Talk:The Pink Swastika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Books (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Tags[edit]

it seems all the tags were added by one IP address (138.47.16.1) I'm not saying this is a perfect article, but simply loaded every sentance with a fact tag is counter-productive. SirChuckB (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is simply an attempt to refute some of the claims in the book. To be balanced, it needs to present some of the evidence for the book's claims, as well as some of the responses to the criticism of the book. 66.155.211.1 (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between balance and a neutral point of view. Keeping to a neutral point of view requires that the book's claims and the reasoning behind them be explained, but it does not mean that every view must be presented as equally valid. Fringe ideas that are widely discredited should be given due weight, which is generally very little (the classic example being Flat Earth theory in the article on gravity). In this case, this book looks like it's advocating a pretty radical viewpoint that has little basis in more than ideology and has gained almost no traction in mainstream or expert sources. I'd say that while the book's reasoning could be explained in more detail, there's no need to go digging for positive reviews to seem "balanced", since it would be unbalanced to misrepresent the degree of support for a fringe idea. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I always get a laugh at wikipedia antiChristian bigotry pretending they'd ever allow any positive "academic assessment" of the truth about which they are in denial, as seen in the groundless opposition to The Pink Swastika, based solely on the unsupportable and groundless obsessive hate speech of the deranged antiChristian bigots that run wikipedia. Russ Davis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.72.80 (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised at the above comments. The Annotated Pink Swastika (there's a link to it on Wikipedia's The Pink Swastika page) presents both the original disputed passages in The Pink Swastika and what the cited sources actually say. APS shows how the sources have been distorted, misquoted, and even falsified. If you don't believe it, read it. You can get the source books from your public library and check for yourself whether The Pink Swastika is a credible source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.198.31 (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there still issues about neutrality?[edit]

There have been few substantive edits since January, and it seems that the controversy has settled down. Are there any objections to removing the disputed neutrality tag? If I hear no objections, I will remove it 2009-09-25. TechBear (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I wrote "The Annotated Pink Swastika." There is a link to it in this Wikipedia entry. On Dec 13, I tried adding a brief notation describing what The Annotated Pink Swastika is, namely that it is a check of the sources cited in The Pink Swastika. I can't understand why that notation is not allowed by somebody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.198.31 (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Centre[edit]

Why is this campaign group quoted as a reliable source? They are political campaigners. They are entitled to their opinions, as are any political campaigners, but they are not historians or noteworthy experts on anything, and are inherently biased by being a campaigning organisation. I don't see how they can be suitable for sourcing in an encyclopaedia. Really, the only place the SPLC should be in Wikipedia is in the article about the SPLC.

I'd edit their quote out, but I daresay somebody from the SPLC, or who promotes the same viewpoints as them, would just stick it back in.82.71.30.178 (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not used well but it is pulled from their Intelligence Report which is undoubtable considered reliable. I believe the publication has won journalism awards. IMHO, whatever the report details can be used but it would be wise to simply see if other sources seen as more neutral back-up the statements. The way it reads now is just X also doesn't like Y which is unhelpful. -- Banjeboi 22:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
"Considered reliable" by whom? The problem I see here is that political groups's views are predicatable. They aren't academic, they're inherently POV. For instance, I am an atheist. But I also recognise that an atheist pressure group's opinion on, say, a policy of the Catholic Church is predictable and opinionated- they will automatically disagree. So it's pointless and IMV wrong to quote e.g. the National Secular Society in the christianity articles. Of course they disagree, they're atheists! Likewise, the SPLC will disagree with any viewpoint which is, er, right wing. They're activists, and thus by definition not seeking a balanced viewpoint. If a noted historian has said (with some research support) that the book is untrue, well, that is useful information. The SPLC's opinion that it is untrue is just meaningless- but including it in the article implies otherwise.82.71.30.178 (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
See my comment directly below (they actually do a considerable amount of research and digging on contemporary far-right fringe groups, or have done in the past, but that might not give them credentials to judge claimed history books): -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
They're noteworthy experts on far-right fringe groups (KKK, "Creativity", etc.), but I don't know that they have any special expertise in history... AnonMoos (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree... remove the sentence that says the Southern Poverty Law Center thinks the book is untrue. Who cares? My Aunt Mable thinks it's untrue too. Does that matter? I think it's untrue. Does that means it shouldn't be published? It's completely irrelevant. Take it out.Bigdatut (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged Homosexuality"??[edit]

"The authors argue that alleged homosexuality found in the Nazi Party..." The use of "alleged homosexuality" seems to be overkill. The allegation is that there were homosexuals in the Nazi party. It is incorrect to state that there were "alleged homosexuals" in the Nazi party. This occurrence of "alleged" should be removed, since the entire book is "an allegation."Bigdatut (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


Self-published?[edit]

I can only find mention of one other book published by "Founders Publishing Corporation", and that's another book written by Scott Lively, titled The Poisoned Stream: "Gay" Influence in Human History, Vol. 1 Germany 1890-1945, 1997 ISBN 9780964760929. Worldcat reports that it is in "Keizer, OR".[1] Lively used to live in Oregon and helped run called Oregon Citizens Alliance, based in adjoining Salem.   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is or not, the Wikipedia article should not be deleted for that reason, since the book has created quite a bit of interest and discussion... AnonMoos (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that (though I see that it has been deleted twice in the past). But it probably should not be used as an actual source for any articles, except for its existence. I've checked and so far as I can tell, that's the only way it is being used currently.   Will Beback  talk  10:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical argument[edit]

One problem with this article, however, is that it focuses on a secondary argument in the book Pink Swastika which is not its main thesis. The book does suggest that there was a homosexual subculture in the Nazi Party and its affiliated militias. The idea that the Nazi's may have persecuted homosexuals while also having a homosexual subculture within is, ironically, not at all unusual. For example, the Catholic church has long condemned homosexuality and homosexuals, and yet it is widely known that there is a homosexual subculture in the priesthood and monasteries (this is completely separate from the pedophily issue). There is also some documented instances of homosexuality amongst Bedouin nomads and the nobility of the Ottoman empire, despite their strict adherence to Islam, which forbids and punishes homosexuality, see for example, Lawrence of Arabia (whether this is true homosexuality or a substitute for heterosexual sex in societies that mandate strict gender segregation and punishment for promiscuous women is unclear--another example of homosexuality substituting for heterosexual sex would be in the prisons).

Ultimately, this argument about a homosexual subculture in the Nazi movement was a secondary argument in the book. The books main thesis--which is not addressed--goes like this: the main philosophical influences on Nazism came from the philosophers Plato and Friedrich Nietzsche and there is evidence that both these men were gay, and the militaristic elements in their philosophies are due to the celebration of masculinity and depreciation of femininity, which the writer believes led to their homosexuality (a failure to appreciate women and their celebration of the masculine form instead).

Now there are a number of criticisms that could arise here: 1. what degree did Plato and Nietzsche truly influence Nazism? Plato and Nietzsche were bright and Nazism is stupid. Are not the philosophies of Plato and Nietzsche cornerstones of Western thought, so perhaps the Nazis tried to link themselves to these philosophers to demonstrate that they were the logical progression of western thought. Maybe they distorted these philosophies. 2. were Plato and/or Nietzsche truly homosexuals? Plato came from a culture (Ancient Greek culture) that did in fact encourage homosexual relationships between men (including pederasty). Nietzsche: there is evidence for and against it.

Third, is the link the book draws between militarism and homosexuality. Does a militaristic culture lead to a diminishing of the feminine and an exalting of the ideal masculine form, and in so doing foster homosexuality? The book also posits a thesis that homosexuality is a feature and hallmark of militarized societies premised upon hierarchy and rank rather than more egalitarian structures. An argument is made, for example, that the aristocracy of Britain practiced ritualized homosexuality. Is there not some evidence--even if it is rumour and gossip--as to the widespread practice of homosexuality by British royalty at least in medieval times? What about the purported practice of pederasty by the Samurai caste in Japan?

None of these elements in the book's arguments are explored in the article, and therefore, I an not sure that it is fairly addressing the thesis. The article's authors seem more interested in discrediting the notion that there was a homosexual subculture in the Nazi movement and the argument made "this can't be so because the Nazi's persecuted homosexuals" does not address the argument at all for both could have been happening simultaneously, which is actually the story of gay subculture throughout history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.71.111 (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Date of Publication[edit]

This article states that the book was published in 2002. The 'homosexual agenda' article and some of the sources identify the book as being written in the '90s, however. Can anybody confirm the date? Did somebody perhaps mistake a 2002 reprint for the original publication? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.160.101.128 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks AV3000 (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


Annotated Pink Swastika[edit]

Copied from user talk:Will Beback

Hi Will! The removal of the link was explained with "removed email" in an edit sum. The destination of the link is merely a self-published web page by qrd.org which is a copy of an email which purports to be a document written by another org CAFCA. The document seems to make derogatory claims about BLPs. This about Abrams: "It was said that the service which provided his access to Internet closed his account after complaints that he was posting inappropriate material to various Usenet news groups." The link fails WP:ELNO#2 and WP:ELBLP. – Lionel (talk) 02:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

As for self-published websites, it appears that the later "editions" of The Pink Swastika are also self-published. I'm not sure that saying that someone had their ISP canceled is really a serious BLP issue, especially since it's buried in an external link, but I haven't looked at it closely.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Took another look at the "email." The annotation takes the form of interspersing commentary in the text of the book and setting it off with pairs of "***". The commentary presents a wealth of research about sources used in TPS, about Nazism and members of the party, about people and orgs related to homosexuality. Unfortunately none of the commentary is referenced. There is no way to independently verify the claims made in the document. The link violates WP:EL#2.– Lionel (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

This book is a "flat out lie"[edit]

Why was this removed from the article?

Jonathan Zimmerman, a historian at New York University, wrote the claim that that gay people helped bring Nazism to Germany "is a flat-out lie."[1] Zimmerman, points out that "Between 1933 and 1945, the Nazis arrested roughly 100,000 men as homosexuals. Most convicted gays were sent to prison; between 5,000 and 15,000 were interned in concentration camps, where they wore pink triangles to signify their supposed crime."[1] He further notes, "To win their release from the camps, some gays were forced to undergo castration. Others were mutilated or murdered in so-called medical experiments by Nazi doctors, who insisted that homosexuality was a disease that could be 'cured'."[1] In addition, "Hitler authorized an edict in 1941 prescribing the death penalty -- yes, the death penalty -- for SS and police members found guilty of gay activity."[1]


See: [2].   Will Beback  talk  07:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily quote[edit]

I removed the positive quote about the book from WorldNetDaily. The author of the quote is not a historian or an expert on this topic, and WorldNetDaily is a very dubious source to begin with. If someone wants to restore the quote, there should be some explanation of why this person's opinion is more valuable than someone off the street's, or at the very least an acknowledgement that WND is a far right website with a reputation for crank theories.NoahB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC).

It doesn't matter whether the review is positive or negative. If we are truly editing neutrally, we are oblivious to the ideology of a source.

WP:DUE requires that all significant viewpoints are represented. Regarding the opinion of "someone off the street," in fact these "off the street" opinions are added to articles all of the time --when they appear in a reliable source that is. – Lionel (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WND fails as a reliable source. The paragraph that NoahB deleted was so bad it could be used as a demonstration of that fact. Binksternet (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)