a better destination than this red link? Or perhaps even just make it a redirect? The term outing is used once earlier, but with no link.
 * Done. The term "sexual denunciation" seems to be used much more in German than English.
 * ""Hot Röhm" (Geil Röhm)" Wouldn't geil rather mean "horny" in this context?
 * I'm relying on the translation in Siemens' book which does indeed translate "Geil Röhm" as "Hot Röhm". It's possible that the sources are wrong, but MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE prefers published translations where they exist.
 * "Die Geschichte eines Hochverräters ("The Story of a Traitor")" Or more specifically high traitor, but not sure if this term exists in English (seems it does, looking at Google).
 * Right, this is the translation given by Marhoefer 2015. The term "high treason" is good English, but I don't think I've seen "high traitor" before—it doesn't seem natural to me and appears to be used much less frequently. Someone convicted of high treason I would just call a traitor.
 * "such as the following on the ideal German" from what publication?
 * As a Flüsterwitz it's not originally published. This joke was all the rage back in the 1930s or 1940s and you can find it in several languages. Interestingly, the bit about Röhm does not seem to have been translated. Schwartz also quotes another circulating Röhm joke, which I cannot figure out, possibly due to my imperfect German: "Wandspruch bei Röhm: Nach 4 Uhr laß die Arbeit ruhn und freu dich auf den Afternoon". A third joke he mentions, which operates based on the alternate meaning of "warm" in German and association of Italy with homosexuality ("Röhm fährt auf Urlaub nach Italien und will ein paar warme Tageam Po verbringen") is likely lost on modern audiences so I didn't quote it.
 * "In 1950s West Germany, the Federal Ministry of Justice cited the danger of homosexual subversion (with explicit reference to Röhm) as a reason to retain the Nazis' more punitive revision of Paragraph 175 in the context of the Cold War.[164]" Perhaps good as an addendum to note when this was repealed?
 * Done
 * "and was close to party leader Adolf Hitler. Röhm was also homosexual" Why "also"? Could be read as if Hitler was homosexual too.
 * Removed
 * "Hitler had Röhm murdered in 1934" Could add his friends were also killed.
 * done
 * I think perhaps night of long knives shouldn't be piped, but spelled out, as it's a pretty famous term. Also per WP:easter egg.
 * I don't think it's an easter egg to link the name of an event to a description of what it was. I try to keep the lead concise and there are disputes about whether this term should be used, see my reply to Wehwalt below.
 * Support - interesting article, could be nice to add one of those caricatures, but it doesn't seem their artists are credited, so it'll be hard to determine if they are public domain or not. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * " During the 1932 German presidential election in March 1932," can we avoid the repetition?
 * "Berlin's homosexual movement.[7][3]" Is "movement" the proper term, or perhaps "community"? Also, did you intend refs out of numerical order? (similar out of orders elsewhere)
 * "leadership principle" I'm not sure the English conveys to the reader what is being referred to unless they click on it. Maybe the German? Or at least "führer principle"?
 * "In mid-1934, Hitler had Röhm, along with most of his close political friends, killed during what he termed the "Night of the Long Knives".[151][152]" Hitler called it this? A quick glance at our article doesn't make that clear.
 * Can it be mentioned when Paragraph 175 was repealed?

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed most of this. The only points I did not action were
 * ref order—to my knowledge it is not required that refs are in a particular order, so I don't usually bother.
 * The term "Night of the Long Knives" is commonly used in English, but Hancock (2011) points out that it was coined by Hitler to justify the purge and "implies acceptance of the argument that the SA did plan a second revolution. These terms lend more legitimacy to what happened than is warranted".
 * It's not clear that Röhm violated Paragraph 175, one possibility is that he specifically avoided the sexual acts that were criminalized under the law. What he admitted to became illegal after 1935 but when they were legalized again depends on whether you are talking about East or West Germany. So I don't see this point as relevant to the article.
 * Thanks so much for your review! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Thought the repeal might be a good way of wrapping things up, but agree not necessary. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by from CPA
since this has 3 supports, could I have permission for a 2nd nom? Thanks in advance, (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a MOS:SANDWICH issue in the Assault of Helmuth Klotz in the Reichstag (May 1932) section. Please remove this issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There's only one image in the section and nothing following it. Exactly what is it sandwiching? Could I have a screenshot? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hog Farm Talk 01:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)