Talk:Nazi concentration camp badge

Older

Pink inverted triangle superimposed upon a yellow triangle, making the Star of David - a homosexual Jew.

This is the first time I hear about this "double marking". Any refs where this came from? Just wondering, what if a Jew was a criminal, he would wear a yellow-green star? What if a Jew + criminal + homosexual? And what if it was a anti-social woman? I am not turning this into a joke, just trying to understand the classification. Humus sapiens 03:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is drawn from a poster created to assist the camp personnel in identifying prisoners. There is a small graphic of the poster here and an original poster (from one of the camps) is in the Holocaust Museum in DC. --Etoile 17:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In fact, there were many markings, a prisoner would have at least two, and possibly more than six:

Form and Color of Markings of Camp Inmates in the Concentration Camps

	Political	Habitual Criminals	Emigrants	Bible Students	Gay males	Vagrants
Basic colors	Red triangle	Green triangle	Blue triangle	Purple triangle
Markings for Repeaters	Red bar above triangle	Green bar above triangle	Blue bar above triangle	Purple bar above triangle	Pink bar above triangle	Black bar above triangle
Inmates of Penal Battalions	Circled black circle under red triangle	Circled black circle under green triangle	Circled black circle under blue triangle	Circled black circle under purple triangle	Circled black circle under pink triangle	Circled black circle under black triangle
Markings for Jews	Red triangle over uninverted yellow triangle	Green triangle over yellow triangle	Blue triangle over yellow triangle	Purple triangle over yellow triangle	Pink triangle over yellow triangle	Black triangle over yellow triangle
Special Markings	Male Race Defiler: Thick outline of black triangle over uinverted yellow triangle	Female Race Defiler: Univerted yellow triangle over black triangle	Escape Suspect: A circled red circle under the appropriate star	Inmate Number: A white rectangle with serial number	Applicable marks were worn in descending order as follows: Inmate Number, Repeater Bar, Triangle or Star, Member of Penal Battalion, Escape Suspect
	Pole: "P" on a red triangle	Czech: "T" on a red triangle	Member of the Armed Forces: Univerted red triangle	Special Inmate: Brown arm band

I'd appreciate it if someone familiar with graphics could replace the text of the table with pictures, where appropriate.

Hyacinth

I've just put the table into the article. Excellent work! - David Gerard 12:50, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

I second that, the article turns really encyclopedic resource. Since the majority of it isn't about inverted triangles anymore, should it be renamed? Nazi death camp/inmate/prisoner badge? Humus sapiens 20:20, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I propose: Nazi concentration camp inmate markings. Hyacinth

---

Jewish Jehovah's Witness

A purple triangle over a yellow one means someone is both a Jew and a Jehovah's Witness? Is that actually possible? -- Kimiko 23:21, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nazis defined "Jewishness" on the basis of ancestry. If you had a Jewish grandparent, you were a Jew. Didn't matter to them if you were also a Christian. - Nunh-huh 23:26, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Maybe that should be noted somewhere on the page then, that "Jew" means "of Jewish descent" and not necessarily "practicing Judaism". -- Kimiko 23:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Or there should be a page on "Nazi definition of a Jew", it gets complicated and they actually had terms like "Mischling" based on the # of grandparents who were Jews, and if those Jews were practicing or part of the "Jewish Community", etc. The definition was coded under law in 1940. Or if one were married to a Jew. Probably too complicated to put on this page. -- Nunh-huh 00:18, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Who is a Jew? explains it pretty well. Joffeloff 20:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Der "Lila Winkel" als Kennzeichnung in den Konzentrationslagern, galt für alle religiösen inhaftierten Gefangenen. Diese wurden unter der Bezeichnung "Bibelforscher" geführt. Darunter befanden sich nicht nur die "Zeugen Jehovas", sondern auch die "Freien Bibelforscher", die "Quäker" und viele der "Siebenten-Tags-Adventisten". Diese Tatsache sollte seitens der Zeugen nicht übersehen werden. Hier gibt es einfach keinen Absolutheitsanspruch. --Bibelforscher 16:58, 14.Oct 2005 (CEST)

Concentration Camp Markings

I must commend the graphics and the discussion. In 1994, I visited both Auschwitz and neighboring Auschwitz II (Birkenau), and I found the explanation of the marking system there to be cursory.

Orlando Gotay, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Special inmates

What qualified a concentration camp inmate for "special" status? User:DO'Neil|DO'Иeil]] 11:00, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

These were inmates appointed by higher-ups for tasks of personal or administrative service: as kapos (originally spelled capo, from the Italian), block-elders, sex slaves, etc. Their qualifications were personal qualities such as skills and character traits suiting them to the task at hand. In some cases political connections may have been involved, but I can't document that at present. Perhaps the page needs explanation on this point? -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Special Markings

Under special markings .. I'm not clear what "race defiler" actually means ... --Azkar 15:22, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This generally referred to Aryan women who knowingly had children by a non-Aryan man. - Etoile 17:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could a note be added about the definaition of a race defiler like the Jehovah's Witness/Jew triangle?--Thecosmos 02:29, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I was confused by the phrase "Race Defiler" as well. The article seemed to suggest that it refered to someone who had mated with a "lesser race". A description that is more clear would be nice. --207.81.225.190 07:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit: removed obsolete link

Removed the internal link to "Jasenovac concentration camp marks," which seems to have been removed from the Jasenovac article.

Thecosmos, I'll also include the definition of "race defiler" in the appropriate section.

--Justin.eiler 20:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Justin!--Thecosmos 03:55, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Repeater Bar

Somebody should explain what a repeat bar is as it is incomprehensible in the article!

Assuming that the repeater bar is for those people that repeated the designated offense, how could somebody be a repeating Jehovah's Witness? (I am not trying to be difficult, I just fail to understand that.)--Thecosmos 22:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I believe the repeater bars are actually only applicable for repeatable offenses: they are, in the graphic, used with all the major badges by way of example, rather than an actual category. However, I may be wrong on that.... --Justin.eiler 04:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The repeaters for all categories show up in the original German poster as well, so either people at the concentration camp were as confused as we about "repeating Jehovah's Witnesses" &c, or they actually do mean something. Mang 03:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

a bar might have been over a Jehovah's Witness badge to indicate a preacher or some other priority type in the category.

note: a bar can also be used just to save space, especially in the late war worker-clothing for detainees in forced-labor teams at the factories. notice this museum specimen (jpg) where you see in the lower left a full-size double-triangle patch (red political enemy plus yellow jew triangle) but the factory work-shirt in the lower right has just a red triangle with a yellow bar (visible in this close-up) because that was easier to print on the ID number-tape sewn onto the outfit. the meaning here is 'jew and political enemy' rather than repeatedly or especially jewish political enemy. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: 26.06.2024: Before the war, prisoners could be released at the discretion of the camp staff and higher functionaries in the KZ system. A prisoner due for release would be interviewed - typically by the Gestapo - and made to sign a form. The form stated that they were well treated, had no complaints and that they would keep their experiences to themselves. If that person then goes on to tell all and sundry about what happens in the KZ, if denounced, they were back in for life. Further, if the person reoffended viz-a-viz the reason why they were locked up, again, they were rearrested and sent back to the KZ for life. Jehovah's Witnesses were in the KZ system because typically they had not voted in the elections, did not recognise AH as legitimate head of state and refused to do their military service. They were, as far as I am aware, the only prisoner group who could actively play a part in gaining their freedom; they had to renounce their faith, accept AH as the legitimate head of state (i.e. accept someone apart from god could wield power over people) and then do their army service. If that person then decides that Hitler really isn't the leader - only god could hold that title, or if they evaded their army service, then they would be thrown back in the KZ and ave to wear the repeat offender stripe. I work in the Dachau Memorial; what I've written here is good for Dachau. In other camps there may have been exceptions. 88.71.141.153 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC) Taff

"Emigrants"?

The blue triangle "emigrants" category isn't discussed, but is in the table. What does it mean? A2Kafir 01:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Good question I was wondering the same thing. Perhaps it was Germans who had fled Germany after 1933 (and thus were considered disloyal to Hitler's regime) but had been recaptured in France/Holland/Belgium/elsewhere and didn't fit into any other category like Jewish, communist, pacifist, etc.? Historian932 (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the blue triangle is the single greatest oversight and injustice in Holocaust Remembrance - blue triangles,based on my interviews with 3 survivors - were issued to ethnic Slavs (Poles, Russians, Serbs, Ukrainians, etc.) who were collected and sent to camps. This is rarely discussed and needs to be corrected. By conservative estimates, 14 million civilians (non combatants) from Slavic countries were murdered in non-combat, some by execution on conquest, some after surrendering, and a large majority in the concentration camps. Because the Nazis conducted "clearing" operations, the intention had been to ethnically cleanse an entire region from non-Germanic people and so many of these were children and women, given that often men were fighting. The famous photograph of Czeslawa Kwoka tells all that needs to be said - 14 years old, murdered at Auschwitz together with her mother, only crime was being Polish. Canlawtictoc (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Brown Triangle

I am surprised that the Brown Triangle isn't listed. This was the common (as well as Black) Triangle worn by the Roma. There are various links through Google where one could read about this and even find orginal Nazi chart listings showing the brown triangle. Could someone please fix this? I think it is only fair to include this as it is historic fact. In later years, the Roma were made to stop wearing the Black Traigle and were forced to Start wearing the Brown. I would remedy this, but I do not have the capability - Paint Shop is not my friend.

Here are some links/sources confirming this fact:

• The Patrin Web Journal
• Buchenwald Museum
• The Holocaust History Project
• Army History - The Final Solution
• The Jewish Virtual Library

Thank you. I hope someone can clarify this. ExRat 05:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Pink Triangle

The Pink Triangle was not only used for homosexuals. It was applied to any who broke paragraphs 174, 175 and 176 of the penal code. 175 applied to homosexuals, and 175b sex with animals. 174 applied to incest and other sexual offences with dependents, while 176 covered pedophilia. Ref: http://www.pink-triangle.org

So a Pink triangle was essentially for sexual offences in general rather than just homosexuals.

In line with this, Bibel-forscher is most certainly not the same as "Jehovah's witness". Also, political enemies could be more accurately put as political prisoners. Ilija Pavlic 15:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Armed Forces

Looking for a fuller explanation of the upright red triangle. Is 'Armed Forces' the same as POW? Or some offence (or imagined offence) by someone withing the German Armed Forces? T L Miles 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

http://ddickerson.igc.org/dachau-badges.html gives this as "Wermacht Prisoners". If someone can confirm this, perhaps it should be clarified on the main page. Also there seems to be discussion of differences between camps. That this was a local, not a universal system, might be noted (if confirmed). T L Miles 17:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I work in the Dachau Memorial. This was discussed in the training course I had to do: the uninverted red triangle was for police, Luftschutz and SS men who were convicted of crimes (e.g. taking of bribes, cowardice). They were kept in a special block ("The Bunker") and kept separate from other prisoners. I cannot comment on how it was used in other camps.

Taff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.211.199.76 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Republican Spaniards?

Just out of curiousity, how did Republican Spaniards end up in Nazi concentration camps? Even though Germany was involved in a minor role during the Spanish Civil War, it would be odd that they would capture Spanish citizens. Was it Spanish volunteers in the French Resistance?

I know Nationalist Spaniards fought on the side of the Axis in the Azul Division. They wouldn't be Republicans though.

I know Franco jailed many Republicans after the civil war.

Anyway, just curious. Thanks.

Tens of thousands of republicans fled over the French border when Barcelona was captured by the Fascists, essentially ending the Civil War. Those trapped in the Spanish State often ended up in Franco's 'work' camps and prisons, so many remained in France (along with anti-fascist refugees from across Europe) when the Germans invaded in 1940. Many ended up in labor and death camps (leftists were rounded up even before ethnic and cultural victims), others went underground and either fled Europe, hid, or joined the resistance, from which they re-appeared in 1944.

See Wikis for Spanish Civil War and French Resistance, T L Miles 15:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Badge Coding System - Black Triangle - birth control

There is a request under the heading "Badge Coding System" for a citation for the "Black Triangle" being worn for the offense of "birth control".

I do not have the editing skills to do the citation myself; however I can give you a citation from the man himself.

Adolf Hitler railed at some length against birth control in "MEIN KAMPF" Vol. I, Chapter IV: MUNICH (James Murphy, 1939 translation).

His argument was essentially that while promoting the birth of as many children as possible would allow 'natural selection' to cull the weak and leave only the strongest to populate Germany; as opposed to the use of birth control resulting in fewer children whose lives were then preserved whether deserving of survival or not.

Hitler did not treat this so much a moral issue as a practical one. He was interested in developing the most viable possible children, who could be molded through minimal education and maximum physical training, into a generation who could retake Germany's territorial losses in World War I and thus avenge his perceived inequities in the Treaty of Versailles (Where Germany lost a large portion of its territory and nearly all its prestige).

Heinrich Himmler found the answer to this in the ‘Lebensborn’ program, to promote the procreation of racially pure Aryan children to populate and continue the Third Reich in the future.

Hitler also comments at length about the need for "pure" Aryans to procreate in order to save "the race" as well as his ideas for limiting the undesirable, to his theories, reproduction of races he considers inferior, the mentally ill, etc. in "MEIN KAMPF" Vol. II, Chapter II: THE STATE (James Murphy, 1939 translation)

If someone could reduce this to the proper form and add it to the page I would greatly appreciate it. -Bonacon Lupinus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.245.174.178 (talk) 07:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

It is not "original research" to note that abortion was illegal in Germany when practiced by "racially valuable" people such as those defined as Aryan. It was encouraged and sometimes forced on members of other groups. 66.162.249.170 (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia icon contradicts scanned page

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Kennzeichen_f%C3%BCr_Schutzh%C3%A4ftlinge_in_den_Konzentrationslagern.jpg

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Female_race_defiler.svg

Can someone "spin" the 'Female Race Defiler' icon? AKismet 07:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just uploaded a new image, which is rotated for 180 degrees. --Biblbroks's talk 17:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I'm not sure whether this is an article or a list - it seems like both merged into one. It lacks proper in-text references and the sources and external links make the whole thing difficult.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Purple triangle were not just for witnesses?

They were used for other groups too. In fact this need to be brought in line with the purple triangle article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.103.23 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not correct! Purple triangles were for Jehovah's Witnesses including converts to their religion which might also include ethnically Jewish individuals. Their purple triangles' specific purpose was to alert guards to their proselytising activities within the camps. Bibelforscher referred to the B in IBV, Jehovah's Witnesses legal name. See Jehovah's Witnesses in National Socialist concentration camps, 1933 - 45 by Johannes S. Wrobel, [1]. Extract below.

The Bible Students were set apart as a completely separate category. The fact that the SS separated them in that way was designed to make Jehovah's Witnesses easily discernible from the other groups of prisoners. … With the category 'Bible Students,' the SS had selected a classification which applied specifically and exclusively to members of this ideological religious denomination. (Garbe, 1999, pp. 405 - 6; English translation in Garbe, 2006)

The "Purple angle" as identification in the concentration camps was for all religious detained prisoners. They were all included under the name "Bible Students". These were not only the "Jehovah's Witnesses", but also the “Dawn Bible Students”, the "Free Bible Students", the "Quakers" and many of the "Reformed Seventh Day Adventists". This fact should not be overlooked by the "Witnesses". There are simply no absolute claims for any one group. --Bibelforscher (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above clarification, I'm adding a pair of quotation marks to the term "Bible Students" on the chart, lest it be read literally rather than a translation of Bibelforscher (which I've always read translated as "Bible scholars"). -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Here are the facts:

• The only citations of a Purple Triangle representing anyone besides a Jehovah's Witness on the Purple Triangle page are described as "Less than one percent of the Witnesses included other religious nonconformists" and "quite small compared with the total number of Jehovah’s Witness prisoners".
• The vast majority of articles on the topic refer to "Bibelforscher" simply as "Jehovah's Witnesses" since that is what Jehovah's Witnesses were known as in Germany at the time.
• The Declaration Document was clearly referring to Jehovah's Witnesses, and the need for them to be easily identified by the Purple Triangle to set them apart as the only ones who could sign the document is also clear.

So how can anyone justifiably change the meaning of that to 'Purple Triangles referred to people who read the bible, like these people...' I'm not a historian, but I can read article citations. And this article is slowly straying further and further away from all the cited articles on the topic. This page should not cater to those who would like to minimize Jehovah's Witnesses' role in the concentration camps. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Paranoia much? You are reading way too much into the inclusion of others. By your own admission it is not strictly 100%. Lay off the personal attacks, and find a source for your removal. I'm putting it back, we can take this to 3O.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not set out attacking anybody personally, and I don't know what paranoia has to do with anything. I haven't seen a source that specifically mentions Dawn Bible Students, Free Bible Students, or Reformed Seventh Day Adventists, that is why I removed their mention. Every source I have seen that mentions less than one percent belonged to other groups have not listed what exact groups they were. They give a general title of "Bible Student splinter groups" or "Adventists, Baptists, pacifists". They are also mentioned off hand as a minor note, adequately covered under the Purple triangle page. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

"those who would like to minimize Jehovah's Witnesses' role in the concentration camps" is both paranoid (who are these people?) and an attack labeling those who revert your edits. 99% is not minimizing anyone.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to edits such as this one, this one, and this one. Moving the group that wore the purple triangle over 99% of the time to the bottom of a list is most definitely minimizing Jehovah's Witnesses' role in the concentration camps. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion was listed in a request for a 3rd Opinion, but it seems to already involve 4 editors and the matter of interpreting multiple sources is frankly too complex for a venue like 3O. I would suggest seeking further input in some other fashion, possibly a general RfC if necessary. Good luck, Doc Tropics 02:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Though I happened to come onto this dispute by noticing the now-removed listing at 3O, and though I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian, this is not a third opinion issued under that project (I am disqualified from issuing a 3O because I have had prior dealings with one of the disputants here), but it is instead just some personal observations and recommendations.

• First, while the Wrobel mention of non-Witness sects is sufficient proof that the named sects were in the Bibelforscher category in the camps and that they were required to wear the purple triangle, better proof can be obtained from the reference Wrobel makes to "(Garbe 1999, pp. 82, 406; Zeiger, 2001, p. 72)" (the full text of the Wrobel article is, by the way, available through Ebscohost Academic Search Complete, which can be accessed at or through most public and academic libraries).
• Per Wrobel's footnotes, Zeiger's article appeared in a 2001 book by Hesse, Persecution and Resistance of Jehovah's Witnesses During the Nazi Regime. Most of that book, and all of the Zeiger article, can be viewed through Google Books here. On page 72, Zeiger says, "In Sachsenhausen, the purple triange was also worn by Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, pacifists, and possible also by supporters of the New Apostolic community,(9) who, however, were rarely committed to a camp." Footnote 9 on page 90 of Zeiger's article shows that the information came from the Sachsenhausen Archives, gives a cite for the Baptist and Anabaptist information, and says, "Ten religious groups have been established so far at Sachsenhausen concentration camp," and goes on to give a couple of cites (in German, unfortunately) for that assertion. (The Garbe book, and the particular page in question is also available there, but it's in German, I don't speak German, and it can't be cut-and-pasted into an online translator, so I'm lost with it.)
• Later, however, in the Hesse book, there is an article by Dietrich Hellmund, "Critical Reflection of the Video Documentary 'Stand Firm Against Nazi Assault': Propaganda or Historical Documentation?", which discusses the question of whether "associations which split away from the Watch Tower Society ... were also dragged into the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses" and gives an example of the "Church of the Kingdom of God, Dawn, and the Free Bible Association (Free Bible Students)." Unfortunately, Google has chosen to excise most of that discussion, but one footnote, number 6, remains and is significant, "Jehovah's Witnesses place special significance that because of their characteristics, they were the only religious association to receive special markings, the purple triange, in concentration camps. ... These facts [presumably those to which the footnote links] mean that Jehovah's Witnesses were not the only religious association given a purple marking, but that also the Free Bible Students (Freien Bibelforscher) received this marking. These facts must still be researched in detail. But if these facts are corroborated: the others were only a very small marginal group."
• So there are reliable sources for ten or more groups, including Adventists, Baptists, New Apostolics, probably Free Bible Students, and perhaps Church of the Kingdom of God and Dawn (presumably Dawn Bible Students?) who had to wear the purple triangle. There's more than adequate evidence, however, that the number of members of those groups, even taken together, were quite small, less than 1% of those in that classification. It seems to me that the right thing to do in this article is to not list all those smaller groups since, first, we don't know who all of them were and since, second, their small numbers compared to the length of the list tends to cause such an listing to approach undue weight. Neither, however, is it right to only mention the Jehovah's Witnesses. My recommendation, therefore, would be to use the following as the entry (which ought to be left where it is now; I see no reason to move it to the bottom of the list):

• Purple triangle— Bible Students, a term taken from a name of, and primarily referring to, Jehovah's Witnesses, though a small number of pacifists and members of other religious organizations were also imprisoned under this classification
• Note: The term Bible Students is intentionally not linked to anything, since it was used by the Nazis to include individuals who were not members of the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Bible Student movement.

Finally, a word to the wise about edit warring: The edit warring policy says,

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

The three revert rule is merely a bright-line rule and it expressly says,

"Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

What's going on here is clearly an edit war and I must warn you that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues. Decide it by discussion, do a RFC, take it to MedCab, or use some other form of dispute resolution, but stop changing the article page. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your weighing in on this discussion. I'm not a very active editor of Wikipedia, but watching this article slide further and further into biased opinion finally forced me to do something, if nothing more than bring a second side to the edits. Your suggestion sounds very balanced, and I'm happy to support applying it to the article for now, with one suggested modification. 10% is a "small number". Less than 1% is a "very small number", which better reflects the facts in this discussion. Thunderbird L17 (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You've been warned about personal attacks. Leave off the "biased opinion" bullshit once and for all.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, my general observation was by no means personal. Are you applying it to yourself to make it so? Thunderbird L17 (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dates

It might help the article if it had dates for when the standardization for the classifications were made. --Trakon 22:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Black triangles - lesbians

There hasn't been any evidence for lesbians to be imprisoned in concentration camps due to their sexual orientation. The archive of the memorial site of Ravensbrück has evidence of four women with an additional remark of being lesbians: two of them been persecuted for political reasons, two for being jewish. One of the jewish inmates was given a black triangle due to sexual contacts with non-jewish persons as Claudia Schoppmann published. ref: Claudia Schoppmann: Nationalsozialistische Sexualpolitik und weibliche Homosexualität. (Dissertation, FU Berlin, 1990.) Centaurus, Pfaffenweiler 1991 (revisited 2nd edition 1997). ISBN 3-89085-538-5</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.62.28 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

ah, this has been found: Elman PhD, R. Amy (1996). "Triangles and Tribulations: The Politics of Nazi Symbols" RocketDwiki (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction: N - Holland or Norway?

The caption of the picture states N stands for Dutch, while the article says it stands for Norwegian. 87.193.248.234 (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

According to former Dutch prisoners they had to carry a triangle with the letter H (= Holland), so, probably the N stood for Norway. Robvhoorn (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC) [indented by Carbonrodney for clarity]

I noticed that too. Unfortunately, google searches have only brought up wikipedia mirrors and copies of the image with its text. I'll edit it and tag with cn. --128.86.145.118 (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The photo caption is from the Buchenwald camp, while the text describes the system at the Dachau camp. As the first sentence says: "The system of badges varied between the camps...", so it is quite possible that the letter "N" was used to mean different things at different camps. T-bonham (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The photograph with inmates on the prison yard was taken at Mauthausen, following a reliable reference. The text and the pictures use several examples of camps like Mauthausen, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and more, so I can't see that the article mainly references to camp Dachau.

The assumption of variations of the system of badges makes sense, but why does the article conceal badges we have references for, and at the same time badges without references are presented? Over the years, there were some edits about the meaning of letter 'H' and 'N':

140269916: 'H' means Netherlands

284330877: deletion with CN mark

299181004: 'N' means Netherlands

354907320: 'H' means Netherlands

I would like to agree to revision comment 556906055: "Typically N was used for the Dutch (...), not Norwegians (of whom there were very few). However it's not impossible that the same would have been used for various groups."

The actual reference no. 22 gives an example of 'N' meaning Netherlands. Here's an example of 'No' meaning Norway: collections.arolsen-archives.org/remote/collections.arolsen-archives.org/G/SIMS/01010503/0101/52899421/001.jpg. What do experienced authors @Cramyourspam, Hotspur23, Qono, and Thorsen: say — is it possible and worthwhile to resolve this contradiction? --T. Wirbitzki (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Pink and Purple Triangles

There are clearly more gay men persecuted under the pink triangle than straight rapists and pedophiles or people who had sex with animals. We should make that clear in the article. Same with the Jehovah's Witnesses and Bible Students. Were Bible Students persecuted and given a purple triangle? Yes but far more Witnesses were.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

There are clearly more Chinese people in China than French people, but it isn't necessary to say so in the article about China. It is self-evident that there are more people in a group of people that is larger than a smaller group of people.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe to someone who does know "nothing" about the holocaust which are the main people we are writing for I don't believe they do know that. On the other hand it is obvious there are more Chinese in China.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The statement you're trying to make is about homosexuals (or JWs), not about the holocaust per se. It is self-evident that there would have been a greater population of homosexuals than there were rapists during the holocaust, just as there are and always have been.--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You seem under the mistaken impression that one who knows little or nothing about the holocaust will know that the Jehovah's Witnesses and Homosexual men were the main victims under the Purple and Pink Triangle. I don't think its obvious to those who don't know much about the subject.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't understand that it is obvious that there are more homosexuals than rapists in any population of notable size would be better off reading an article about homosexuality than trying to discover such a thing from an article about badges used in the Holocaust. And why are you capitalising "Homosexual"?--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I not talking about numbers in terms of numbers in a population but in term of amount of people the Nazi's persecuted. It is not obvious from the article that Gay men were the main target of the Pink Triangle as well as Jehovah's Witnesses being the main target of the Purple Triangle.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no evidence that gay men were the 'main' target. Rather, there were simply more gay men persecuted than there were rapists because there were more gay men than rapists. It is not the case that rapists were less targeted, but that there were simply fewer of them. I've seen no evidence at all that an identified rapist would have received more lenient treatment than a homosexual person. (Additionally, lenient treatment given to an individual homosexual, rapist, JW, Jew, or any other specific group on the basis of some other reason—such as a bribe, pre-existing friendship, or some other arrangement—would not be directly relevant.),--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

You obviously havn't studied the holocaust very deeply the main concern of the Nazi's was keeping a pure Aryan race and they actually encouraged gay men to rape Jewish girls to prove that they weren't gay this is covered extensively in various books about gay men in World War II. The Nazis did not put up posters demonizing straight rapists, straight pedophiles or zoophiles or attack organizations relating to these in the same way as bringing down organizations started by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs or Magnus Hierschfield. Which were actively targeted and taken down by the Nazis. The Nazis believed if an Aryan raped an Aryan the child would be Aryan. If an Aryan adult raped an Aryan child who was old enough the child would be Aryan. However if an Aryan male had sex with an Aryan male there would be no child. They were obsessed with maintaining the Aryan race. That was there focus for persecuting almost everyone (with the exception of a few groups that went against there politics). Please do some research on Gay men in the Nazi-occupied territories as well as the Pink Triangle.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that many Nazi's raped people in the concentration camp and rape was sometimes even encouraged. Nazis would often rape inmates and some inmates would also rape lower inmates.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously a rapist who's actions were sanctioned under their demented Aryanism would not be considered a rapist under their definition of rapists who were to be persecuted. There were more than likely also homosexual individuals who were treated more leniently than others where a particular arrangement was 'convenient', such as were a Nazi officer were secretly homosexual. But neither scenario is what the brief summary at this article is meant to be addressing. Or to put it another way, WP:SOAP.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do some research gays were targeted systematically through lists provided by LGBT organizations in that time period. They would be seeked out and arrested, usually given no trial and put into either a jail or a camp. Rapists and Pedophiles were not targeted systematically and were usually given trials. My knowledge of zoophiles in that period or any period isn't extensive admitantly.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Heck even the picture at the top of the article states the pink triangle meant homosexual and not general sexual offenders. Why? Because the main targets (under the pink triange) were gays others were put in on the side.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Homosexual's are already listed first. I don't see why special elaboration is required in a list of brief bullet points. But you're welcome to get a third opinion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, Sexual Offenders are listed as including ..... The way the article is written Wikipedia is making it seem like these groups were targeted equally which I heavily disagree with. I would be happy to have a third opinion.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind removing the words "sexual offenders" altogether.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

If we could add the words primarily homosexuals while still including the other groups I'd be satisfied. Even you don't disagree that more homosexuals were persecuted under the pink triangle than others.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a strong objection to "primarily". The main problem with your previous wording is the POV implications with saying 'rarely' for the others. Perhaps, "primarily homosexual men, as well as sexual offenders including...".--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. I think that's a fair compromise. Should we do the same with the Purple Triangle?-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I've modified slightly per the actual agreed text. "Sometimes" is problematic because people who were in camps for being sexual offenders didn't sometimes have the pink badge. The context of the sometimes that you're alluding to is more to do with the assertion that such people sometimes weren't interred, which is beyond the scope of badges worn by people in camps.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC) (dated retroactively)

Ok out of good will and showing I'm not super stubborn I won't argue that point now my question is on the Purple Triangle should we make a similar statement about the Purple Triangle and the Jehovah's Witnesses?

Done.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Purple Triangle

Since the agreed upon sentence about "Purple Triangle" has been stirred up again, I'm directing attention back to the reason it was written that way in the first place (From the above conversation:

"So there are reliable sources for ten or more groups, including Adventists, Baptists, New Apostolics, probably Free Bible Students, and perhaps Church of the Kingdom of God and Dawn (presumably Dawn Bible Students?) who had to wear the purple triangle. There's more than adequate evidence, however, that the number of members of those groups, even taken together, were quite small, less than 1% of those in that classification. It seems to me that the right thing to do in this article is to not list all those smaller groups since, first, we don't know who all of them were and since, second, their small numbers compared to the length of the list tends to cause such an listing to approach undue weight. Neither, however, is it right to only mention the Jehovah's Witnesses."

So Adventists, Baptists, and New Apostolics are the most likely religious groups added under the designation. Then Bible Student splinter groups move to "probably" and "Perhaps". Therefore to link to them first and ignore the other groups is not the right option. Making a long list as well for "probable" and "possible" groups that taken together at best is under 1% of the classification is also not a good option. So if the previous definition was unnecessarily long and wordy, Why not just make it:

Purple triangle—primarily Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as a very small minority of other religious groups.

Simple and to the point. And if anyone wants a list of other religious groups (possible, probable, or otherwise) they can go to the Purple Triangle page. - Thunderbird L17 (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your alternative wording is that it conveys a small number of people from groups of unspecified size, whereas it should actually refer to members of small groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it conveys exactly what it is supposed to.

• Purple triangle—primarily Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as a very small minority of other religious groups.

That doesn't even really go far enough to convey "99% Jehovah's Witnesses" but it comes close. And then suggests a very small minority (under 1%) of miscellaneous religious groups, which could include but not be limited to Baptists and Adventists.

• Purple triangle—primarily Jehovah's Witnesses, and members of other very small religious groups.

Your rendering suggests simply a majority of Witnesses, perhaps "Over 50%" (Or possibly even less if the reader assumes just the highest percentage). And by saying "very small religious groups" it also suggests that either groups such as Baptists and Adventists are "very small religious groups", or that the groups referred to are "Preacher John and his congregation of five", etc. In both cases, it is the wrong conclusion.

- Thunderbird L17 (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Your wording suggests mostly JWs, and a small number of the members from other groups, which could include Catholics, Protestants, or any other religious groups. That isn't what it's meant to convey. It should convey that members of small groups were persecuted, not that a small portion of other groups were.

Additionally, it isn't necessary at this article to go beyond simply stating that it was mostly JWs. Where are you even getting the '99%' figure from? It was no doubt a high percentage, but suggestions of '99%' (of anything) are often exaggerated, and usually come from sources from the perspective of the '99%'.

And can we have a more specific reference than the entire book for the citation??--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The first footnote from the Purple Triangle page:

Johannes S. Wrobel, Jehovah’s Witnesses in National Socialist Concentration Camps, 1933 – 45, Religion, State & Society, Vol. 34, No. 2, June 2006, pp. 89-125 "The concentration camp prisoner category ‘Bible Student’ at times apparently included a few members from small Bible Student splinter groups, as well as adherents of other religious groups which played only a secondary role during the time of the National Socialist regime, such as Adventists, Baptists and the New Apostolic community (Garbe 1999, pp. 82, 406; Zeiger, 2001, p. 72). Since their numbers in the camps were quite small compared with the total number of Jehovah’s Witness prisoners, I shall not consider them separately in this article. Historian Antje Zeiger (2001, p. 88) writes about Sachsenhausen camp: ‘In May 1938, every tenth prisoner was a Jehovah’s Witness. Less than one percent of the Witnesses included other religious nonconformists (Adventists, Baptists, pacifists), who were placed in the same prisoner classification.’".)

The purple triangle was assigned to the "bibelforscher" - Bible Student, as Jehovah's Witnesses were then known. The few sources that even mention other groups (most do not) use words such as "apparently", "quite small", and "less than one percent". The page should reflect those facts, and not assign undue weight to a tiny minority. - Thunderbird L17 (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah... the old "as JWs were then known" claim. There were and are still groups of Bible Students from the Bible Student movement after Rutherford's group took the name Jehovah's witnesses. Though other Bible Student groups are small, the claim that Bible Students is exclusively an old name for JWs is a fabrication. And JWs were already known as JWs during WWII, and were not then known as Bible Students, apart from their being members of the broader Bible Student movement.

I already found the same ref you note above and added it to the article. I have also added the '99%' to the text, making your previous objection redundant. I have restored wording correctly indicating that members of other small groups (which includes other Bible Student movement groups who were not JWs) were included rather than the more ambiguous claim that it was simply a small number of members from potentially large groups.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, I'm fine with that. - Thunderbird L17 (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Nazi or German-occupied Europe

Ok, Beyond My Ken, you are the one who needs to do some explaining here and it better to be a good one. So, what country occupied Europe between 1939-1944 approximately? A Nazi nation? A Nazi state? If a Nazi state then what state? Nazi Germany? (added after) - I've reread the entire article as well as the talk page trying to find some clues or remarks regarding the reason for this apparent ill-worded information bein here, but there are none. I'm looking forward to an answer and explanations from you then. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're actually interested in a civil discussion of a content dispute, it would be best to drop the confrontational attitude.

The sentence in question is

Nazi concentration camp badges, primarily triangles, were part of the system of identification in Nazi camps. They were used in the concentration camps in the Nazi-occupied countries to identify the reason the prisoners had been placed there.

GCB changed "Nazi-occuped countries" to "German-occupied countries", and I reverted, since "Nazi" is more specific and precise than "German". "Nazi Germany" would also have been acceptable. GCB reverted,and then added a totally unnecessary ref (not needed in the lede), which she herself referred to as "overkill" in her edit summary.

The simple fact is that "Germany" is a political entity whose form, boundaires and typeof government have changed radically from era to era, and is therefore simply too vague a term to use when there is a more specific one available which will better inform our readers as to which Germany (German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, West or East Germany, or the current state) was the one which occupied multiple other European countries and ran concentration camps there. For simplicity, clarity, and specificity, "Nazi-" or "Nazi Germany-" are to be preferred over the vaguer, less specific "Germany-". Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no confrontational attitude at all Beyond My Ken. Anyways, this is unimportant. I have just read your response. That's right, Europe has been conquered and occupied by Nazi Germany. So now please go and correct your clear error. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I have made no error to be corrected,since I did not write the sentence in question. "Nazi-occupied Europe" = "Nazi Germany-occupied Europe", it's simply amore felicitous phrase in English. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, "[you] need[] to do some explaining here and it better to be a good one [sic]" is inherently confrontational, so please don't be disingenuous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please Beyond My Ken, I said: "better be a good one" in a friendly way. I didn't mean anything nasty by saying that. I'm guessing many of you people here are assuming the confrontational reaction because you can't observe facial emotions, just my guess. No, I'm not unfriendly to you. But Beyond My Ken, seriously, change it to "Nazi Germany." Nazi's is ill-described. The "Nazis" alone explains nothing since there were various Nazi nationals all over Europe at the time. The country that conquered and occupied most of Europe was Nazi Germany. (added later) Sorry, I meant that there were different nationalities amongst the Nazi people, sorry. lol GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

No there were various Fascists all over Europe, but the Nazis were German. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course Beyond My Ken. So if you are bein specific, then I'll say this: NO, Europe wasn't occupied by NSDAP, Nazis or Fascists. Europe was occupied by Nazi Germany. Why this stubbornness, I don't understand? GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Because I went to make the change, looked at it, and it simply wasn't as good a statement. Since the current statement is -- despite your stubborn refusal to accept it -- the functional equivalent, easily understood by anyone, I chose not to make the change. "Nazi-occupied" is simply a better phrase then "Nazi Germany-occupied", so, no, I will not be making the change, and I will revert you with reference to this discussion if you make it. If a consensus of editors agrees to it, then I'l stand aside, otherwise, no. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

And while we're here, what was this about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that, I just have discovered that National Socialism was a right-wing ideology, that's all. Surprising information one can sometimes acquire from Wikipedia :) so I commented on it, that's all. PS And on the "Nazi" occupation of Europe front, the sentence could be structured differently to provide missing information where the hell Nazis came from; I'll try despite your intimidations of reversal ok? Maybe you'll like the version "territories occupied by Nazi Germany" instead of "Nazi Germany-occupied"?? GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You try, I'll look, if it isn't better, I'll revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm interested in what would occur if someone altered the title of this article "United States invasion of Afghanistan" to "Republicans invasion of Afghanistan"? GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You know Beyond My Ken, in Poland during the "Nazi" occupation there were buses and trams carrying sings "nur fur Deutsch" or "Deuche line" That must have been an error they didn't correct. The sings should have read "nur fur Nazi" or "Nazi line" I guess. Just joking, I'm just amazed how hard you defend your position. :) https://demotywatory.pl/4829829/Nur-für-Deutsche- GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Red Triangle

The current wording loses the significance of Team Trump's use of the inverted red triangle symbol. It was included in a tweet about "far-left" groups. The Nazi government required left wing prisoners in concentration camps to wear these symbols. Without that piece of information the reason why its use provoked reaction is unclear. TFD (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree; I've restored that information. -Jason A. Quest (talk)

I think it's appropriate to stop the Red_triangle_(badge) from redirecting and make it its own article, given how big of a change it is for a sitting U.S. president's campaign to utilize the same imagery in reference to left-wing protesters. It would be good to identify and document what few other antecedents there were to the symbol, which does not seem to have been widely reclaimed by the targeted groups the way the pink triangle was, for example. ADavidJohnson (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a need for a separate article, specifically because there isn't much other use of it. Unless there are more examples than this – or this becomes an ongoing usage – there isn't much to say about it. It's an example of recentism. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Any particular reason to remove the number of advertisements that were removed from FB? The number is considered significant by many RocketDwiki (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Are there reliable published sources that say it's significant? If not, it's original research (or trivia). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@RocketDwiki and JasonAQuest: I've restored the number of ads, which is mentioned in most coverage from reliable sources that I've seen, and noted the number's significance with references to reliable sources mentioning the number's connotations. Qono (talk) 01:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 events around the red triangle as hate speech in an ad campaign are growing to be significant enough to warrant their own article. Until that article is created, these events will only serve to clog up and dilute this Nazi concentration camp badge article with play-by-play coverage and possible edit wars. I experienced this quite a bit while working on OK gesture, which also needs to be parsed out into a separate regarding the way it's been used recently as both racist coding and a smokescreen tactic to create political distraction, much as the red triangle is as of this writing. Morganfitzp (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

There was a similar incident involving the Star of David, but it has no separate article.(See: Donald Trump on social media#During campaign.) I think it's too early to consider a separate article. These stories have a tendency of dying down. TFD (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stamps of Germany (DDR) 1973, MiNr 1878.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)