Talk:Josef Mengele

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? [1] — 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). [2] 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)

But you have not addressed my argument. You have just ignored it. My four-point clarifying reply has subsequently been ignored also. I gave above a suggestion for how compromise can easily be reached here. That has been ignored too. :-o

MANY twins DID give interviews in which they described Mengele only as "a gentle and affable man" who befriended them, etc. This is a statement of fact, do people agree so far? To include a sentence that then goes on to explain that positive assessment but then to delete the positive opinion itself, how is that NOT censorship? How is the reader allowed to be informed and decide for themself with this deletion? Mengele himself did claim "I personally have not killed, injured or caused bodily harm to anyone." And here are eye witness accounts (plural) that on the face of it appear to support that, which are being deleted. By all means include the 2ndary sources explanation for that anomaly. But surely we have to also include that anomaly itself!? As I see it, to not do so goes against Wiki presenting information neutrally and without bias.

Please address these points. And if you believe they already have been, please can show me to the exact sentences. I'm a reasonable person.Just talk to my specific points. Thanks in advance.-Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia pass on fairytales? The horror stories have no basis in facts and are fake, just like the soap and lampshade stories.

^ How did you determine that the stories are fake? What point are you trying to make, that none of this happened and should be ignored? Seems like a pretty far-fetched consipracy that all of the survivor accounts were untrue. Information on Mengele's actions come from victims, other SS personell, and even his own diary. Seems like the reality would be that there are even worse facts considering how Verschuer destroyed Mengele's documentation/evidence. UselessToRemain (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll add my .02. I don't want to go into every point made above because it would take all day to process mentally. However there are a couple thoughts that come to mind.

I don't understand why Mengele's quote about never having killed/hurt anyone would be relevant to the argument about why the quote should stay. Kanye West claims to be a genius, David Allan Coe claims he is not a racist. Doesn't make it true and it should only be included as a quote, not as a fact. My POV is that it seems like he may have been in denial if he really thought that as it is contrary to much testimony. Furthermore, there are 2 instances of his claim to have never harmed anyone - one to his child Rolf and another relayed by Hans Sedlmeier. IMO that quote is given its due here but is a quote from the man rather than a fact about him and therefore is somewhat trivial. I might have missed your point with that though so do elaborate if I'm missing something.

As far as the topic of concern here(the "gentle/affable man" quote), I think there is sufficient similar sentiment throughout the article and I think adding any more would be giving undue weight that he was such a "kind" man. A quick glance at the article unveils the following: "subjects of Mengele's research were better fed and housed," "Mengele the Protector," "capable of being so kind to the children," "Many recalled his friendly manner towards them, and his gifts of chocolate." Seems like these quotes are intercepted with negatives as well in an appropriate manner. My opinion is that this should suffice in terms of the positive aspects of the man. This is just my opinion, fortunately I was not involved personally so I'm not the guru. UselessToRemain (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

 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. — Bility (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

He was an atheist.

If he was an atheist that should be written at the sidebar (religion/worldview: atheist) This because of two reasons 1) if its true its true, 2) when people debate religion it needs to be stated who was evil and cruel as theist and who was evil and cruel as atheist. It´s very relevant in the "culture wars".

So was he an athiest or not? The title here states he was, but the sentence says "if he was." It's important but I don't think I've ever read anything that specified if he was or not. I agree with you but the below comment is correct that the culture wars is not the correct reason to add this. It should be added if it is correct and possible to verify so people have factual information on the topic. UselessToRemain (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If it's true put it in the article because it's valid and has sources. Not because you want to fight "culture wars". 170.3.8.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Names and dates wrong

His second name wasn' t Rudolf, that was a myth created by the internet. The is no serious source that contains that information, in the Posner book is not mentioned that his second name was Rudolf or that he had any second name at all. In his SS record it' s not mentioned or listed, he never signed as Rudolf either so it' s just a myth. Some people will also say that his second name was Wilhelm because his grandfather was called like that, that' s another myth, actually, none of his close ascendants were called Wilhelm, nor Rudolf. Here is his family tree if anyone is interested:

Josephus Xavierus Mengele (1788-???) married ????? son: Alois Mengele (1843-1917) married Theresia Maier (or Mayr) (1846-1918) Son: Karl Mengele

Joseph Hupfauer (????- 1914) married Theresia Bux (1850-1897) Daughter: Walburga Theresia Hupfauer

Karl Mengele (1884-1959) (some say 1881) married Walburga Hupfauer (1880-1946) (some say 1890) Sons: Josef Mengele (1911-1979) - Karl Thaddeus Mengele (1912-1949) - Alois Mengele (1914-1974)

Also, his son Rolf wasn' t born in 1941, he was born in 1944, I fixed that.

--Beppo911 (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

My contribution was reverted due to "Odd date changes"??? PLEASE, it' s common knowledge that Rolf Mengele was born in 1944, it' s in every book imaginable and he even mentions it himself! --Beppo911 (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are unsourced, and keep breaking links to (for example) audio files. Please review WP:V and WP:RS, and bring reliable sources for your claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Impossible Dates.

"In 1950, he was placed in the reserve medical corps, after which he served with the 5th SS Panzergrenadier Division Wiking in the Eastern Front. In 1952" Im guessing its vandalism. will switch it back. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)