Talk:Josef Mengele/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV 2 - "unscientific" ?

The 2nd paragraph: "He was notorious for the selection of victims to be killed in the gas chambers and for performing unscientific and often deadly human experiments on prisoners. After the war, he fled to South America, where he evaded capture for the rest of his life." Who's declared that they were unscientific? In a loose enough sense, scientific can mean simply coming to your conclusions rationally, based on the on empirical evidence. Is it "unscientific" because Mengele never published in Nature magazine? As so far as I know, he performed these experiments in order to collect empirical data, and the conclusions were rational, and in some cases correct. A lot of the information we know about the effects of hypothermia, even now, rely on the empirical evidence collected by Nazi doctors in horrific experiments they conducted, purposefully freezing people to death in order to study them.

I'm not really a WP editor, so didn't make the change, but a change should be considered, as I don't see the use of this term as anything other than POV-infected bias. - SBEE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.14.94 (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Unscientific" is sourced to multiple sources, including Kubica, Helena (1998) [1994]. "The Crimes of Josef Mengele". In Gutman, Yisrael; Berenbaum, Michael. Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press. pp. 317–337. ISBN 978-0-253-20884-2 and Astor, Gerald (1985). Last Nazi: Life and Times of Dr Joseph Mengele. New York: Donald I. Fine. ISBN 0-917657-46-2. They were unscientific in that he ignored the health and safety of the victims and did not use the scientific method of inquiry. I find no mention of hypothermia experiments in this article and don't recall seeing any reference to him conducting such experiments at Auschwitz. What he did do was unnecessary amputation of limbs, intentionally infecting one twin with typhus or other diseases, transfusing the blood of one twin into the other, sewing two twins together back to back in an attempt to create conjoined twins, and performing horrific experiments on pregnant women and their newborn babies. These are the ones that I found confirmed in multiple reliable sources and there were even more horrible experiments mentioned in more anecdotal material that I chose not to include when re-writing the article in 2014. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about the nature of his horrific acts, whether the amputations were necessary or not, or whether he showed any concern for the health and safety of his patients - none of that has anything to do with whether the work he did was "scientific" or not. I'm unaware of a universally accepted definition of the term "scientific" which holds the requirements that the above conditions be satisfied. If he did not in any way follow the scientific method, then there is an argument to be made it was unscientific, I suppose - I will look into this for my own interests' sake as time permits, but do your citations point out gross violations of the scientific method in their work, or are they all ethical complaints about the atrocities he committed, while carrying out what may or may not be considered "scientific work"? By their titles, they sound like the latter. - SBee

I will have to bring the books in on inter-library loan and will get back to you in six to eight weeks. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I too was immediately struck by the use of the term "unscientific" somehow suggesting science is morally founded and that science can not be practiced by immoral and unethical people. To suggest that science is preemptively moral excuses any contemporary examination of its methods on these principles. It is a fig leaf to suggest that Mengele was "unscientific" because he was evil; cannot he be both scientific and evil at the same time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Frykman (talk • contribs) 21:27, July 11, 2015‎ (UTC)

Kubica doesn't use the word "unscientific" and the other book still has not arrived. I will take the word out for now and will re-add if the other source (Astor) confirms -- Diannaa (talk) 00:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your approach to this. Perhaps more, since I'm dubious that a historian is a reliable source on the scientific quality of Menegle's "work". It needs an assessment by a scientist, though I don't like the chances of finding one. Zero^talk 01:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Candido Godoi

A number of articles have appeared in the last few years suggesting that this Brazilian town (CG) started producing unusual amounts of blonde, blue-eyed twins because of Dr. Mengele, know to have been hiding nearby, across the border. CG now calls itself the 'town of twins'. Are these reports reliable enough to include in the article? If not, should some notice be taken of the fact such reports are circulating, just as a matter of historical record? 2.31.36.101 (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This is pure speculation and should not be included in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Incoming prisoners?

Quote from the second paragraph of Auschwitz: "Incoming Jews were segregated; those deemed able to work were admitted into the camp, and those deemed unfit for labor were immediately killed in the gas chambers." Do we mean that Jews were specifically separated from the other arrivals? I understood that all incoming prisoners were split between the fit and unfit categories, but I don't have access to the ref. It becomes a little unclear then if Mengele focused his experiments primarily on Jews, along with some Romani, or if this work was done equivalently across all prisoners. Comments? jxm (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

The source book Auschwitz: A New History is available locally and I can go fetch it if need be. The vast majority of the occupants of Auschwitz were Jewish. The selections were undertaken among Jews only, who were collected from points all over Europe and arrived in Auschwitz by the trainload. The Romani did not undergo selection on the ramp; they were sent to a separate Gypsy camp. Prisoners of war did not undergo selection. Do you think this passage needs to be re-worded to make it clearer? -- Diannaa (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. With agreement, I'll refine the text to reflect this clarification. jxm (talk) 01:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed fake passport still pictured in the article

In January 2014, the Italian passport said to have been used by Mengele to enter Argentina which was found by Craig Gottlieb was heavily mediatized on TV, newspapers and on the web, including on Wikipedia. A few days later, it was found that the passport was a fake, as this Italian 1947 passport was using... an argentinian police mugshot taken in 1956. So I think that the fake passport should be removed from the Mengele wiki page. The original Argentinian mugshot is even included at the left of the fake passport picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele#/media/File:WP_Josef_Mengele_1956.jpg 89.93.78.206 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed suspicious. See this uncropped version, which makes clear that it isn't just another copy of a passport photo. Also see the same photo minus the passport stamps on an Argentinian document here. But can you provide a reliable source confirming the fakery? I see lots of noise on blogs, but we can't use those. Zero^talk 02:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the photo of the passport, which might be fake. Note we have the same photo in that very section, labelled as being taken in 1956 (not 1947) . — Diannaa (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Vera Alexander witness conjoined twins

This article says they died of gangrene but the Holocaust article says their mother got them morphine and the children were killed to end their suffering. Consistent sources should be used across the two articles. -KaJunl (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks like these were two different sets of twins, because the ones in Berenbaum p.194 were named Guido and Ina, and the ones in Posner and Ware p.37 were named Tito and Nino. — Diannaa (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong city where he bought the bungalow

The place where he bought the bungalow was a house in the neighbourhood of Eldorado located in the city of Diadema, not Eldorado the town. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.82.32 (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Corrected; good catch. Also, this is in Posner & Ware (1986) pp.242–243, not in Levy as previously cited. — Diannaa (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Supposition

My revision was reverted on the assumption that "the flag and collar tabs are supposed to be in the infobox". Who said so? Is it not an improvement, the lack of these graphical artifact? Carlotm (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of La Disparition de Josef Mengele

We don't have an article on the English-language Wikipedia about the author or the book. The film is not of a big cultural impact, so I removed it. Please see WP:MILPOP. I think it's important to not add lists of mentions in pop culture to military history articles, especially to those about Nazi officials, so as not to trivialize the things they did or make them seem normal or okay. I today removed another film (The German Doctor. Comments welcome— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for your response here. To provide some context, I came across the book through a book review (in German) on the Augsburger Allgemeine (which functions as the local paper for Günzburg, Mengele's home town), after it had been translated into German. I also found a review of the book on the Financial Times after it won the 2017 Prix Renaudot. Apart from French and German it also appears, according to The National Herald, to have been translated into Greek now. Olivier Guez seems to be a reputable journalist with a wide ranging CV and La Disparition de Josef Mengele does have an article on the French Wikipedia. I can't asses whether the book is trivial or not as I have not read it but none of the sources claim so and instead state that Guez extensively researched Mengele for the book. According to Guez his aim was to establish how Mengele could live after the War with his guilt. I'm happy to accept Diannaa's assessment of the book but, as stated yesterday, I don't think something, in this case a book, isn't relevant to the English Wikipedia just because it hasn't been published in the English language or received extensive attention in the English speaking world. Turismond (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me explain it another way. The reasoning at WP:MILPOP is to not include cultural references that have not had a big impact on the culture. The idea is to avoid lengthy lists at the bottom of each military history article of each mention of a subject in books, movies, video games, and the like. Since the book and its author are not well known in the English-speaking countries, I don't see how either could have had a big impact on the culture of English-speaking countries. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox image size/width

I'm not sure why, but the infobox on this page is significantly wider than most others. In addition, the blurry photo doesn't look great at the standard resolution. I suggest we adjust the infobox so it is less wide and the image is smaller. As this is obviously controversial (there is an open ANI thread on this general topic), a discussion must happen first, power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The article existed for quite a long time with the image at 160px, or about upright=.75. Some may think that's a bit too small, but it's certainly closer to an appropriate size. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This particular image does look better at the smaller size. I have no opinion on the others at the moment. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 05:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• The smaller size looks way better. Guy (Help!) 09:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Image choices

• Why is this image being used in the first place? There are two issues:

• Mengele is best known as (1) an SS doctor; (2) a fugitive from justice. The image of youthful Mengele in civilian clothing is inconsistent with the contents of the article.
• The image is non-free, while more representative, free images are already in use in the article.

I suggest the image be replaced. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

1944

• The image at the right is PD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

as a fugitive

Yes, I would go with Mengele in 1944 as it shows Mengele in SS uniform, at the time he was at Auschwitz. Or the 1950s image, which is also PD. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The quality of the 1950s image is such that I don't think it's a good choice for the infobox. The 1944 images isn't fabulous in quality either, but it's better, and good enough, I think, at infobox sizes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Mengele in 1944 (center)

• We could also go with the uncropped 1944 photo, as it puts Mengele's image in context. The whole notion of the infobox image needing to be a headshot does not work for me. He's not a movie star. Nobody is looking at the portrait to identify Mengele, as he'd been long dead. The image should put the subject in the appropriate context which either the 1950s image or the uncropped 1944 image does. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I don't think the infobox images necessarily needs to be a head shot, but at the very least the most prominent individual in a group picture should be the subject, in my opinion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Image replaced

I've now replaced the image in the infobox with the cropped group image (File:Josef Mengele, Auschwitz. Album Höcker (cropped).jpg). It has the following advantages over the previous: (a) it reduces the prominence of Mengele's face, as per complaints from some editors; (b) the image quality is clearer than most alternative images; (c) it shows Mengele clearly in his Nazi context; (d) it clearly locates him in time and space in the context of Auschwitz concentration camp. -- The Anome (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Slayer track Angel of Death

Might I suggest that we reach an informed consensus on whether or not to include this song, as it has been added on several occasions, only to be swiftly removed by those guarding the article. It might be unpalatable but I would argue that the book/film The Boys from Brazil is equally trivial and only loosely based on Mengele, as it can hardly be considered to be a biographical portrayal of the man. We know for sure that he didn't resort to producing Hitler clones in his later life! If we bar the Slayer song then surely the other should also be removed?

I would suggest that we need to add a popular culture section after the Legacy section thus:

Legacy

containing the Höcker Album and Mengele's diary, which are both directly related to the man, therefore classed as legacy items.

In popular culture

containing The Boys from Brazil and the Slayer song Angel of Death, which were both inspired by Mengele but not in fact anything to do with him directly.

Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:MILPOP might direct us to omit the popular culture section altogether, but I still think we need a consensus on what to include and what not to include, especially as this just keeps on coming up. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• We definitely don't want or need an In popular culture section. MarchOrDie (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• I agree the section should be removed completely per WP:MILPOP. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
• I've now removed The Boys from Brazil book and film, as no one objected and the discussion has been open for plenty of time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

OK but you might want to consider adding it back in as a link in the See also section? Just a thought. I'm going to add a comment into the Legacy section to put a stop to all this anyway. Rodney Baggins (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Child survivors of Auschwitz.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Supervised the crematorium?

I have removed the assertion that he supervised the crematorium at Auschwitz from the lead. Medical doctors supervised the administration of gas in the gas chambers, but there would be no reason for a medical doctor to be involved in the disposal of the bodies. Gas chambers were attached to Crematoria II, III, IV, and V in Auschwitz II, and he was one of the doctors who administered the gas. I added a bit to the lead regarding this in lieu of the statement that he "supervised the crematorium" because I am pretty sure he did not do that, or I would have seen it already in other sources when preparing this article and the Auschwitz concentration camp article for GA.— Diannaa (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The Debt movie association

The term surgeon is used in the movie The Debt to describe the character named Dr. Dieter Vogel, who is based on the real-life Dr. Josef Mengele. Dr. Mengele allegedly did surgery for the purpose of torturing the prisoners at Birkenau. For example, he allegedly sewed two children together, back to back, to create Siamese twins. Source: https://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/was-the-surgeon-of-birkenau-really-a-surgeon/

Movies:

- The Debt (2007) - The Debt (2010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenorb (talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

The incident about sewing two twins together is already present in the article.— Diannaa (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Are references in novels & films to the Mengele affair "pop trivia"?

Greetings, all. Diannaa removed this addition to the article, concerning the fictionalization of the Mengele affair in best-selling novels and films. The reasoning provided is that any such reference violates WP:MILPOP. As the contributor who added the section "In popular culture," I object to the notion that such references go against the suggestions expressed in the aforesaid essay. On the contrary, I believe that the article should certainly offer a reference to the impact of its subject on modern culture. Opinions? -The Gnome (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that a reference to popular culture is appropriate, and I agree that Dianaa's deletion was correct. What is needed is a brief report of a reliable source that studies Mengele's influence on modern culture, not an editors' selection of books and films from the very large number available. Zero^talk 07:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. We typically have "In popular culture" sections in biographical articles, where the choice for inclusion of material is unavoidably shaped by the collective, cumulative work of editors, especially when the cultural references are of a "very large number." But let's make this a step towards improving further the encyclopaedic value of the article: It can contain the (few, actually) fictional creations that were directly inspired or influenced by the Mengele affair, adding also, as you suggest, references to reliable sources that critically study the influence. -The Gnome (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• We've discussed this issue before, see discussion above, and the general consensus was not to have a pop culture section in this article. I personally think that pop trivia is largely inappropriate in an article about a war criminal. The workaround is to put relevant links in the See also section, as you will see that Angel of Death (Slayer song) and The Boys from Brazil (novel) are included. I agree with User:Zero0000 that a commentary on Mengele's influence on modern culture would be better than a random list of items where Mengele's name is mentioned in passing. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

That consensus, in my humble opinion, confuses reporting with glorifying. This is evident even by the use of the word "inappropriate." In what sense would references to cinema and literary fiction be "inappropriate" in a biography, when these references are about something real and extant? "See also" sections, per MOS:SEEALSO, contain internal links to related Wikipedia articles but this is about works directly inspired by the Mengele affair. We'd be neither trivializing the horrors committed by Mengele, nor disrespecting his victims in any way. These are works that have not just been "notable" but marked the 1970s (a decade that was probably the tail end of the post-war Nazi hunts), besides being significant commercial hits. Not all culture that happens to be popular is "pop trivia"; and these works are certainly not trivial. My proposal to include both the works and their critical appraisal to be included stands. -The Gnome (talk)

• The MILHIST wikiproject manual of style specifies not to include a popular culture section "unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture". In my opinion including a list of film portrayals of notorious Nazi war criminals trivializes their acts and it not appropriate for this particular article as Mengele has not actually had a big impact on western culture in spite of being the subject or inspiration for some films.— Diannaa (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Greetings, Diannaa. The proposed inclusion is in full accordance to the MILHISTO Manual of Style since we do have a "notable impact on popular culture" of the Mengele affair, "well cited" of course. First of all, we need to understand that the cultural impact concerns his escape from justice, his hiding, and the failed attempts to bring Mengele to justice. That is what is denoted by the term the Mengele affair. (None of the works of art was about his crimes as such; there was little to argue or even show about the monstrosities of his crimes.) And we have at least three works of art about the affair that have been both critically notable and commercial hits. (Sources plentifully availably.) That should retire the argument whether or not the affair had an impact or not. (There was a time, remembered by both people who were alive in the 1970s/80s and historians, that the hunt for Nazi criminals was always on the news. We have not forgotten neither those who were brought to justice, nor those who weren't.)

Now, as to your opinion that including these works in the pertinent biography article "trivializes [Mengele's] acts and it not appropriate for this particular article": One would need something more to show cause here, I'm afraid. We have biographical article upon article not just on Nazi criminals (possibly a tautology, that) but on all notable mass criminals - and references to them in popular culture is, rightly, par for the course. This is an encyclopaedia, after all, and we should not be afraid of truths & facts. Wikipedia's article about Adolf Hitler in popular culture contains the most notable works of art concerning or inspired by Hitler and hitlerism and critical references to them! It is an excellent precedent, and it's structured exactly per my revised suggestion for a similar section here. -The Gnome (talk) 07:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I find a clear consensus against including an "in popular culture" section. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the article have an "In popular culture" section?— Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No it should not. The MILHIST wikiproject manual of style specifies not to include a popular culture section "unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture". In my opinion including a list of film portrayals of notorious Nazi war criminals trivializes their acts and it not appropriate for this particular article as Mengele has not actually had a big impact on western culture in spite of being the subject or inspiration for some films.— Diannaa (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• Not on the basis of what I have seen. If Mengele has had a significant influence on modern culture, it should be possible to find reliable sources that explore that influence in a scholarly fashion. Where are they? I don't think the fact we can locate a few books or movies that use Mengele as a character is good enough. Zero^talk 13:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, per Zero. A separate article on this topic could be a runner though. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, unless there are WP:SECONDARY on which a sensible discussion of the topic can be based akin to Waffen-SS in popular culture. —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, per WP:MILPOP. Kierzek (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, as per the above. Sea Ane (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, as per WP:MILPOP and previous comments by Diannaa and others. Mengele has had little influence on popular culture even though he was part of a dark period of history. Zero0000 also brings up an important point and my research could find little support of Mengele's influence on popular culture. The only long lasting influence I found support for is Mengele's influence on the ethics of medical research, but this does not rise to the level justifying the inclusion of what is being requested. Jurisdicta (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• These "in popular culture" lists should be nuked on sight. That said, prose discussions of cultural depictions based on secondary, reliable sources can be included although probably under a different title, such as "Legacy" or "cultural depictions". Mengele's place in popular imagination of the Holocaust is worth mentioning in a more encyclopedic way. For example New York Times states: If anyone embodies the archetype of the evil that was Auschwitz, it is surely Josef Mengele... Popular culture has perpetuated the demonic legend. Rolf Hochhuth’s 1963 play, “The Deputy,” featured a Mengele character with the stature of “absolute evil”; Ira Levin’s 1976 novel (and later film), “The Boys From Brazil,” portrayed the fiendish geneticist cloning Hitler; and none other than Charlton Heston played Mengele meeting his confused and ambivalent son, Rolf, in the 2003 film “My Father, Rua Alguem 5555.”[1] (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: I made similar comments below. - wolf 09:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Exactly, Buidhe. You get it. -The Gnome (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, per Zero.BristolTreeHouse (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, unless there is a strong argument that the person in question had a significant impact on popular culture with a very carefully written and reliably sourced commentary. A random list of items that make a passing reference to the person can only be classed as inappropriate trivia for this type of article. You may as well create a new article called Impact of Nazi war criminals on popular culture and see how long it takes to end up at WP:AFD. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• No - There are very clear rules regarding the addition of Popular Culture sections. Unless there's enough references establishing the importance of the subject to popular culture, we shouldn't include it. Purely on anecdotical level, I can think of several fictional characters that have probably been inspired by the historical Mengele, but unless some quality sources discussing the relationship between Mengele and these characters are present, we shouldn't add them to the page. PraiseVivec (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
• No, per WP:MILPOP - Idealigic (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• No but … , if the Mengele character's role in The Boys from Brazil is as important as that article claims (I don't know the book or film, other than by name) then brief mention is warranted here, somewhere. I sympathise and share the general disdain for these kinds of sections - which frequently become collections of trivia, or sometimes of tasteless 'in-jokes', but there has to be a threshold whereby Mary Stuart or Richard II are mentioned in the articles of the historical persons who they are ostensibly based on. Pedantically, I would point out that Adolf Hitler -simply as an example- has had zero impact on popular culture but Chaplin and the hosts of others who have represented AH in various ways, have had very considerable impact both in terms of the number of representations and the cultural significance of such representations. Being a central character in a major book and film with their own articles would seem to me to pass the threshold where a mention was justified here. I agree with almost everything said by Buidhe above, including his suggested blueprint for a text. Pincrete (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• No,- not someone who is popularly portrayed, not sure of the cultural worth. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
• No per above. ~ HAL333 21:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Adding an additional comment, though Zero0000 has also made the same point in the survey section. The content I removed is simply a list of three of the films that were inspired by Mengele's life and offers no explanation of what lasting impact these films have had on the culture, so I think the list is not a good addition to this article.— Diannaa (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can see how the initial reaction to "In popular culture" with this particular person may seem in poor taste, and comments such as: "...including a list of film portrayals of notorious Nazi war criminals trivializes their acts", seems to confirm that. Even if I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand that reaction. But I think the issue is with the title, as opposed to the content. If there are notable books and films based on Mengele, then that is content that should be included. It's encyclopedic, we don't censor, and trying to hide that those works exist doesn't change the fact they do, nor serve the reader. Adolf Hitler in popular culture is actually it's own page. While I'm not looking to debate that, perhaps in this case, a different title would be a better way to go? Something like "In books and film"...? - wolf 14:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

The same issues apply to this particular article regardless of the section title: unless we've got some sources that demonstrate Mengele has had a significant impact on popular culture, we shouldn't have a list of pop culture appearances. In addition to the list of films, books, and the like, Adolf Hitler in popular culture has 1549 words of sourced analysis on Hitler's impact on the culture. We at present don't have anything comparable for Mengele.— Diannaa (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it seems we've come back to the title. If we remove the idea a "pop culture" connection, and simply list notable works that are based on this person, would that help ameliorate this issue? - wolf 16:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not the wording of the section header that I object to; it's the inclusion of such a section, regardless of what it's called. I've already stated why.— Diannaa (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I can see Diannaa's pov on this (an editor/admin I respect a great deal btw), but find it hard to exclude, say... The Boys from Brazil (film), an triple-Oscar nominated film, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, starring Gregory Peck as Mengele, with Laurence Olivier and James Mason, as well as the book. Content like this is directly related to the article's subject, it's relevant, sourced and arguably encyclopedic. But, I'm not gonna !vote either way. I was basically just playing devil's advocate, looking for a middle ground. Thanks for the replies. Cheers - wolf 18:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: As the contributor who added the removed content, I will only add this to my already delineated opinion: The typical, default title itself for such sections, i.e. In popular culture, is an extremely unfortunate choice because (a) it perforce bundles together very disparate cultural elements, and (b) brings to mind "pop trivia," more than anything. (It is telling that Diannaa used those very words to decribe the removed content in the edit summary.) But a reference in mass/popular culture does not necessarily mean a bubble-gum hit or a superhero movie. And I hope one does not have to argue here against the equation of popularity with triviality! In sum, the attribute of triviality when associated with Nazi war crimes provokes understandable revulsion. -The Gnome (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

obtained his birth cert-expanded?

I think it would be of interest to flesh-out how this happened in the article, with his name being on 'wanted' lists of the West German gov't, I'm assuming? 50.111.52.253 (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Survived removal of kidney without anaesthitic? Really...

The article states:

Yitzhak Ganon, another survivor, reported in 2009 how Mengele removed his kidney without anesthesia. He was forced to return to work without painkillers.[58]

The reference, [58], is to a Spiegel International article which contains this:

Ganon had to lie down on a table and was tied down. Without any anesthetics, Mengele cut him open and removed his kidney. "I saw the kidney pulsing in his hand and cried like a crazy man," Ganon says. "I screamed the 'Shema Yisrael.' I begged for death, to stop the suffering."

After the "operation," he had to work in the Auschwitz sewing room without painkillers. Among other things, he had to clean bloody medical instruments. Once, he had to spend the whole night in a bath of ice-cold water because Mengele wanted to "test" his lung function. Altogether, Ganon spent six and a half months in the concentration camp's hospital.

Is this for real? How can a kidney be extracted withouth anasthetic, given an open renal artery needing suturing and a 'screaming' and presumably writhing patient, who then survives. Why would Mengele have bothered with such a -for him- uninteresting individual?

Highly dubious, especially when it comes out in 2009 - 65 years later - and no compensation claim had been made to the German government. 92.28.23.198 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

We have two kidneys. Kidneys are removed all the time for various reasons (a kidney might be cancerous, for example) without seriously endangering the life of the patient. You might suppose that someone with only one kidney might have at most fifty-percent kidney functioning, but this is not the case. If the remaining kidney is healthy, kidney function will normally be much higher. In any case, it's perfectly possible to survive with twenty-percent kidney function. The sole purpose of an anaesthetic is to eliminate or reduce pain (and Mengeles apparently had no interest in that); it does not preserve the patient's life. The screaming and writhing could have easily been handled by ensuring that the victim was sufficiently bound. The victim would suffer greatly, of course, but Mengeles could plausibly operate without significant interference and without necessarily killing the victim. TheScotch (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Main Photo

Main photo should remove military uniforms that show a prideful Mengele in Nazi clothes. The man is a war criminal and the photo is not victim centric. A disgraced photo of him on the run is more suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthehistory (talk • contribs) 21:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You need to be aware that all the top Nazis wore their uniforms virtually all the time, so to find a compatibly licensed image with civilian clothes will be impossible in most cases. We have very few photos that are compatibly licensed. File:Josef Mengele, Auschwitz. Album Höcker (cropped).jpg gives a better idea of what he actually looked like, as he is not in disguise. — Diannaa (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of the photo in the infobox is to identify the subject of the article, not to right great wrongs or to present a particular point of view. Nazis, including the top brass as well as the rank and file and military, wore their uniforms virtually all the time. So photos of them in uniform are probably better for identification purposes than ones with civilian clothes.— Diannaa (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)