Talk:List of medical eponyms with Nazi associations

Title

Unrelated to the deletion debate, is it correct to have the words in the title starting with uppercase?--Mjpresson (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not. I dislike the title of the article entirely, though. I'm waiting for the AfD to close and/or inspiration to strike me before I propose anything, since I have nothing better to offer at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Just a thought that may need serious consideration - would Iraeli sources be entirely neutral in this, given their special interest in de-nazification? Should we look for corroborative sources elsewhere where possible? A person reading these and then finding that all the "objections" for some items were by Israeli researchers might conclude non-neutrality. How do we ensure it's not. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure we're going to find any unbiased sources: Who is going to write an article saying "No, really, keeping the eponym for X is OK"? Having said that, right now the IMAJ article is low-hanging fruit: it's a one-article summary of a bunch of issues. Beyond that, I think we can at the very least classify the terms into 1) terms that have already been abandoned, 2) terms falling out of favor, and 3) terms that are still in widespread use. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

But terms falling out of favor according to whom and how much? For example one article concludes a term became less popular during a fairly short five year period 50 years after the events concerned. Hardly stunning news.

Neutral sources may well all agree on the matter. Having neutral sources doesn't mean looking for objections or "keeping the term". It means sources who will objectively comment on the matter and how significant it is. We have few sources if any that say this is more than a fringe view, and those that do speak about it largely have a vested interest in a specific finding/conclusion. That's the NPOV concern. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there's a host of major medical journals that have commented on the matter. FRINGE, in the traditional Wikipedia sense, is incompatible with the RS evidence. Are you suggesting that the entire medical community has a vested interest, and that we'd need sourcing from e.g. the popular press? Give me some better idea of what you're looking for, and I'll see if I can go find it. Jclemens (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Is not the issue with the article the passive voice used throughout? "which have been associated" should be "which have been associated BY" and then who makes the claim. "active lobbying efforts" should be "active lobbying efforts BY". The article is essentially tracking a dispute between two parties, each representing a usage of language. The fact that it might be a fairly one-sided battle, and all but settled, doesn't stop it being a dispute (otherwise there wouldn't be an article), so at all stages it's important to note who is saying what, and where. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I think I fixed (well, or at least changed) most of these passive voice issues when I rewrote the opening section yesterday. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

List?

Is a list really the best way to present this information? There are perhaps 30ish entries, but in trying to flesh out a list, I'm seeing a lot more information that could be presented... though perhaps not in tabular formation. Opinions welcome. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

At first glance, my opinion is that a list makes sense. If we start adding a bunch of information about each condition, we'll end up with a long and difficult-to-read article. Perhaps any detailed information that you find (i.e. about the history of the condition, why it was named after that person, how it came to be renamed to something more generic, etc.) could be added to the article on the disease/condition. SnottyWong ^confess 23:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I played around with reformatting the table a bit and put it at User:Snottywong/sandbox. Think it's better/worse, or any comments? Feel free to modify it. SnottyWong ^gossip 16:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's MUCH better--I was thinking along those lines. The column on discouragement efforts was too sparsely populated, and if we're going to move away from block quotes, the "citation" column really does need to move inline. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

Bravo on the great job rescuing this article!--Mjpresson (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Up for DYK...

Wikipedia:TDYK#List of medical eponyms with Nazi associations‎‎ Jclemens (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's been approved, and should be up on the main page in 29 hours. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Guilty? Not Guilty? Possibly Guilty? Looks like there should be several lists!

The information provided in the entry shows that some of the individual researchers who names are attached to various eponyms were convicted of war crimes or committed suicide to avoid prosecution, but that in the case of some of the others the Israeli (?) group investigating this issue admits that there is no proof that these researchers participated in criminal research. Without conclusive proof of guilt an objective student of history must wonder if individuals in the latter category are being persecuted for being Germanic.

Do we take someone's name off something they discovered because they might have been contact with others who were using concentration came inmates in experiments, or because they did research after 1945 when the Nazi research system had been destroyed?

On a broader and fully objective level what research is being done to indentify medical researchers of other nationalities whose fame may be based on discoveries made through experimentation on unwilling or uninformed human subjects? One example of this type of research outside the context of Nazi Germany would be the American research project that tracked the course of untreated syphilis on a group of African-American men without their knowledge or consent from the mid-1930s onward.

What has the research group found regarding the use of prisoners for medical research in the Soviet Union and early Showa Japan (1925-1945)?

Have there been any reports of prisoner populations being exploited for medical research purposes in the People's Republic of China or the People's Democratic Republic of Korea?

Hopefully the group that is investigating this issue as it relates medical research by Germans during the Third Reich era will thoroughly investigate this subject as it applies to other nations and political systems as well. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia does not assess guilt or innocence; it merely reports what reliable secondary sources are saying about a topic. If you're concerned that other lists might have enough such sources to be created, yet are not, then feel free to go start one. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work

Overall looks reasonably good now, and fairly stated. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Excessive use of quotations?

I see this article was re-written under time pressure at AfD, but practically every line in the table is associated with a full quote, which seems excessive; see {{Quote farm}} Tijfo098 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Eventually, I expect to be rewriting it. Right now, I'm intentionally erring on the side of over-quotation because of the sensitive and nuanced nature of the accusations against these gentlemen. BLP doesn't apply, but due caution does. If you'd like to help rewrite any particular quote into a good, accurate paraphrase, feel absolutely free to do so. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Asperger Debate

There is some debate as to whether Hans Asperger was connected to the Nazi party or not. I think we should at least mention it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDracologist (talk • contribs) 03:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

We have an RS saying he was. Is there another RS saying he was not? Jclemens (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Would this count? TheDracologist (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)