Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Gay fascism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Gay fascism

(
)
  • ... that Klaus Mann argued that homosexuals had become "Jews of the antifascists" due to being blamed for Nazism?
    • ALT1:... that the idea that homosexuals caused Nazism has been promoted from the 1930s up to this day? Note: The latest incident mentioned in the article is 2020
    • ALT2:... that the idea that homosexuals caused Nazism has been promoted from the 1930s up to this day, even though it is considered a "flat-out lie"?
    • ALT3:... that the idea that homosexuals caused Nazism was invented by the German left, but since has been taken up by the Christian right?

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 09:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC).

  • Comment: @Buidhe: the history section of the article mainly uses print sources. Could you provide a quote from the book (it looks like it's the Marhoefer book) that specifically verifies that this idea originated in the 1930s? MartinPoulter (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • MartinPoulter, Thanks for taking a look at this. The first sentence of the abstract of Oosterhuis: "In the early 1930s, German Social Democrats and Communists seized upon the homosexual orientation of some Nazi leaders, especially Ernst Röhm, with the aim of discrediting the entire National Socialist movement." In the body of the paper, he does not discuss any incidents before 1931. buidhe 16:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

 Reviewing... @Buidhe:, I am starting a full review now. Please look for comments soon, and I look forward to working with you again. Cheers! Flibirigit (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Overall, the article is in decent shape. Please do not be discouraged as it may appear I have a lot of questions. I sincerely do want to see this on the main page. Article created on April 13, and nominated on the same day. Length and sourcing are adequate. Please see hooks and neutrality questions listed below. No plagiarism issues detected. No photo is used in this nomination, but all images used in the article are properly licensed on the commons. QPQ requirement is met. Flibirigit (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hooks questions

  1. ALT0 is interesting, but there does not appear to be a citation directly at the end of the sentence which discusses the hook. Also, "blamed for Nazism" is not apparent to beme from the wording "due to the rhetoric and scapegoating employed by the left".
  2. ALT1 is also interesting, but I am confused on its citation. It appears to be cited from "The myth is nearly as old as the Nazi party itself", but the party was founded in 1920 and not 1930?
  3. ALT2 appears to come from the statement by Jonathan Zimmerman at the end of the "Historicity" section. The phrase "gay people helped bring Nazism to Germany" does not seem to imply "homosexuals caused Nazism". I am not equating "bring Nazism to Germany" with "caused Nazism". Is there a more similar phrasing possible here?
  4. ALT3 is most interesting hook to me, but I do not see any specific sentence which cites it. Have I missed something?

Neutrality questions

  • Please see general questions below on neutrality. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  1.  Done Several statements in the lead section are likely to be challenged. I generally avoid citations in the lead section, but I feel they are warranted here as per WP:LEADCITE, and better to be safe than sorry. Specifically the statement, "Gay fascism is the discredited idea", "had a significant negative influence on its policies or even controlled the party", and "Historians regard the claim as having no merit".
  2.  Done In the "Origins" section, the statement "Most leftists, even those who were themselves gay" seem subjective. Is there a way to avoid saying most leftists, or have a citation directly at the end of the sentence which could be challenged?
  3.  Done In the "Origins" section, the statement "Bucking the trend, in a polemical essay", seems like a WP:CLICHE violation. Is there a way to change the tone of the phrase?

Friendly suggestions

  • These are friendly suggestions, not DYK criteria or failures. Flibirigit (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  1.  Done Article seems to be inconsistent with respect to punctuation and quotation marks, see MOS:LQUOTE.
  2.  Done In the "Historicity" section, the acronym "SA" is not defined in the article.

Would you be interested in having a rook run on the main page during LGBT Pride Month in June? I feel it would be applicable, and perhaps usage of one of the free licensed photos such as the pink triangle would be relevant and give more exposure. Just a thought. No rush here, take your time as needed. Flibirigit (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sydney Gay and Lesbian Holocaust Memorial
  • Flibirigit, thanks for the very thorough review. I believe I've addressed 1,2,and 3 (2 by rewriting a bit and directly quoting the supporting text in an invisible comment). I think your pride month idea is a good one and here's a hook that fits the occasion:
  • I will have a closer look at the changes later today. Flibirigit (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I will be looking at this off and on today, and likely will not finish in one sitting. I separated the hooks questions above to make it easier to read and follow. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • So far things look good. I have no remaining neutrality concerns, and the friendly suggestions are clear too. Will resume a bit later today. Flibirigit (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up on hooks

  1.  Done ALT0 is interesting. It appears to mentioned in the first sentence of the second parapgraph in the "Origins" section. The blame portion of the hook is cited from the subsequent quote. For clarity, I am equating "scapegoat" with "blaming". Verified by AGF on the offline source.
  2. ALT1 is interesting, but I am still confused exactly where it is cited. It seems like a summary of the article as a whole, rather than a specific fact mentioned inline. I feel the sentence "The myth is nearly as old as the Nazi party itself" does not lead the reader to equate to 1930s.
  3. ALT2 is interesting, but I am still hung up on the phrase "promoted from the 1930s up to this day", see comment on ALT1 above
  4.  Done ALT3 is very interesting, properly mentioned and cited in line, and verified by AGF on the offline source.
  5.  Done ALT4 is very interesting, properly mentioned and cited in line, and verified by AGF on the offline source. The corresponding photo is clear at a low resolution, properly licensed and enhances the hook well. Hook is suitable as a special occasion for Pride Month in June.
  • Buidhe (talk · contribs), tentative approval given for ALT0, ALT3 and ALT4. Would you like to discuss the above comments on ALT1 and ALT2, or go ahead with the other three hooks? Flibirigit (talk) 07:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Flibirigit, No, I think we're good. Of all the hooks I like ALT4 best (preferably with the picture), then ALT0 and ALT3. Three hooks should be enough! Thanks again for your review. buidhe 08:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT4, ALT3 and ALT0 are approved. Preference for ALT4 with the photo as a special occasion request for Pride Month in June. The article adheres to all other DYK criteria as per my review above. ALT1 and ALT2 have been struck. Flibirigit (talk) 08:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Gay_fascism&oldid=1022481646"