text:
Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany

Gedenktafel Rosa Winkel Nollendorfplatz.jpg, Berlin. Text in triangle: "Struck Dead

Hushed Up

[dedicated to] The homosexual victims of National Socialism" Text below: "The 'pink triangle' was the sign with which the National Socialists marked homosexuals in the concentration camps in a defamatory way. From January 1933 almost all homosexual locales in and around Nollendorfplatz were closed by the National Socialists or misused by raids to create 'pink lists' (homosexual files)."]]

Before 1933, male homosexual acts were illegal in Germany under Paragraph 175 of the German Criminal Code. The law was not consistently enforced, however, and a thriving gay culture existed in major German cities. After the Nazi takeover in 1933, the first homosexual movement's infrastructure of clubs, organizations, and publications was shut down. After the Röhm purge in 1934, persecuting homosexuals became a priority of the Nazi police state. A 1935 revision of Paragraph 175 made it easier to bring criminal charges for homosexual acts, leading to a large increase in arrests and convictions. Persecution peaked in the years prior to World War II and was extended to areas annexed by Germany, including Austria, the Czech lands, and Alsace–Lorraine.

The Nazi regime considered the elimination of all manifestations of homosexuality in Germany one of its goals. Men were often arrested after denunciation, police raids, and through information uncovered during interrogations of other homosexuals. Those arrested were presumed guilty, and subjected to harsh interrogation and torture to elicit a confession. Between 1933 and 1945, an estimated 100,000 men were arrested as homosexuals; around 50,000 of these were sentenced by civilian courts, 6,400 to 7,000 by military courts in Nazi Germany, and an unknown number by special courts. Most of these men served time in regular prisons, and between 5,000 and 6,000 were imprisoned in concentration camps. The death rate of these prisoners has been estimated at 60 percent, a higher rate than those of other prisoner groups. A smaller number of men were sentenced to death or killed at Nazi euthanasia centres. Nazi Germany's persecution of homosexuals is considered to be the most severe episode in a long history of discrimination and violence targeting sexual minorities.

After the war, homosexuals were initially not counted as victims of Nazism because homosexuality continued to be illegal in Nazi Germany's successor states. Few victims came forward to discuss their experiences. The persecution came to wider public attention during the gay liberation movement of the 1970s, and the pink triangle was reappropriated as an LGBT symbol.

Background

Germany was the home of the first homosexual movement. The word homosexual was coined by German-language writer Karl Maria Kertbeny; the first periodicals intended for a gay, lesbian, and transgender readership were published in Germany, and the world's first homosexual rights organization was founded in Berlin in 1897. In the 1920s gay culture flourished in Germany's major cities, especially Berlin. Political compromises allowed many homosexuals to live freely in their private lives and in dedicated subcultural spaces, provided they did not significantly infringe on the public sphere. One theory holds the Nazis' rise to power was fueled by a conservative backlash against perceived immorality, but according to historian Laurie Marhoefer, this was not a significant factor.

Paragraph 175 of the German penal code, which was passed after the unification of Germany in 1871, criminalized sexual acts between males. The German supreme court ruled that a conviction required proof the men had had penetrative sex, typically anal but sometimes oral sex; other sexual activities were not punishable. The Rechtsstaat limited the enforcement of the law because men were not arrested or indicted without concrete evidence. As a consequence, conviction rates were low and a significant number of those convicted were sentenced to pay a fine rather than serve a jail sentence. Terms exceeding one year were rare.

In 1928, the Nazi Party responded negatively to a questionnaire about their view of Paragraph 175, saying: "Anyone who even thinks of homosexual love is our enemy." Nazi politicians regularly railed against homosexuality, claiming that it was a Jewish conspiracy to undermine the German people. In 1931 and 1932, the Social Democrats publicized the homosexuality of Ernst Röhm, a prominent Nazi politician, in an attempt to discredit the Nazis. The Röhm scandal fuelled the long-lasting but false idea that the Nazi Party was dominated by homosexuals, a recurring theme in 1930s left-wing propaganda. The Nazi Party temporarily tolerated a few known homosexuals, including Röhm, but never adopted such tolerance as a general principle or changed its views on homosexuality. There is no evidence that homosexuals were over-represented in the Nazi Party.

Nazi takeover and initial crackdown (1933)

In mid-1932 a crackdown on homosexual subcultures in Prussia began after Chancellor Franz von Papen deposed the Prussian government. Some homosexual bars and clubs in Berlin had to shut down after police raids. In January 1933 the Nazi Party took power; immediately, their real and perceived enemies were the subject of a violent crackdown. On 23 February of that year the Prussian Ministry of the Interior ordered Berlin police to shut down any remaining establishments catering to "persons who indulge in unnatural sexual practices". This order was extended to other parts of Germany. In Cologne, almost all gay bars were forced to close. In Hanover all had closed by the end of the year. In Hamburg police targeted both prostitutes and homosexual spaces, including the main train station, public toilets, and gay bars, leading to a more-than-sixfold increase in indictments under Paragraph 175 by 1934. The anti-homosexual crackdown was intended to please the Nazis' conservative backers, who had put them into power, as well as socially conservative voters. Both the Vatican and Protestant churches praised the crackdown. For example, in October 1933 Clemens August Graf von Galen, the Bishop of Münster, wrote approvingly of the Nazis' efforts to "eradicate" the "open propaganda for godlessness and immorality".

In March 1933 the Nazi authorities began to confiscate printed material on homosexual topics. Any LGBT-related magazines that had survived earlier censorship were closed down and copies were burned. Their publishers were targeted; Adolf Brand's house was raided five times and police stole all of his photographs, 6,000 magazine issues, and many books. Friedrich Radszuweit's company was subjected to similar raids. During the Nazi takeover, German–Jewish homosexual-rights campaigner Magnus Hirschfeld was abroad on a lecture tour for the World League for Sexual Reform. On 6 May the Nazis' paramilitary wing, the SA, raided his Institute for Sex Research in coordination with German students. The institute's library of more than 12,000 books was publicly burned on 10 May on the Opernplatz; and its offices, together with those of The World League for Sexual Reform, were destroyed.

On 8 June the law-reform organization Scientific-Humanitarian Committee voted to dissolve itself. In 1933, many homosexual organizations attempted to destroy membership lists and other information the Nazis could use to target dissidents. Former activists made agreements to keep quiet to protect others. Some homosexuals, including Thomas and Klaus Mann, went into exile. The Swiss city of Basel in particular was a destination for homosexuals fleeing Nazi Germany. Other homosexuals of a more right-wing inclination, including Hans Blüher, who initially welcomed the Nazi takeover, remained in Germany. Some joined the SA, mistakenly believing that Röhm would protect them.

The most-visible members of the LGBT community, including prostitutes, transvestites, and activist leaders, were targeted, and high-profile locations were shut down. The average homosexual's daily life, however, did not change, and some gay bars in Hamburg and smaller cities remained open. Some men were able to adapt to the closures by meeting with gay friends in primarily heterosexual establishments. Most homosexuals were not yet afraid of the Gestapo. They believed they could keep a low profile until the end of the Nazi regime, seen as coming soon. During the initial years of Nazi rule, the number of men sentenced to prison under Paragraph 175 increased, from 464 in 1932 to 575 in 1933 and 635 in 1934. There was no systematic persecution of individual homosexual behavior, and until 1935, convictions remained below the high of 1,107 convictions set in 1925.

Röhm purge and expanding persecution (1934–1935)
After the 1933 revolution, Hitler began to see Röhm as a threat to his power and the SA as a liability due to their random acts of violence, which detracted from the Nazis' desired image as the party of law and order. On 30 June 1934 Röhm and several other SA leaders were suddenly arrested and executed. This event was later justified in Nazi propaganda, mainly by the alleged corruption and scheming with foreign powers, but also citing Röhm's homosexuality and the fact one of the victims of the purge, Edmund Heines, had allegedly been arrested while in bed with another man. Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich, leaders of the SS (a rival of Röhm's SA), supported the purge to assert their control over the Nazi police state. Eventually Himmler, who is described by historian Nikolaus Wachsmann as "one of the most obsessive homophobes" in the Nazi government, became commander of the SS, the Gestapo, and the concentration camp system, making him the second-most-powerful man in Nazi Germany. The purge ended the sense of safety many German homosexuals still felt. Some homosexual Nazis ceased participating in the party while others, themselves former perpetrators of violence against Nazi opponents, became victims.

Anti-gay repression began immediately after the purge, initially focusing on alleged homosexual cliques in the party and state bureaucracy. In October 1934 Heydrich ordered the police of all large cities to make a list of homosexuals. A separate Gestapo department, the Special Commission for Homosexuality in Berlin, was set up. In late 1934 the Gestapo targeted Berlin and Munich, raiding gay bars and making mass arrests of homosexual men; most of those arrested were not involved in politics. Many men accused of homosexuality would admit to acts that were not punishable under Paragraph 175, expecting to be released; instead, they were mistreated and incarcerated in Columbia-Haus, Lichtenburg, or Dachau concentration camp. By early 1935, 80 percent of the prisoners held in protective custody in the concentration camps were there for alleged homosexuality. To convict these men, it was decided to change the criminal code.

Almost exactly a year after Röhm was killed, Paragraph 175 was amended. The changes were demanded, especially by prosecutors and other legal professionals. The new version of the law punished all homosexual acts, defined broadly; "objectively when a general sense of shame is harmed and subjectively when there exists the lustful intention to excite either of the two men or a third party". In theory, it became a crime to look at another man with desire. Men were convicted for mutual masturbation or simply embracing each other, and in a few cases when no physical contact had occurred. Under the new law, typically all participants were viewed as equally guilty, whereas under the previous law, the "active" and "passive" participants were differentiated. The new law made it much easier to arrest and convict homosexual men, leading to a large increase in convictions. Under a new section 175a, the law also introduced harsher penalties for male prostitution, sex with a man younger than 21, or sex with a student or employee. The change in the law was not publicized for fear of spreading knowledge of homosexuality. Most Germans were unaware the law had changed and many of those arrested under the new law had no knowledge they were committing a crime. The law was also applied retroactively.

Peak of persecution (1936–1939)

From 1936 to 1939, German police focused on homosexuality as a top priority. In 1936 the Special Commission for Homosexuality in Berlin became the Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion, working with Gestapo Special Bureau II S. The new office organized conferences and issued directives to increase the effectiveness of anti-homosexual persecution. During the first years of Nazi rule, regional differences in the prosecution of homosexuals reflected pre-Nazi trends in policing but in 1936, the police launched a nationwide campaign against homosexual meeting places. This campaign was less effective in rural than urban areas, which saw a greater number of prosecutions. If the Gestapo believed there were not enough charges for homosexuality being brought in a certain area, they would send in a special unit to train and encourage local criminal police. In March 1937, Himmler ordered police departments to make lists of suspected homosexuals and oblige them to register changes of address, and to monitor suspected homosexual meeting places, hotels, and personal ads in newspapers.

The assigning of responsibility for carrying out the anti-homosexuality campaign to police and courts, which were not given any additional personnel or resources, caused serious operational difficulties. Besides the significant increase in the number of criminal cases to be prosecuted, cases of homosexuality demanded more time and attention because of the difficulty of proving private conduct. Because of the difficulty in identifying homosexuals, some police departments resorted to calling in entire classes of teenage boys and asking them about their sexual experiences. In this manner, it was possible to increase the number of charges of homosexuality brought; by 1939, such youthful relationships were the basis of 23.9 percent of charges. Himmler approved of such methods, arguing that without them, homosexuality would spread unchecked in all-male Nazi institutions.

Between 1937 and 1939 nearly 95,000 men were arrested for homosexuality – more than 600 per week – representing a major investment from the Nazi police state. From 1936 to 1939, nearly 30,000 men were convicted under Paragraph 175. Unlike in the past, these men were virtually guaranteed to receive a jail sentence. The length of sentences increased; many men were sentenced to years in jail. Prosecutors, judges, and others involved in the cases increasingly cited Nazi ideology to justify harsh punishment, adopting the regime's rhetoric of "stamping out the plague of homosexuality". The use of concentration camp imprisonment increased; after 1937, those considered to have seduced others into homosexuality were confined to concentration camps.

World War II

From 1939 to 1940, the number of men sentenced in civil courts under Paragraph 175 fell from 7,614 to 3,773. More men were subject to military jurisdiction and, with the onset of war, homosexuality was no longer the top priority of the security police. In anticipation of the outbreak of war, at the end of August 1939, Heydrich ordered the Gestapo to transfer most homosexual cases to the Kriminalpolizei (criminal police or Kripo) to free up resources for the persecution of opposition groups. It is unknown how many Paragraph 175 cases were handled by the special courts.

An estimated 6,400 to 7,000 men were convicted by the military courts in Nazi Germany under Paragraph 175. The military considered homosexuals to be predators who disrupted morale and unit cohesion. Prior to the war, homosexuals were offered re-education and if this failed, they could be dismissed and incarcerated in a concentration camp for the duration of their compulsory military service. Under the manpower requirements of war, it was felt necessary to recruit all available men; it was also a concern that rejecting homosexuals from military service could open a loophole for draft evaders. Men considered sex offenders, including homosexuals, rapists, and child molesters, could serve in the German military assuming they were willing to bear arms and remain celibate during their military service. Known homosexuals and some former concentration camp prisoners were conscripted. Even castrated homosexual men could be drafted.

Military courts were generally more lenient than civilian courts with cases involving consensual sex but harsher in cases falling under 175a. Although military courts followed the 1935 version of Paragraph 175, they generally issued a conviction only when there was attempted or actual contact with another man's genitals. More than 90 percent of those convicted were reintegrated into the military. Although innate homosexuals were considered dangerous to the military, the German military assumed that most cases of homosexuality were situational. Younger men, often seen as the victims of homosexual seducers, and one-time offenders were shown leniency. On average, soldiers convicted of homosexuality were sentenced to one-year prison sentences but served only a fraction of this before being paroled to the front. The length of time served decreased because of the increasing manpower shortage. In 1943 Himmler, who believed that the military was not hard enough on homosexuality, demanded a classification system that would see "incorrigible" homosexual offenders sent to concentration camps. The military attempted to ensure as many men as possible were retained under military jurisdiction to preserve vital manpower but cooperated with the Gestapo to rid itself of a few men who were seen as a threat to the military. Beginning in 1944 some homosexual concentration camp prisoners were forcibly enlisted in the army, which continued until a week before the unconditional surrender of Germany. These men were typically recruited into penal battalions, especially the Dirlewanger Brigade.

Annexed territories
The persecution of homosexuals was extended to the annexed territories but not to the rest of German-occupied Europe; the Nazis were mostly uninterested in punishing homosexuals who were not considered ethnically German. Criminal prosecutions of men for homosexuality in Austria almost doubled under Nazi rule. Both regular and special courts applied draconian punishments, including the death penalty. German law was applied in the Sudetenland after its annexation in late 1938 and, in the case of homosexuals, applied retroactively. German law was imposed in Alsace–Lorraine in January 1942; homosexuals there soon faced a harsh legal crackdown, including retroactive application of the law.

In the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, German law applied to ethnic Germans and the old Austrian criminal code, which imposed lower penalties for male homosexuality, applied to non-Germans. Czech men were not deported to concentration camps solely because of conviction for homosexuality, but sometimes they were deported in combination with other reasons, such as anti-Nazi activity. Although prosecutions increased dramatically during the German occupation, the police focused their efforts on breaking up male prostitution rings rather than homosexual relationships between Czechs. In 1945 Edvard Beneš, president of Czechoslovakia, offered an amnesty to those convicted for homosexuality during the occupation, although the law remained in effect.

Nazi views of homosexuality
The Nazis were influenced by earlier ideas conflating homosexuality, child molestation, and the "seduction of youth". Before the Nazis' rise to power, there was a widespread belief among Germans that homosexuality is not inborn but instead could be acquired and spread. The Nazis were particularly concerned that their all-male organizations such as the Hitler Youth, SS, and SA must not be seen as hotbeds of homosexual "recruitment". Based on the theories of Karl Bonhoeffer and Emil Kraepelin, the Nazis believed homosexuals seduced young men and infected them with homosexuality, permanently changing their sexual orientation. Rhetoric described homosexuality as a contagious disease but not in the medical sense. Rather, homosexuality was a disease of the Volkskörper (national body), a metaphor for the desired national or racial community (Volksgemeinschaft).

The Nazis, especially Himmler, held conspiratorial beliefs about homosexuals, believing they were more loyal to each other than to the Nazi Party and Germany. After the Röhm purge, he told Gestapo personnel they had narrowly avoided the capture of the state by homosexuals. In 1937 a headline in the SS magazine Das Schwarze Korps declared homosexuals "enemies of the state", explaining they must be eradicated because "...they form a state within a state, a secret organization that runs counter to the interests of the people." The newspaper argued only two percent of those who engaged in homosexual acts were committed homosexuals and the rest could be turned away from homosexuality. Forty thousand homosexuals were considered capable of "poisoning" two million men if left to roam free. Homosexual men were also considered to be shirking their duty to repopulate the German nation after World War I and create sons who could be drafted into the military to fight Hitler's planned wars of aggression. On 18 February 1937 Himmler gave a speech about homosexuality in Bad Tölz that was based on the 1927 book Eroticism and Race by Herwig Hartner, which claimed homosexuality was a Jewish plot against Germany. According to Himmler, homosexuality could lead to the end of Germany and cause depopulation by reducing the number of men who were available for reproduction.

The Nazis distinguished between congenital homosexuals who would require permanent imprisonment and others who had engaged in homosexuality but were thought to be curable with a short stay in a concentration camp or psychiatric treatment. Distinguishing between these categories was a difficulty that preoccupied the Nazis, especially after many cases of homosexuality surfaced in the supposedly racially pure SS. Succumbing to a homosexual act once, especially when drunk, was not necessarily considered evidence of homosexual inclination. The Göring Institute offered treatment to homosexuals referred by the Hitler Youth and other Nazi organizations; by 1938 it claimed to have changed the sexual orientation in 341 of 510 patients and by 1944, it claimed to have eliminated homosexuality in more than 500 men. The institute intervened to reduce sentences in some cases. The converse of the Nazis' persecution of homosexuality was their encouragement of heterosexual relations, including extramarital sex, for racially desirable people.

After 1934, homophobia became a regular theme in Nazi propaganda; most Germans came into contact with this homophobic propaganda. Although one of the Nazi regime's goals was to eliminate all manifestations of homosexuality in Germany, there was never a Nazi policy of exterminating all homosexuals in the way the Final Solution targeted Jews.

Identification and arrest
Homosexuals were more difficult to round up than other groups the Nazis targeted. Police were given detailed instructions on spotting homosexuals; they were instructed to look for flamboyant men, those who avoided women or were seen walking arm-in-arm with other men, and anyone who rented a double room at a hotel. Hairdressers, bathhouse attendants, hotel receptionists, railway station porters, and others were asked to report suspicious behavior. Complicating the Nazis' efforts, many homosexual men did not fit these stereotypes and many effeminate men were not homosexual.

According to one estimate, denunciations resulted in 35 percent of arrests of homosexuals. Men were denounced by neighbors, relatives, coworkers, students, employees, or even ex-boyfriends seeking to settle grievances, passers-by who overheard suspicious conversation, and Hitler Youth and other Nazi supporters who voluntarily acted as the morality police. State employees working in youth welfare and rail stations, Nazi functionaries in the German Labor Front (DAF), the SA, the SS, and the Hitler Youth brought cases to the attention of the authorities. A disproportionate number of denunciations concerned child abuse or "youth seduction" because there was an injured party to complain. Some men were falsely denounced as homosexual by other Germans. The snowball method involved arresting one man, interrogating him, and searching his belongings to find additional suspects; this method accounted for thirty percent of arrests. Some men were observed before their arrests or temporarily released in hopes they would lead the police to additional suspects. Some were shown photograph albums of other suspected homosexuals; male prostitutes were often willing to identify other homosexuals this way. Another ten percent of victims were arrested in police raids, which were often conducted in parks, public toilets, and areas frequented by male prostitutes. In Hamburg the police watched restaurants that served a mixed heterosexual and homosexual clientele as well as the most-trafficked public toilets. Entrapment was also used to ensnare homosexuals.

Charges of homosexuality were sometimes deployed against people who were not guilty. Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels commented: "When Himmler wants to get rid of someone, he just throws §175 at him." About 250 Catholic clergy Nazi clergy morals cases in the mid-1930s. Many of the charges, which included sexual abuse of minors and consensual homosexual sex, were true, but others were probably invented. The trials were of limited efficacy in their intended purpose of discrediting the Catholic Church. Catholic authorities alternated between reprimanding the guilty and covering up the scandal.

Regional and class-based targeting

Active policing tactics were mainly limited to the larger cities; in rural areas, the police relied on denunciation. The difference in policing strategy, and likely over-representation and greater visibility of homosexuals in urban areas, led to vastly different conviction rates in different parts of Germany. Convictions in Bavaria and Mecklenburg were below the national average while in Rhine Province, Hamburg, and Berlin, they exceeded the average. Within states, urban areas had more cases than rural areas. Because of the reliance on denunciation in rural areas, a disproportionate number of cases involved child abuse or "youth seduction".

Young and working-class men, who may have been less able to evade the authorities, were over-represented among those who were arrested and prosecuted. Half of the suspects were working-class men and another third came from the lower middle class. In Austria, where working-class homosexuals were traditional targets of criminalization, arrests were extended to the middle class but more egregious behavior was required for a higher-class man to be punished for homosexuality. The first homosexuals to be targeted by the Nazis, prior to the Röhm purge, were also Jewish and left-wing political activists. A considerable number of those persecuted for homosexuality were also targeted for other reasons, for example being Romani, disabled, a sex worker, accused of other criminal offenses, a political opponent of the Nazis, or a deserter.

Interrogation and trial
After arresting a man, he was presumed to be guilty, especially if there was a history of homosexual acts or a previous conviction. Police would tell his family the reason for his arrest. With a conviction, the victim could expect a complete life breakdown, often including loss of home and job, expulsion from professional organizations, and revocation of awards and doctorates. Harsh interrogations were aimed at forcing the victim to confess to the acts the police believed him guilty of. Austere cells of temporary detention facilities were sufficient to obtain confessions in some cases. Other suspects would crumple in the face of "screams, curses, threats, and endless questions", and some were beaten. Some men were held for weeks with nothing to do but await interrogation, and suffered mental breakdowns. Some men were sent to concentration camps under protective custody to encourage them to confess or to incarcerate them when there was not enough evidence to obtain a conviction. The police would tell suspects they would get a lighter punishment if they confessed, and indefinite detention in a concentration camp if they did not.

Both the Gestapo and the Kripo targeted homosexuals, a rivalry that may have encouraged the latter to adopt the more-brutal tactics of the former. Torture was regularly used to extract confessions and the use of "enhanced interrogation" (verschärfte Vernehmung) was explicitly approved of by Josef Meisinger, head of the Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion. After 1936, cases were processed more quickly and the accused rarely had a legal defense. Most had already confessed, guaranteeing a guilty verdict. An unknown number of men who were found unfit to stand trial were confined to psychiatric hospitals.

Prisons

Most men who were persecuted for homosexuality were convicted in the civil legal system and imprisoned. In Germany, it had long been the practice to isolate homosexual prisoners in individual cells but because of the vast increase in arrests, this proved to be impractical. In addition, the economic exploitation of prisoner labor meant many prisoners were held in labor camps and housed in barracks. While some officials built tiny, one-man cells to keep homosexual prisoners isolated, other officials distributed homosexuals among the general prison population and encouraged "brutal homophobia" to isolate homosexuals. Homosexual prisoners did not have to wear a badge but could be identified by red underlining on their name tags.

Before 1933 prison sex had been common but its prevention and punishment became much more important under Nazi rule. Any prisoner who tried to initiate a same-sex relationship, even if it did not result in any physical contact, could expect harsh punishment. The wardens relied on informers among the inmates to deter same-sex activity. Despite facing discrimination, however, homosexual prisoners were much better off in the prisons than in concentration camps.

Castration

In June 1935 the Sterilization Law was amended to allow individual convicted criminals to be "voluntarily" sterilized to eliminate their "degenerate sex drive". During the Nazi era, the regime considered extending the policy of involuntary castration that was previously applied to child molesters and other sex offenders to homosexuals but such a law was never passed. In 1943 Gestapo chief Ernst Kaltenbrunner advocated for a law for involuntary castration of homosexuals and sex offenders but withdrew this request because he believed the Gestapo could ensure castrations were carried out where it desired. Although the fiction of voluntary castration was maintained, some homosexuals were subject to severe pressure and coercion—including the threat of imprisonment in a concentration camp—to agree to castration. An estimated 400 to 800 men and boys—some as young as 16 years—were castrated in this manner.

Concentration camps
Unlike the legal punishment system, prisoners in concentration camps were held in indefinite detention at the mercy of the SS and Gestapo. The use of concentration camp detention for homosexuals began in 1934 and 1935; it was initially seen as a temporary re-education measure. In May 1935, the Prussian police detained 513 accused homosexuals in protective custody. Himmler did not consider a time-limited prison sentence was sufficient to eliminate homosexuality. After 1939, it was a policy to send men who were convicted of multiple homosexual acts to a concentration camp after they served their prison sentences. On 12 July 1940 the Reich Security Main Office formalized this policy, decreeing "in future, all homosexuals who seduced more than one partner shall be taken into preventive custody by the police after their release from prison". According to research in some parts of Germany, non-aggravated homosexuality, as a rule, was not punished with concentration camp imprisonment, which was mostly reserved for those who were considered "youth seducers", or had been convicted of male prostitution or child molestation. In other cases, men who were convicted with homosexuality combined with other criminal offenses or political opposition could be transferred to a concentration camp.

Historian Clayton J. Whisnant states homosexual concentration camp prisoners "experienced some of the worst conditions that humans have ever been forced to endure". In the prewar camps, Jewish and homosexual prisoners ranked at the bottom of the prisoner hierarchy, and homosexual Jews fared the worst. Along with Jews, homosexuals were often assigned to segregated labor details and had to perform especially dirty and backbreaking work, and endured worse conditions than the rest of the camp. Homosexual prisoners rarely benefited from solidarity from other prisoners, even Jews, because of widespread homophobia. Surviving the camps often required either building social networks with other prisoners or being promoted to a position of authority. Homosexuals were disadvantaged in both of these aspects; some younger, more attractive men could obtain advantages from a sexual relationship with a kapo (prison functionary) or SS guard. After 1942, conditions improved because of the need for forced labor, and some homosexual prisoners were promoted because of the influx of non-German prisoners who were ineligible for kapo positions.

About 5,000 to 6,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in the concentration camps. Sociologist Rüdiger Lautmann examined 2,542 known cases of homosexual concentration camp prisoners and determined their death rate was 60 percent, compared with 42 percent of political prisoners and 35 percent of Jehovah's Witnesses. Assuming a death rate of between 53 and 60 percent, at least 3,100 to 3,600 men died in the camps. SS guards murdered homosexual prisoners out of cruelty or during sadistic games, disguising the deaths as natural causes. At camps like Mauthausen and Flossenbürg, it was standard practice to work homosexual prisoners to death. In mid-1942 almost all the homosexual prisoners at Sachsenhausen (at least two hundred) were executed. Many homosexual prisoners at Ravensbrück died at the same time. The chances of survival depended on which camp the men were incarcerated in; Neuengamme was considered less harsh for homosexual prisoners than Buchenwald, Dachau, or Sachsenhausen.

Initially, homosexuals were differentiated from other prisoners with a badge bearing capital letter "A" that was used at Lichtenberg. The standardized Nazi concentration camp badges that included a pink triangle for homosexual prisoners were adopted in 1938.

Homosexual prisoners were a preferred target of Nazi human experimentation during the last years of Nazi rule. The best-known experiments involving homosexual men were attempts by endocrinologist Carl Vaernet to change prisoners' sexual orientations by implanting a pellet that released testosterone. Homosexual and Jewish prisoners were also given experimental treatments for typhus at Buchenwald, for phosphorus burns at Sachsenhausen, and were used for testing opiates and Pervitin.

Death penalty

In a 1937 speech Himmler argued SS men who had served sentences for homosexuality should be transferred to a concentration camp and "shot while trying to escape". This policy was never implemented, although a few death sentences against SS men for homosexual acts were pronounced between 1937 and 1940. In a speech on 18 August 1941 Hitler argued homosexuality in the Hitler Youth should be punished by death. After learning of Hitler's remark, Himmler drafted a decree mandating the death penalty to any member of the SS or police who was found guilty of engaging in a homosexual act. Hitler, who was worried the decree might encourage left-wing propaganda that homosexuality was especially prevalent in Germany, signed the decree on 15 November 1941 on the condition there was no publicity. After the decree, only a few death sentences were pronounced. Himmler often commuted the sentence, especially if he thought the accused was not a committed homosexual. Many of those whose sentences were commuted were sent to serve in the Dirlewanger Brigade, where most were killed. After late 1943, because of military losses, it was policy to send SS men who were convicted of homosexuality into the army.

The 1933 law on habitual criminals allowed for execution after the third conviction. On 4 September 1941 a new law allowed the execution of dangerous sex offenders and habitual criminals when "the protection of the Volksgemeinschaft or the need for just atonement require it". This law enabled authorities to pronounce death sentences against homosexuals and is known to have been employed in four cases in Austria. In 1943 Wilhelm Keitel authorized the death penalty for German soldiers who were convicted of homosexuality in "particularly serious cases". Only a few such executions are known to have occurred, mostly in conjunction with other charges – especially desertion. Some homosexuals were executed at Nazi euthanasia centers such as Bernburg and Meseritz-Obrawalde. It is difficult to estimate the number of homosexual men who were directly killed during the Nazi era.

Continued existence
Historian Alexander Zinn estimates about one quarter of German homosexual men were investigated during the Nazi era, and that up to one tenth of those were imprisoned. According to Zinn, this rate is evidence of indifference among the general German population towards homosexuality; denunciation of consensual homosexual relations was less common. Zinn said that while all homosexuals in Nazi Germany suffered from the indirect effects of criminalization, their lives cannot be reduced to fear of arrest, and they retained a limited degree of personal freedom. Even before 1933, many homosexual men married women, and the Nazis' rise to power provided an added incentive, although such marriages were usually unhappy. Homosexual desires did not go away; some men sought homosexual contact outside of marriage, risking denunciation by an unhappy wife. Some men organized lavender marriages with lesbians they had known before 1933. Although nearly all homosexuals tried to avoid the attention of the authorities, men continued to find sexual partners at Kreuzberg bathhouses and Münzstrasse movie theaters, and by cruising in places such as Alexanderplatz and the Friedrichstrasse in Berlin. Many suffered from disrupted relationships, loneliness, or loss of self-esteem. A significant number of homosexual and bisexual men, including 25 percent of those persecuted in Hamburg, committed suicide.

According to historian Manfred Herzer, homosexual men and women who avoided persecution "belonged to the willing subjects and beneficiaries of the Nazi state just like other German men and women". The likelihood of being persecuted was lower for those who suppressed their sex lives or served the higher goals of Nazism. Some German homosexuals joined the Nazi Party or fought for Germany during World WarII. War and armed service provided an opportunity for sexual encounters with other men, both civilians and members of the armed services. There were also opportunities for non-consensual sex with other soldiers, subordinates, people from occupied countries, and prisoners. Both types of sex might be practiced by men who did not identify as homosexual. During the last years of the war, there were increased opportunities for sexual encounters in bombed-out cities.

In October 1937, Himmler ordered that actors and artists should only be detained for homosexual acts with his authorization, unless they were caught in the act.

Aftermath
Nazi Germany's persecution of homosexuals is considered to be the most-severe episode in a longer history of discrimination and violence against homosexuals; never before or since have so many homosexuals been sentenced to prison in such a short period, even disregarding concentration camp imprisonment. An estimated 100,000 men were arrested and of these, half spent time in prison. Post-war attitudes towards homosexuality were influenced by Nazi propaganda associating homosexuality with criminality and medical illness. Because the various Allied countries considered homosexuality a crime, those prisoners who had not finished serving their sentence under Paragraph 175 had to do so, but those who had never been convicted or who had already served the full time were released. Arrest and incarceration of men for consensual homosexual acts continued to be commonplace in West Germany and Austria through the 1960s; between 1945 and 1969, West Germany convicted about 50,000 men; the same number of men as the Nazis had convicted during their twelve-year rule.

The 1935 version of Paragraph 175 – one of the few Nazi-era laws that remained in force and unaltered in West Germany – was upheld by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1957 and remained in force until 1969, when homosexuality was partially decriminalized. In 1962 historian Hans-Joachim Schoeps commented; "For the homosexuals the Third Reich has not yet ended." Although not entirely accurate, this statement captured the view of many West German homosexuals. In East Germany, homosexuality was rarely prosecuted after 1957 and was decriminalized in 1968; the number of convictions there was much lower. The decriminalization did not result in widespread social acceptance, and Paragraph 175 was not repealed until 1994.

Recognition as victims of National Socialism
Homosexual concentration camp prisoners were not recognized as victims of National Socialism. Just as there was a hierarchy among prisoners in the concentration camps, there was a hierarchy among survivors. Reparations and state pensions available to other groups were refused to gay men, who were still classified as criminals. Political prisoners and persecuted Jews could be disqualified from victim status if they were discovered to be homosexual. In the 1950s Rudolf Klimmer unsuccessfully petitioned the East German government to recognize homosexuals as victims of Nazism and offer them compensation in line with that for other victims. In West Germany in the 1970s activists made similar demands, but these were rejected.

In 1985 the Nazi persecution of homosexuals was officially recognized for the first time in 1985 Richard von Weizsäcker speech by West German president Richard von Weizsäcker. In 2002, Germany annulled the Nazi-era judgements under Paragraph 175, and in 2017, victims were offered compensation. The 2017 annulment of judgements and compensation extended to men who were convicted after 1945, making this the only case in which the German state offered reparations for acts not considered "typical Nazi injustice" that would not be possible in a democratic state.

Legacy

Before 1970, there were hardly any references to the persecution of homosexuals. This changed in the aftermath of the Stonewall riots and the partial decriminalization of homosexuality in Germany that triggered the era of gay liberation. The memory of the Nazi persecution of homosexuals came to the attention of the LGBT community in the 1970s as large-scale LGBT rights movements developed. The awareness of homosexuals as a separate category of Nazi victims began in the United States and was later adopted by German homosexual activists. The term "Homocaust" came into use shortly after "Holocaust"; activists claimed there had been 250,000 deaths but historical research soon refuted this number. Martin Sherman's 1979 play Bent brought additional attention of the Nazi persecution of homosexuals in English-speaking countries. The pink triangle became one of the most-prominent symbols of gay liberation in the United States. Activists use the symbol to connect Nazi persecution to present-day discrimination and violence against LGBT people, and to mobilize opposition against it.

The practice of laying memorial wreaths in concentration camps in memory of homosexual victims began in the 1970s. Permanent memorials were added to several concentration camps, including Mauthausen (1984), Sachsenhausen (1992), Dachau (1995), and Buchenwald (2002). This memorialization encountered strong resistance from established survivor associations. Memorials have also been constructed in several German cities, such as Frankfurt (1994), Cologne (1995), Berlin (2008), and Memorial to Homosexuals Persecuted under Nazism in Lübeck (2016). Memorials to Nazi persecution of homosexuals have also been constructed in Amsterdam, Bologna, Turin, Barcelona, San Francisco, New York, Montevideo, Sydney, and Memorial to Gays and Lesbians Persecuted in the Shoah. Hundreds of Stolpersteine have been installed to commemorate individual victims of the Nazis' anti-homosexual persecution. In the United States there was less emphasis on memorialization and more explicit comparisons between the Jewish Holocaust and persecution of homosexuals. German gay activists tended to see a close parallel to the Nazi persecution of communists and socialists.

Sources attesting to the Nazi persecution of homosexuals are scarce. Most homosexuals, especially those who avoided arrest, never spoke about their experiences. The Nazis destroyed a great number of records, including the archive of the Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion. Remaining sources are mainly in the form of police and court records. In 1972 concentration camp survivor Josef Kohout published his memoir, The Men With the Pink Triangle, which is one of few accounts from a pink-triangle prisoner. The first historical research appeared at the end of the 1970s.


text:
Ichthyology

Ichthyology is the branch of zoology devoted to the study of fish, including bony fish (Osteichthyes), cartilaginous fish (Chondrichthyes), and jawless fish (Agnatha). According to FishBase, 33,400 species of fish had been described as of October 2016, with approximately 250 new species described each year.

Etymology
The word is derived from the Greek words ἰχθύς, ikhthus, meaning "fish"; and λογία, logia, meaning "to study".

History

The study of fish dates from the Upper Paleolithic Revolution (with the advent of "high culture"). The science of ichthyology was developed in several interconnecting epochs, each with various significant advancements.

The study of fish receives its origins from humans' desire to feed, clothe, and equip themselves with useful implements. According to Michael Barton, a prominent ichthyologist and professor at Centre College, "the earliest ichthyologists were hunters and gatherers who had learned how to obtain the most useful fish, where to obtain them in abundance, and at what times they might be the most available". Early cultures manifested these insights in abstract and identifiable artistic expressions.

1500 BC–40 AD
Informal, scientific descriptions of fish are represented within the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Old Testament laws of kashrut forbade the consumption of fish without scales or appendages. Theologians and ichthyologists believe that the apostle Peter and his contemporaries harvested the fish that are today sold in modern industry along the Sea of Galilee, presently known as Lake Kinneret. These fish include cyprinids of the genera Barbus and Mirogrex, cichlids of the genus Sarotherodon, and Mugil cephalus of the family Mugilidae.

335 BC–80 AD
Aristotle incorporated ichthyology into formal scientific study. Between 333 and 322 BC, he provided the earliest taxonomic classification of fish, accurately describing 117 species of Mediterranean fish. Furthermore, Aristotle documented anatomical and behavioral differences between fish and marine mammals. After his death, some of his pupils continued his ichthyological research. Theophrastus, for example, composed a treatise on amphibious fish. The Romans, although less devoted to science, wrote extensively about fish. Pliny the Elder, a notable Roman naturalist, compiled the ichthyological works of indigenous Greeks, including verifiable and ambiguous peculiarities such as the sawfish and mermaid, respectively. Pliny's documentation was the last significant contribution to ichthyology until the European Renaissance.

European Renaissance
The writings of three 16th-century scholars, Hippolito Salviani, Pierre Belon, and Guillaume Rondelet, signify the conception of modern ichthyology. The investigations of these individuals were based upon actual research in comparison to ancient recitations. This property popularized and emphasized these discoveries. Despite their prominence, Rondelet's De Piscibus Marinis is regarded as the most influential, identifying 244 species of fish.

16th–17th century
The incremental alterations in navigation and shipbuilding throughout the Renaissance marked the commencement of a new epoch in ichthyology. The Renaissance culminated with the era of exploration and colonization, and upon the cosmopolitan interest in navigation came the specialization in naturalism. Georg Marcgrave of Saxony composed the Naturalis Brasilae in 1648. This document contained a description of 100 species of fish indigenous to the Brazilian coastline. In 1686, John Ray and Francis Willughby collaboratively published Historia Piscium, a scientific manuscript containing 420 species of fish, 178 of these newly discovered. The fish contained within this informative literature were arranged in a provisional system of classification.

The classification used within the Historia Piscium was further developed by Carl Linnaeus, the "father of modern taxonomy". His taxonomic approach became the systematic approach to the study of organisms, including fish. Linnaeus was a professor at the University of Uppsala and an eminent botanist; however, one of his colleagues, Peter Artedi, earned the title "father of ichthyology" through his indispensable advancements. Artedi contributed to Linnaeus's refinement of the principles of taxonomy. Furthermore, he recognized five additional orders of fish: Malacopterygii, Acanthopterygii, Branchiostegi, Chondropterygii, and Plagiuri. Artedi developed standard methods for making counts and measurements of anatomical features that are modernly exploited. Another associate of Linnaeus, Albertus Seba, was a prosperous pharmacist from Amsterdam. Seba assembled a cabinet, or collection, of fish. He invited Artedi to use this assortment of fish; in 1735, Artedi fell into an Amsterdam canal and drowned at the age of 30.

Linnaeus posthumously published Artedi's manuscripts as Ichthyologia, sive Opera Omnia de Piscibus (1738). His refinement of taxonomy culminated in the development of the binomial nomenclature, which is in use by contemporary ichthyologists. Furthermore, he revised the orders introduced by Artedi, placing significance on pelvic fins. Fish lacking this appendage were placed within the order Apodes; fish having abdominal, thoracic, or jugular pelvic fins were termed Abdominales, Thoracici, and Jugulares, respectively. However, these alterations were not grounded within evolutionary theory. Therefore, over a century was needed for Charles Darwin to provide the intellectual foundation needed to perceive that the degree of similarity in taxonomic features was a consequence of phylogenetic relationships.

Modern era
Close to the dawn of the 19th century, Marcus Elieser Bloch of Berlin and Georges Cuvier of Paris made attempts to consolidate the knowledge of ichthyology. Cuvier summarized all of the available information in his monumental Histoire Naturelle des Poissons. This manuscript was published between 1828 and 1849 in a 22-volume series. This document describes 4,514 species of fish, 2,311 of these new to science. It remains one of the most ambitious treatises of the modern world. Scientific exploration of the Americas advanced knowledge of the remarkable diversity of fish. Charles Alexandre Lesueur was a student of Cuvier. He made a cabinet of fish dwelling within the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence River regions.

Adventurous individuals such as John James Audubon and Constantine Samuel Rafinesque figure in the faunal documentation of North America. They often traveled with one another. Rafinesque wrote Ichthyologic Ohiensis in 1820. In addition, Louis Agassiz of Switzerland established his reputation through the study of freshwater fish and the first comprehensive treatment of palaeoichthyology, Poisson Fossil's. In the 1840s, Agassiz moved to the United States, where he taught at Harvard University until his death in 1873.

Albert Günther published his Catalogue of the Fish of the British Museum between 1859 and 1870, describing over 6,800 species and mentioning another 1,700. Generally considered one of the most influential ichthyologists, David Starr Jordan wrote 650 articles and books on the subject and served as president of Indiana University and Stanford University.

Notable ichthyologists
Members of this list meet one or more of the following criteria: 1) Author of 50 or more fish taxon names, 2) Author of major reference work in ichthyology, 3) Founder of major journal or museum, 4) Person most notable for other reasons who has also worked in ichthyology.

{{columns-list|colwidth=25em|1=
 * Alexander Emanuel Agassiz
 * Louis Agassiz
 * Emperor Akihito of Japan
 * Gerald R. Allen
 * Peter Artedi
 * Herbert R. Axelrod
 * William O. Ayres, California
 * Spencer Fullerton Baird
 * Tarleton Hoffman Bean
 * Lev Berg, Russia
 * Henry Bryant Bigelow
 * Pieter Bleeker, East Indies
 * Marcus Elieser Bloch
 * George Albert Boulenger
 * Jean Cadenat
 * Pierre Carbonnier
 * Eugenie Clark
 * Leonard Compagno
 * Edward Drinker Cope
 * Georges Cuvier
 * Francis Day, India
 * Francis Buchanan-Hamilton, Scottish
 * Carl H. Eigenmann
 * Rosa Smith Eigenmann
 * William N. Eschmeyer
 * Barton Warren Evermann
 * Henry Weed Fowler
 * Joseph Paul Gaimard
 * Samuel Garman
 * Charles Henry Gilbert
 * Theodore Nicholas Gill
 * Charles Frédéric Girard
 * George Brown Goode
 * Albert Günther
 * Albert William Herre
 * Carl L. Hubbs
 * David Starr Jordan
 * Maurice Kottelat, Swiss
 * Bernard Germain de Lacépède
 * Carl Linnaeus
 * Seth Eugene Meek
 * George S. Myers
 * Joseph S. Nelson, Fishes of the World
 * John Treadwell Nichols, China, founder of Copeia
 * John Roxborough Norman
 * Peter Simon Pallas
 * Wilhelm Peters
 * Felipe Poey
 * Jean René Constant Quoy
 * Constantine Samuel Rafinesque
 * John Ernest Randall
 * Charles Tate Regan
 * John Richardson
 * Raúl Adolfo Ringuelet
 * Eduard Rüppell
 * Johann Gottlob Schneider
 * H.M. Smith
 * J.L.B. Smith
 * Edwin Chapin Starks
 * Franz Steindachner
 * Royal D. Suttkus
 * Shigeho Tanaka
 * Ethelwynn Trewavas, English
 * Achille Valenciennes
 * Johann Julius Walbaum
 * Gilbert Percy Whitley
 * Francis Willughby
 * Stan Wood
 * William Yarrell

Paleoichthyologists

 * Hans C. Bjerring
 * Erik Jarvik
 * Erik Stensiö

Non-academic ichthyologists
}}
 * Sakana-kun

Additional references

 * Bond, Carl E (1996) Biology of Fish. Saunders. ISBN 0-03-070342-5.
 * Nelson, Joseph S (2006) Fish of the World. Wiley. ISBN 0-471-25031-7.
 * Michael Barton (2007) Bond's Biology of Fish, Third Edition. Julet. ISBN 0-12-079875-1.
 * Pauly D, Froese R, Palomares ML and Stergiou KI (2014) Fish on line, Version 3 A guide to learning and teaching ichthyology using the FishBase Information System.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ichthyology


text:
Single non-transferable vote

Single non-transferable vote or SNTV is an electoral system used to elect multiple winners. It is a generalization of first-past-the-post, applied to multi-member districts with each voter casting just one vote. Unlike FPTP, which is a single-winner system, in SNTV multiple winners are elected, typically in electoral districts; additionally, unlike FPTP, SNTV produces mixed representation and makes it unlikely for a single party to take all the seats in a city or a set area, which can happen under FPTP.

Unlike block voting or limited voting, where each voter casts multiple votes (multiple non-transferable vote (MNTV)), under SNTV each voter casts just one vote. This usually produces semi-proportional representation at the district level, meaning small parties, as well as large parties, have a chance to be represented. Single transferable vote (STV) is a more proportional alternative to SNTV. Under STV, ranked voting allows unused votes (placed on winners or losers) to be transferred to other candidates.

Voting
In any election, each voter casts one vote for one candidate in a multi-candidate race for multiple offices. Posts are filled by the candidates with the most votes (plurality voting). Thus, in a three-seat constituency, the three candidates receiving the largest numbers of votes would win office.

SNTV, like single transferable vote, can be used with non-partisan ballots.

Example
Three seats are to be filled among five candidates: A, B, C, D and E fielded by 3 parties X, Y and Z.

C, D and E are the winning candidates. Thus, Party Z gets two seats and Party Y gets one seat. No one party took all the seats as might have been the result under first past the post or plurality block voting.

But counting the votes by party gives these vote tallies:

Party Y has more votes than Party Z, but receives fewer seats because of an inefficient spread of votes across the candidates. If Party Y's two candidates had had more equal vote tallies, it would have won two seats and Party Z only one. Or if Party Z's candidates had received less equal vote tallies, Party Y would have won two seats even if its candidates were not equally popular. (There is more chance in SNTV than a more orderly system of PR.)

If either party had risked trying to win all three seats, causing more vote splitting among supporters of Parties Y and Z, then A of Party X might have won a seat and either party Y or Z would then have taken one fewer seat.

Comparison to MNTV (Block voting) and Limited Voting
Candidates are running in a 3-member district of 10000 voters. Under non-transferable (and non-cumulative) voting, voters may not cast a more than one vote for a single candidate.

 * Under block voting, the standard multiple non-transferable vote, voters may cast 3 votes (but do not have to)
 * Under Limited voting, voters may cast 2 votes maximum.
 * Under the single non-transferable vote, voters may cast 1 vote.

Party A has about 35% support among the electorate (with one particularly well-liked candidate), Party B around 25% (with two well-liked candidates) and the remaining voters primarily support independent candidates, but mostly lean towards party B if they have to choose between the two parties. All voters vote sincerely; there is no tactical voting. Percent of votes under MNTV and Limited Voting is the percent of voters who voted for the candidate, not the percent of votes cast.

 * Single non-transferable vote described here is not a type of approval voting.
 * The three most popular candidates according to voters' first preferences are elected, regardless of party affiliation.
 * Under block voting (Plurality block voting), the three candidates of the most popular party are elected if its supporters vote along party lines. In this case a party with only 35 percent support took all the seats.
 * Under limited voting, it is most likely that the party with a plurality takes two seats (or the same number of seats as the number of votes each voter has), and another less-popular party receives the remaining seat(s).
 * Under the single non-transferable vote (like in the other two methods) the number of seats are sometimes not proportionately allocated. Over-optimism (running too many candidates) and vote splitting is harshly punished. But each popular party that runs one candidate is assured of success to that degree anyway. In this case, even though the most-popular party ran three and risked vote splitting, it did elect one member.
 * STV (not shown here) would see each party take its due share of seats if voters mark their preferences along party lines. Thus Party A and Party B would take one seat for sure, with the other seat going to Party B due to it being the choice of supporters of the lesser parties if it came to choice of those two main parties.

Proportional representation
SNTV facilitates minority representation, that is, it produces mixed representation of large and small parties where no party takes all the seats.

In fact, SNTV would elect the same people as are elected in STV contests where the vote transfers do not move an initially-lower-placing candidate over an initially-higher-placing one. It is common even after STV vote transfers to elect the same as would be elected under SNTV. But not having transfers, SNTV sees more votes wasted than under STV due to votes being placed on un-electable candidate or due to surpluses received by successful candidate over and above the quota used in STV elections that are not able to be transferred under SNTV.

SNTV produces representation that is most proportional (proportional representation) when political parties have accurate information about their relative levels of electoral support, and nominate candidates in accordance with their respective levels of electoral support or when all parties suffer from poor information of that sort. Knowing the portion of the votes a party can take allows it to avoid vote waste due to lessening the chance of vote splitting and inefficient placement of party support. Under 'perfect' tactical voting and strategic nomination, SNTV would be equivalent to the D'Hondt (Jefferson) method of proportional representation.

But under SNTV even inefficient distribution of votes allows more balanced representation than would be elected under either single-member plurality or Block voting.

Given $$n$$ candidates to be elected, Candidate A can guarantee success by receiving one more than $$\frac{1}{n+1}$$ of the votes (the Droop quota), because $$n$$-1 other candidates cannot each receive more than Candidate A.

But as SNTV is a plurality system, it is possible to win with less than that quota. To determine the successful candidates, candidates' vote tallies are compared with the vote tallies of others, not with a theoretical threshold. In the 2020 Vanuatuan general election, using SNTV, as few as 5 percent of the vote was enough to be elected in a seven-seat district.

Vote spitting due to poor information on voters' behaviour may deny a popular party its due share of representation. (Single Transferable Voting does not suffer from this handicap as votes are transferable and many are transferred and used that are wasted under SNTV.) Parties organizing slates of multiple candidates may nominate many candidates and then learn on election night that the party was not as popular as they thought.

If every party does that, all suffer the same inefficiency and the final result is proportional. If one party is more prudent, it may do better than the others. Because votes cannot be transferred, there is more chance of vote wastage than under STV.

But in elections that use SNTV, representation is usually mixed. It is rare for one party to make a sweep of a city's seats, a thing common in First past the post elections. The number of wasted votes in an SNTV election is generally lower than in First past the post elections as well.

Under SNTV, parties often do not receive representation exactly proportional to their strength, because it is difficult to accurately judge their strength when deciding how many candidates to field (strategic nomination) and difficult to direct party supporters as a whole to spread their votes efficiently. If they field too many, supporters' votes might be split across too many candidates. The party votes might spread their vote numbers to the point where all of a party's candidates lose to a less thinly spread opposing party.

If a party fields too few candidates, they might elect all their candidates but not win seats proportional to their level of support, and the winning candidates would have more support than necessary and thus wasting votes.

The risks of poor strategic nomination are not equal for parties of various strengths. A large party would have much more to lose from the split vote effect than to gain from avoiding the wasted vote effect, and so would likely decide to err on the side of fielding fewer candidates (but probably not less than their existing number of seats). A small party with little representation would be more risk-tolerant and err on the side of too many candidates, hoping to gain as many seats as possible, perhaps even winning more than its proportion of the electorate if they can edge out candidates from larger parties with just a few votes. As well, a small party running just one candidate would not suffer from vote spitting, while a larger party running four or more may suffer from that.

SNTV electoral systems, like STV and proportional electoral systems generally, typically produce more proportional electoral outcomes as the size of the electoral districts (number of seats in each constituency) increases.

Potential for tactical voting
The potential for tactical voting in a single non-transferable vote system is large. Casting only one vote, a rational voter wanting to maximize the number of seats captured by his party should vote for a candidate of the party that has a chance of winning, but one that will not win by too great a margin and thus take votes away from party colleagues. This creates opportunities for tactical nominations, with parties nominating candidates similar to their opponents' candidates in order to split the vote. Like all multiple-winner selections, parties find it advantageous to run a range of candidates in SNTV elections.

SNTV has been measured through the lens of such concepts as decision-theoretic analysis. Professor Gary W. Cox, an expert on SNTV, has studied this system's use in Japan. Cox has an explanation of real-world data finding the, "two systems [plurality and semi-proportional] are alike in their strategic voting equilibria." His research found that voters use the information offered in campaigns (polls, reporting, fundraising totals, endorsements, etc.), to rationally decide who the most viable candidates are and then vote for them.

SNTV can result in complicated intra-party dynamics because in a SNTV system, a candidate runs against candidates from their own party as well as against candidates from the other party. SNTV elections are not zero-sum contests. Just because one particular candidate is elected does not mean that another specific candidate will not be. They both can be elected.

Because running on issues may lead to a situation in which a candidate becomes too popular and therefore draws votes away from other allied candidates, SNTV may encourage legislators to join factions that consist of patron-client relationships in which a powerful legislator can apportion votes to his or her supporters.

In addition, parties will do best if their supporters evenly distribute their votes among the party's candidates. Historically, in Taiwan, the Kuomintang did this by sending members a letter telling them which candidate to vote for. With the Democratic Progressive Party, vote sharing is done informally, as members of a family or small group will coordinate their votes. The New Party had a surprisingly effective system by asking party supporters to vote for the candidate that corresponded to their birthdate. This led to a system of vote allocation which had been adopted by all parties for the 2004 ROC legislative elections.

History
Single Non-transferable Voting first proposed in solid form by Saint-Just in 1793 in a proposal to the French National Convention. He proposed having the whole country as one multi-seat district. It was not adopted in France at that time.

Japan was the first country to adopt SNTV for election of government members a hundred years later than Saint-Just's proposal. In 1880s Japan adopted SNTV for provincial politicians and in 1900 for national politicians.

Usage
SNTV is used for elections in Puerto Rico, Kuwait, Indonesia, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, Libya, Iraq, Hong Kong and Vanuatu.

Puerto Rico
In Puerto Rico, where SNTV is known as at-large representation ("representación por acumulación" in Spanish), political parties vary the ballot order of their candidates across electoral divisions, in order to ensure each candidate has a roughly equal chance of success. Since most voters choose the candidates placed at the top of their party lists on their ballots, at-large candidates from the same party usually obtain approximately equal vote totals.

The two major Puerto Rican political parties, the Popular Democratic Party and the New Progressive Party, usually nominate six candidates for each chamber, while the much smaller Puerto Rican Independence Party runs single-candidate slates for both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The overall distribution of legislative seats is largely determined by the results for the sixteen Senate and forty House district seats, elected by plurality voting.

Japan, South Korea and Taiwan
SNTV was once used to elect the legislatures of Japan, South Korea and the Republic of China (Taiwan), but its use has been discontinued for the most part. It is still used in Japan for some seats in the House of Councillors (Sangi-in), prefectural assemblies and municipal assemblies.

In Taiwan it is used for the six aboriginal seats in the Legislative Yuan (national legislature), as well as local assemblies. The party structure there was complicated by the fact that while members of the Legislative Yuan were elected by SNTV, executive positions were (and still are) elected by a first past the post. This created a party system in which smaller factionalized parties, which SNTV promotes, have formed two large coalitions that resembles the two party system which first past the post rewards. Starting with the 2008 legislative elections, SNTV was discarded in favor of a mixed single member district (SMD) with proportional representation based on national party votes, similar to Japan. This system was a legacy of its colonial rule inherited from the Meiji Constitution.

Hong Kong
From 1997 to 2016, the electoral system for up to half of the seats of the Legislative Council of the territory was nominally a party-list proportional representation system with Hare quota. In practice, political parties fielded multiple lists in the same constituency. For example, the Democratic Party fielded three separate lists in the eight-seat New Territories West constituency in the 2008 election, aiming to win three seats (they won two). Split list or split tickets is done in order to win more seats with fewer votes, since the first candidate on each list would require less than the Hare quota to get a seat. Supporters are asked to split their votes among the lists of the same party, usually along geographical location of residence. In the 2012 and 2016 elections, no candidate list won more than one seat in any of the six PR constituencies which returned a total of 40 seats, rendering the result effectively the same as SNTV.

In the 2021 Hong Kong electoral reform, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress instituted SNTV in its amendment to Annex 2 of the Basic Law on 30 March 2021. 20 seats of the Legislative Council are returned by geographical constituencies (GC) through single non-transferable vote with a district magnitude of 2. Effect of the district size of 2 under SNTV system in Hong Kong have been compared to that of the binomial voting system.

Libya
In accordance with its post-Gaddafi electoral law, Libya in 2012 elected 80 members of its 200-seat General National Congress using single non-transferable vote. Some commentators cited the system as a factor in the subsequent return to civil war in 2014.

Chile
After the 2015 electoral reform, Chileans elect their representatives to both houses of Congress through open lists presented by parties or party coalitions in each of the electoral districts into which the country is divided for the contest, allowing only one vote for one of the candidates inside any list. Once the voting is over, the distribution of seats in each district (which can range from 3 to 8 in the lower house and from 2 to 5 in the upper one) is carried out through the D'Hondt method, ordering the lists from highest to lowest according to the total vote of each one and the candidates within each one of them with the same principle.

Jordan
SNTV was used in Jordan from 1993 to 2016. SNTV became the official electoral system for legislature elections in Jordan in 1993, the second election since the country's return to an elected parliament in 1989. The 1993 electoral reform introduced SNTV as the "one-man, one-vote", which was argued to be a more egalitarian alternative to the former "block vote" (or Multiple non-transferable vote) where constituents could cast as many votes as there were seats in their constituency. (Under SNTV, each voter cast just one.) The Jordanian opposition parties were heavily critical of the voting reform as it significantly hurt their electoral results. The Islamic Action Front was at the forefront of this criticism, boycotting 4 of the 6 elections held under this system. The last election held purely under this system was in 2010, whose parliament was dissolved after the Arab Spring protests in Jordan and a new election was held in 2013 using both SNTV and a national closed list with a proportional system. SNTV was completely abolished after the 2016 electoral reform where it was replaced with open list PR (in 23 constituencies of between three and nine seats each) plus 15 seats reserved for women.

Kuwait
Kuwait has used SNTV to elect the members of its National Assembly (Majles al-Umma) in five 10-member districts, starting with the 2012 election.

Vanuatu
Since independence from Britain and France in 1980, Vanuatu has used SNTV to elect most of the members of its Parliament. Currently, other than eight members elected in single-member constituencies, the 52 members of Parliament are elected in ten multi-member constituencies (of between two and seven seats) by single non-transferable vote. The last election this was done was the 2020 Vanuatuan general election.

title: Single non-transferable vote


text:
Talk:Alfred Hitchcock

"Shamley Productions" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Shamley Productions. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Image
We have this photo by Jack Mitchell, an important photographer. Can we fit it in somewhere? —valereee (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Alfred Hitchcock
In the article it says having had 5 nominations which is incorrect grammar 162.234.206.89 (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023
Hitchcock is often described as an auteur; François Truffaut wrote that “Because he exercises such complete control over all the elements of his films and imprints his personal concepts at each step of the way, Hitchcock has a distinctive style of his own. He is undoubtedly one of the few film-makers on the horizon today whose screen signature can be identified as soon as the picture begins.” Anthony Lane writes "I once asked a friend who had never seen Marnie to guess the director. Skipping the opening credits, I started a stopwatch on the first shot—Tippi Hedren's clutch bag under her arm as she walks along a station platform. 'Hitchcock,' he said, and I checked the watch. Twelve seconds." 2601:281:8300:9AF0:552B:C4B0:A82F:49A4 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

age at death
basic math will conclude that he was not age 80 when he died in 1980, having been born in 1899 2600:1702:3220:23B0:2CA3:2349:976F:95E9 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What sort of basic math would that be? He was born in August and died in April, making him 80 years and about 8 months old. When giving someone's age, we typically say the number of completed years. In Hitchcock's case, that was 80. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  02:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Citizenship
why in the title it is mentioned as English filmmaker but in citizenship section it's mentioned as United Kingdom and United States Ashokkumar047 (talk) 08:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Anglo-American
We had the article describing him as "English" and I changed it to "Anglo-American" because that is how to more accurately introduce him to the reader. There was an editors note suggesting not to change it, to wit:

But, I can't see much merit in that. He was an immigrant to America, spent half his life and most of his adult life in Los Angeles, made more than half of his films, including of his most famous and great ones, while living and working in America, and had dual citizenship from 1955.

And all Fallaci has (in the ref) is Hitchcock saying "And then it must be because I’m English", explaining why he naturally finds imaginative and amusing ways for his characters to be killed. It's not like he's saying "I don't consider myself American, at all" or something. (And even if it was, subjects are not good sources for unbiased facts in biographies. Lots of people self-identify as having various qualities that they actually don't. It's a data point but no more.)

I'm confident that Hitchcock would have preferred to stay in Britain and only came to America because he had to in order to have an A+ level career, and that's too bad for Britain, and not really fair either. But it is what it is. It'd smack of special pleading to introduce him as either just "American" or "English".

I don't know what part of BIO is being referred to, but if it is advising us to mislead the reader it'd best be ignored, I would say. Herostratus (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Generally in such instances we place precedence in how the the subject chooses to self-identify in reference to nationality, so I would agree with the reverseal back to "English". I do not understand how exactly this is misleading at all. (We do not describe Einstein as German-American despite a lot of portion of is spent in the US).  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 01:13, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and in additition to self-identity, notability is also key here and he became globally famous as an Englishman. As is noted he had also become critically acclaimed/celebrated prior to any Hollywood film ("Three unique and valuable institutions the British have that we in America have not: Magna Carta, the Tower Bridge and Alfred Hitchcock, the greatest director of screen melodramas in the world.") Para Clark (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Mnmh, I hear you. But, I can't agree still, cos:
 * We're not deciding if he should be characterized as "English" or "American". If we had to chose one, it's reasonable to hold that it be "English". But that's not what we're doing here. In dispute, if a compromise is available, that can be a good solution, and "Anglo-American" is sort of a compromise. Sort of.
 * There's no slam-dunk argument either way. There are data points on each side and we weigh them. Data points that we might consider are:
 * Self-identification, but that is quite low on the list, as I said. It's personal opinion that's probably biased. People are just poor sources for their own bios (for many facts). They are very good sources for if they hava an opinion, but not for if the opinion is true. Grey Owl said he was an Indian, maybe even kinda-sorta thought he was an Indian, in a way. But his birth name was Archibald Stansfeld Belaney and we don't describe him as an Indian. Etc.
 * Identification by others (as seen in "Three unique..." quote). In other words, what sources say. How notable and neutral the sources are matters a lot (also how much standing they have to weigh in). This goes high on the list. But not quite as high as if we were debating objective facts, e.g. how tall he was etc. We're talking about opinions here. (One reason why reliability doesn't matter here; all source are very reliable for their own opinions.)
 * Current usual practice, if there is one. Pretty high I guess. (If there is rule (E.g. WHO_IS_WHAT_NATIONALITY also, that's another data point, but only if it codifies usual practice anyway rather than having been written by seven people 16 years ago or whatever.)
 * Our own actual consideration and logic. If -- if -- there is a good majority of the most notable and unbiased sources saying one thing, and other things also weighing on that side, that's different. But if there isn't, just using our own wits matters.

 * Probably other things I'm not thinking of. I'm going to look at some of these presently, but not right now. There's no hurry here (as my edit was rolled back, IMO, and it's not super important. Herostratus (talk) 03:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Hitchcock referred to himself as English, and self-identification takes precedence, it's who you are. He was also renowned as a particular type of English as articulated by a biographer in the Chicago Sun Times from 1978 who called him 'a straightforward middle-class Englishman who just happened to be an artistic genius'. He made his name in England as a peerless filmmaker which is why he got the Selznick contract, with The Telegraph summing up the overwhelming view of his status in Britain by calling him 'unquestionably the greatest filmmaker to emerge from these islands'. We go with identity, who the person is. It's as straightforward as that. Gabriella MNT (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm. Looked at MOS:NATIONALITY. It seems like the recommendation there, in a disputed case like this, would be to omit characterizing his nationality at all, in the lede or probably anywhere. Let the reader decide what nationality she wants to peg him to, if she cares, based on the material in the article. We don't want to lead the reader. If we did go with the double countries, it should be "British and American", not "Anglo-American." Did not know this. For Einstein, they have "German-born" which would at least be an improvement here. I suppose that is because "German and Swiss and American" would be unwieldy and possibly debatable. Herostratus (talk) 06:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

ALFRED HITCHCOCK FAMILY HOME MOVIES 1929
2601:646:201:57F0:C452:D28F:99A4:46C1 (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJeLgQMnJLw
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtPx1yz3TIs

title: Talk:Alfred Hitchcock


text:
Talk:August 25

?
This came out of the page under "births":
 * 1912 - East German politician

I'm supposing this politician has a name?

Needs article
Natsuyaki Miyabi Rklawton 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Liberation of Paris
During past few weeks Paris has been liberated at least three times in the selected annyversaries section, which date is actually right? :) Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 20:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Stacey hicks - great man
This looks like vandalism, I'd revert it myself if I wasnt at work and being paid to do other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.74.248.49 (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Winston365 (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Total darkness
This nonreliable source lists Pulchy's inaugeration day (Aug 25, 450) as a day without light and not an eclipse. Is that accurate and backed by reliable sources? Should be mentioned. — LlywelynII  22:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

First anointed
Similarly, this unreliable source records that Marcian was the first example of a Roman emperor being ceremonially entered into his office by the church. Any reliable sources confirm so we can add that to this article? — LlywelynII  22:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Chronological order incorrect in the 1920s.Unclemikejb2 (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

National Banana Split Day? National Whiskey Sour Day?
These do not have articles to support that they are a real thing. I will remove them shortly if there is no objection. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey
My birthday is on this date, 2004! One of my former friends was born on that date, too.--27 is my favorite number. You can ask me why here. 01:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:August 25