Talk:Josef Mengele

April 2011 Haaretz article

Haaretz - Ofer Aderet - Unraveling the Mengele mystery, 29 April 2011: More than 30 years after the infamous Nazi doctor died under mysterious circumstances, an internal police report reveals just how much effort Israel invested in tracking him down
    ←   ZScarpia   22:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Christian Mengele

I removed the reference to Christian Mengele due to the link accessing a blog.keystoneridin! (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's back, got reddited. see: http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/k4qbh/til_dr_josef_mengele_of_nazi_fame_brains_of_the/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.243.1 (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The only references to the name Christian Mengele is this blog and the art coming from it. Until we get a source that isn't user-submitted data och a blog I sugest we remove it. Again.195.84.66.130 (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Very persistent. I have removed it yet again, as it is a potential BLP violation, sourced only to a blog. Favonian (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead picture file

There is a picture missing, though the info is still there. I don't know how to fix this--can someone who knows how please do it? Thanks.--TEHodson 22:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the image wiki-code, there doesn't seem to be a corresponding picture. Maybe it was deleted as a copyvio or something. Thanks. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Groovy.--TEHodson 06:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

National Archives -- original research

Saying that such-and-such data is available in the National Archives implies that the editor looked at the material itself. WP:NOR says don't do that. Such material is not published -- it is simply "stuff" in boxes, on microfilm, scanned, etc. --S. Rich (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Information taken from an official military service record is not orginial research. This has been discussed at length on several noticeboards. The SS service records, along with summaries of SS careers, are on file at the SS Records and Captured Nazi documents section of the National Archives at College Park. We even have two independent articles on these records, mainly Service record of Reinhard Heydrich and Service record of Heinrich Himmler. -OberRanks (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's true that we have articles about the service records. And with the Heydrich service record article we see the 4 or 5 authors that have looked at the records and published accessible WP:RS. (The Heydrich article itself is well referenced.)

But where in the actual National Archives can we find the specific supporting records on the individuals? With such "National Archives" citations, as we see now, we can't. That is, such citations really say "there are documents in boxes, etc. in the National Archives which support our contentions about such-and-such facts, but we won't or can't tell you where or how to find them." In other words, the "citations" are not published.

Now they might be accessible. I suggest looking at this: [1] resource as a starting point.

Also, please give me links to the noticeboards. I am certainly interested in resolving this. Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my memory, it was discussed on the German History Noticeboard and the Military History Noticeboard between 2005 and now at least three or four times. I think also on the "Reference Help Desk" or something like that around 2007 and 2008. I can appreciate your position, I've just been involved in this discussion several times over the past five years and it seems to always come up again. The way it has been explained to me is that a military service record is a primary source and material taken directly out of such a record, without interpretation, is reliable referenced data. I'm not on wikipedia every day now, so I dont have time to find the diffs and start up the conversation on a noticeboard again. I will say that these service histories and service summaries on the SS articles have stood unchallenged for years and there always is a big storm when someone tries to remove them. But, like I also said, I understand where you're coming from. -OberRanks (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If we have actual access to those service records, then we can use them as WP:PRIMARY, "but only with care." When we look at those bare service records and then say "The Sports Badge was an award of particular importance in Nazi Germany", we are committing WP:OR/WP:SYN.--S. Rich (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing listing Josef Mengele's service information in this article. The German Sports Badge article is being discussed on a totally separate talk page and has already been sourced with academic texts. I agree we cant draw personal conclusions about the importance of information in the records, that is clearly OR. -OberRanks (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. My starting contention is about footnotes 38 & 39 in this article. I'm striking my comment about the importance of the Sports Badge, but the basic issue remains. That is, using "National Archives" without further citation is poor editing. In this article the German Sports Badge is listed without reference/citation.--S. Rich (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is part of a much larger question as to whether service summaries and list of awards should require individual citations for every date of rank and every decoration, or if simply the official service record of the individual may be cited as a source for everything. This has been discussed before, and as far as know a service record entry is a good broad source. Otherwise, articles would be cluttered with citations for listed information. Take Service summary of Douglas MacArthur for instance (which actually could be better sourced). In any event, such a question isn't going to be solved here. -OberRanks (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do survivor accounts of "a gentle, affable man" keep getting deleted?

Why do accounts of surviving twins who describe Mengele as being a "father figure" to them and remembering him as "a gentle, affable man", keep getting removed. Does inclusion of positive memories of Mengele by these eye witness accounts taken from a reputable secondary source, infringe wiki policy in some way? [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs)

You have been making a series of edits to this article which convey the impression that Mengele was, in reality, a misunderstood, genial father figure, an innocent man who doted on children and merely did his medical duty at the camps, who got a bad reputation because of "postwar notoriety" and unreliable eye-witnesses. This is, of course, quite the opposite of the view reliable historians have of the man. Moreover, it's not even in accord with the view the source you have used, which portrays him as a mass-murdering monster who managed to fool some of the younger children upon whom he experimented into seeing him as a kind of father figure, "a gentle affable man" (the small number, that is, who survived his "experiments"). It's only through a highly selective use of the source, essentially combing it for any scrap of information that might portray Mengele in a positive light, that one might mislead the reader into imagining this about Mengele. This, combined with your recent edits to Buchenwald concentration camp (discussion here ) and Belzec extermination camp (discussion here), shows a disturbing pattern. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary. I am merely pointing out that the "disturbing pattern" is that you and others are deleting material on the basis of some other criteria than wiki policy. Twins memories DID describe Mengele as a "gentle and affable man". The source IS a reputable secondary source that is already being cited. You ARE deleting material based on some other criteria than wiki policy. Our personal opinion should not enter into this discussion.

The wiki policy that justifies removing your edits is WP:NOR. Introducing cherry-picked quotes, and insistence on referring to old sources which have not withstood the test of time, such as the 'Promise Hitler Kept', is textbook original research. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

We are discussing why the complete inclusion of a quote from a reliable secondary source is being censored to include only certain parts of survivor testimony. So WP:NOR therefore is not applicable. And ironically "Cherry-picked quotes" is precisely what I am attempting to correct and is the exact infringement of policy that I am drawing attention to and is being allowed in this instance. The book you mention has no relevance to this talk page. Lets keep this concise and clear: 'is it OK for editors to delete parts of a quote from a reliable secondary source because they personally don't like the content of those parts of the quote'? That is the issue I have initiated a discussion about here.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a quote, because you didn't enclose it in quotation marks. In fact, much of the material you added was directly copied from the source without enclosing it in quotation marks. We are editors here - we make editorial decisions about how to paraphrase sources. Please review Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If this discussion is just about about "how to paraphrase sources" why haven't you deleted other parts of the quote that DO still appear in the article? If its only a case of when and how to use quotation marks or incitations, why haven't you proposed a solution along these lines instead of repeated undos/editwarring?

My question here has been about repeatedly deleting a selective part of the original quote and the reasons for that. You gave your reason above by misrepresenting me and my intention. I have not been trying to "mislead the reader into imagining this about Mengele" as you impugned. That was an ad hominem attack. Our own personal opinions should not be relevant. A positive assessment of him by surviving twins from a reputable secondary source is relevant to the article. I even attempted a rewording to avoid it being plagiarism after your first deletion which you recently undid. AND you have allowed some wording from the quote to remain. What is that if not censorship to delete survivors description of him as a "gentle and affable man"? I do now wonder if you are able to apply wiki policy unbiasedly on this subject as you do appear to me to be pushing a non-neutral POV. As I do not want to get into an edit war nor take up further time/space on this talkpage, and as you have made this an ad hominem attack here and elsewhere, I ask you as an administrator of many years to tell me, what is 1.) the most appropriate channel for dealing with this observation and impression? and 2.) what channel to deal with this particular policy infringement regarding this Mengele article. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have merely described the actual effect of your edits, and the way in which this was achieved. You can look for some other venue in which to deal with this, such as mediation, but given your edits here, and at Buchenwald concentration camp, Belzec extermination camp, and earlier at Criticism of Holocaust denial, I would be wary of WP:BOOMERANG. In the meanwhile, I'll look for some third-party assessments. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and for any others reading, these are the edits made here by Mystichumwipe. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I was asked by Jayjg to review this article and the discussion here. I share his concerns that sentences are being cherry-picked to portray Mengele as a kind-hearted father figure. The web page you cite includes important qualifiers you omitted ("Strangely enough, many of them recall Mengele as a gentle, affable man.... Since many had immediately been separated from their families upon entering the camp, Mengele became a sort of father figure." [my emphasis]), and whose absence significantly changes the meaning of the sentences. By selectively quoting phrases out of context, you may be engaging in original research—worse yet, you may be misrepresenting what the source says. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, to present a source objectively, it isn't enough to use the words of the source but also the overall impression given by the source has to be maintained. The overall impression I get from that source is a lot more horrendous than the words you chose would convey if I read only them. I think Jayjg's latest version does a better job. Zero^talk 12:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Ironically, it was exactly my desire that the "overall impression given by the source has to be maintained" that has led to this talkpage topic. My enquiry is precisely why that is NOT being done in this case.

2. The fact remains - which no-one has disputed - that survivor-twins did describe Mengele as a "gentle and affable man". If we put that back in with whatever else you want from the source then there is no problem. But still neither Jayjg, nor anyone else involved has suggested that. On the contrary. So in the absence of any explanation based upon valid wiki policy for why that solution has still not been suggested, please explain how that is not censorship and pushing a point of view?

Here is my suggestion: someone else fix the wording as you would like BUT INCLUDING the description of Mengele as "a gentle and affable man" by these survivors.

3. Jayjg has defended what I see as his censorship with: "We are editors here - we make editorial decisions about how to paraphrase sources" How can I now be accused of cherry picking for just such paraphrasing? :-o The whole thrust of the article is focused on the negative appraisals of the man. How can including accurately the few positive testimonies be 'cherry picking' and yet repeatedly deleting them is not that?

4. As for a boomerang effect, I have only ever tried to contribute to the accuracy and neutrality of articles on wikipedia and I have AT ALL TIMES tried to do so by scrupulously following wiki policy. If I have done anything against the spirit of wiki policy I welcome that being shown to me. Regarding 'shooting ourselves in the foot', this article uses some questionable sources. E.g. Does a respectable encyclopedia really need to rely on statements taken from TruTV crime library? (ref.23). [3] In the interests of the bigger picture, I suggest that this does not reflect well on the credibility of Wikipedia as a serious reference source. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Squiddy, Malik Shabazz, Zero0000 and I have all explained why we think the current presentation of the material is more true to the source, and more appropriate for the article. You need not accept those explanations, but we're also not obligated to continue repeating them. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)