Talk:Victims of Nazi Germany

Extending to LGBT+ victims

Homosexual men are now highlighted as a specific group. But it might be worth it to extend this to other LGBT+ groups as well. For example, trans women were also given a pink triangle and locked up along with gay men. ~2026-72772-3 (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

See also the article

Transgender people in Nazi Germany ~2026-72772-3 (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

A WP article is not considered a reliable source (see WP:RS). So we'd need external sources that also reflect the terminological problems (the term transgender had not been coined yet; blinded by their own ideology and inhumanity, the Nazis saw trans women as gay men). Rsk6400 (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

see the sourses SheepDog11 cited here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Victims_of_Nazi_Germany/Archive_1#h-Seeking_Consensus:_Use_of_LGBT_is_unnecessarily_vague_when_it_was_specifically_h-2021-11-08T18:02:00.000Z ~2026-37910-20 (talk) 07:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Should we combine the Homosexual men and Transgender people sections? What would the name of that section be? Mikewem (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Queer people? Urchincrawler (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 February 2026

Change "just because they there Freemasons is unknown."

To "just because they were Freemasons is unknown." IawnFfrind (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing it out. LizardJr8 (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

"Appears to"

Saying that a source fails verification because it uses the hedge words "appears to" is a remarkable stretch imo, particularly for a billionaire with a long history of threatening defamation lawsuits against those who call her transphobic or who otherwise criticize her.Snokalok2 (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to tag @Slatersteven Snokalok2 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

No its not, wp:blp applies to Rowling as much as anyone else, we cannot accuse her (even by implication) of saying something she has not actually said, that is for RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Right, which is why that RS said On March 13, Rowling appears to deny on Twitter that trans people were targeted during the Holocaust...Calling this very well-sourced history a "fever dream". That is more than sufficient wording. Snokalok2 (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

But you say she (well actually "modern day by prominent figures", she is not more than one person, as well as being very oddly worded) said it, not that she is alleged to have said it (as the RS does). Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

A. We have other sources showing other figures making these allegations, as you’d see if you looked back at the deleted text

B. They didn’t say alleged, they said appeared to. “Appears to” in English prose means “ostensibly”; it means “yes barring any further evidence to the contrary” Snokalok2 (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Just for the record, in the removed text the link to Britt Hayes article in The Mary Sue (listed in this edit) was removed. The article itself says:

...The whole thing started—where else?—on X, where Joanne Rowling referred to the Nazis’ burning of books containing trans healthcare and research as a “fever dream.” Rowling re-posted a comment that reads, “The Nazis burnt books on trans healthcare and research, why are you so desperate to uphold their ideology around gender?”...“I just… how?” writes Rowling, a professional author. “How did you type this out and press send without thinking ‘I should maybe check my source for this, because it might’ve been a fever dream’?” The commenter is referring to a well-documented incident: In 1933...A group of students participating in the Nazi government censorship program attacked the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, or the Institute for Sexual Science...Headed by Magnus Hirschfeld, the ISS conducted groundbreaking research and developed treatments for issues affecting gay, transgender, and intersex people, among others...According to Joanne Rowling, the Nazis didn’t burn the ISS archives, nor did they specifically target trans people. She even re-posted a thread filled with blatant misinformation about Hirschfeld...much of which is often parroted by conservatives in their attacks on trans rights.

Taking that into account, I didn't see anything about Twitter or social media in the article, nor anything about whether there was "significant backlash from Twitter users" or not. Doing some digging I found where the description of "significant backlash" comes from: Aja Romano. Her article in Vox says (bolding is my emphasis)

The literal burning by Nazis of books and research from Berlin’s pioneering Institute for Sexual Research, which conducted the world’s first gender-affirming surgeries for trans people, was captured in German newsreels at the time and has been well-documented since, including by the UK’s own Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. Calling this very well-sourced history a “fever dream” quickly drew significant backlash from Twitter users, with many framing it as a form of Holocaust denial. When challenged on her claim with multiple sources by Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic instructor Alejandra Caraballo, Rowling first responds that the original tweet had made claims it didn’t say: that the Nazis burnt all research on trans health care, and that trans people were the first victims of the Nazis.

There's more to it than that, but I would say that the text in question should be updated to say:

J.K. Rowling referred to the burning of books "containing trans healthcare and research" at the Institute for Sexual Science, in 1933, as a "fever dream," and shared a claim that "trans people were not targets of the Nazis during the Holocaust," leading to significant social media backlash, with users saying her comments were a form of Holocaust denial.

I did find other articles about this in The Forward (also here), Salon, The Telegraph, The Stranger, Pride.com, The Advocate (also see here), and possibly the Hindustan Times. I did see an entire paragraph at Persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany#Denialism about Rowling's comments as well, giving a bit of further context.

Otherwise, I do not understand why the articles cited in Berliner Zeitung and Der Spiegel were removed as well, as those are clearly reliable sources. That's just my view here, and people are free to disagree with it. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC) My view on those two sources has slightly changed. See my other comment in this discussion. This will be the last comment I will be making so as to not violate WP:BLUDGEON.In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in, I have had my say, wp:bludgeon applies to us all. Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Cool. I listed this at wikiproject LGBT in order to get more voices, since it’s a matter of LGBT history Snokalok2 (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I was the first one to remove the text for the following reasons: (1) The Spiegel article says that a German court decided that freedom of speech guarantees the right of an activist group to call Vollbrecht's tweet "denial of Nazi crimes". That means that the court didn't take sides, and that's different from the court ruling that the tweet was "denial ...". Moreover, the court's decision was not final, but was appealed. (2) What sense is there in mentioning Rowling whithout saying that her view had been rejected by the German court ? That's where the WP:SYNTH problem starts. (3) WP follows mainstream academics, especially in articles about subjects that have been treated in thousands of academic works. I don't think that articles from Spiegel or other news outlets are relevant enough for this overview of all victims of Nazi Germany. And I also think that Rowling is very relevant for articles on muggles, but not for articles on Nazi victims. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Just quickly, on the one hand, I'd say that while the Berliner Zeitung and Der Spiegel articles are reliable, there is an issue. The Berliner Zeitung article, about a tweet by Marie-Luise Vollbrecht, just links to the Der Spiegel one and is a bit of a summary of that one it seems. And the nuances you put should be incorporated into the text, if it is added. As for #2, there's need to be a source about Rowling's view rejected by a German court. I hear what you are saying on #3, but I'd say that articles from Spiegel or other news outlets can be relevant, if incorporated in the right way. Otherwise, as for Rowling herself, I will say that she is relevant enough to include, since after all, she is on the Persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany page as well, although in that case, she's in the main text. However, in this case, she would just be in a footnote (effectively), if that makes sense in the text. Any possible text, if added, mentioning her should be revised/updated (I proposed some revised text myself). In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

A back-and-forth over the dueness of JK Rowling’s views on trans issues seems out of place on this talk page.

The claim that “Nazis targeted trans people” on account of their trans identity is disputed and presented with nuance in RS and our article reflects that dispute and nuance. Mikewem (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, there is back-and-forth on dueness because Rowling was mentioned in the text that was removed. Saying that "The claim that “Nazis targeted trans people” on account of their trans identity is disputed and "presented with nuance in RS and our article reflects that dispute and nuance" is not really accurate, at least not the way you are saying. The exact section in this article says:

In Nazi Germany, transgender people were prosecuted, barred from public life, forcibly detransitioned, and imprisoned and killed in concentration camps. Though some factors, such as whether they were considered "Aryan", heterosexual with regard to their birth sex, or capable of useful work had the potential to mitigate their circumstances, being transgender was largely considered an act of deceit by the Nazi state, and German citizens were encouraged to report them whenever and wherever possible.

And there's an entire page on it. So, I'd say that obviously Nazis DID target trans people due to their identity and for other reasons. I'd ask that you be a bit clearer on your language next time, as this is a very sensitive issue, just a recommendation. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest adding a section that deals with denialism of Nazi crimes in general and if you would like you can add a link to the denialism section of the trans persecution by Nazis article where JK Rowling is covered. Mikewem (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

But not without a good secondary source saying that Rowling is into denialism. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I didn’t mean this to suggest that JK Rowling should be mentioned in this article, even in a hypothetical section about denialism in general.

We already have a hatnote link to persecution of trans people in Nazi Germany. If there were a denialism section covering all denialism of all victims of Nazi Germany, there would presumably be somewhere in the text where we could include a section link to Persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany#Denialism, presumably along with other links to other such relevant sections in other articles, per NPOV. The Rowling content appears to be sufficiently sourced at the main article. Mikewem (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd be okay with that, and including a section link. And having a denialism section is a good idea, and could pull from the Holocaust denial page, perhaps. As to RSK6400'S point, multiple sources have said Rowling engaged in denialism, on the section link noted above, so there are good secondary sources. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

We are talking here about something that has seen lots and lots of academic coverage - so IMHO a good source has to be an academic one focussing on the article subject. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Good sources are not necessarily academic ones. Not everything is written about by academics. And with the political/cultural pressure put on academics these days, there are undoubtedly subjects people never even write about at all, or are scared to write about in fear of losing their jobs. In solidarity - Historyday01 (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Edit request

Change the link from the holocaust encyclopedia about the spanish civil war to https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/spanish-civil-war, as the original is a dead link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake.D.Rattle (talk • contribs) 04:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)