Talk:Josef Mengele: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(Identified deletions)
Line 26: Line 26:
::::Howard, that is not neutral. I am repeating my alterations. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::::Howard, that is not neutral. I am repeating my alterations. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::I did not delete any paragraphs. Check the history. I have reverted because I do not accept that you can use the word criminal without legal process. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::::I did not delete any paragraphs. Check the history. I have reverted because I do not accept that you can use the word criminal without legal process. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 02:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
::::::First, we are no longer required to be "neutral". We are required to be "objective". Objectivity, in my opinion, is based on a preponderance of expert opinion. Is there serious opinion that says Hitler or Goering cannot be called a criminal because they were never tried?
::::::I'd welcome another History or Military editor helping make the determination of what is acceptable. I do not accept that "criminal" cannot represent expert opinion when it was impossible to try an individual, and it is not even clear who had authority to try the accused. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
===Deletion===
You deleted,
<blockquote>
Different observers questioned the quality of his experimentation. Lengyel said "His experiments were carried out in abnormal fashon. When he made blood transfusions her purposely used incorrect blood types. He did whatever pleased him and conducted his experiments like a rank amateur. He would inject substances and then ignore the results. He was not a savant. His was the mania of a collector."  Nyiszli also called his work "[[pseudoscience]]". <ref>Astor, p. 102</ref>
</blockquote><blockquote>
Lifton also called him a "collector". He quotes a prisoner anthropologist, Teresa W., said the measurements were taken in an accepted manner. Mengele himself, however, wrote, in his 1935 dissertation, "It is not useful to take as many measurements as possible; one must restrict oneself to the most significant ones."<ref>Lifton, pp. 344-366</ref></blockquote>
I restored it, with the additional information that Teresa W. was subsequently identified as Dr. Martina Puzyna. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:17, 12 November 2010

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Debate Guide [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition (1911-1979) A Nazi SS Hauptsturmfuhrer and physician at Auschwitz Concentration Camp, involved in direct killings and nonconsensual medical experiments on humans. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories History, Health Sciences and Military [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Nazism
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Helpful person with JSTOR access?

Could anyone get the full text of http://www.jstor.org/pss/986198, which appears to have a good deal on Otto von Verscheur, Mengele's mentor and technical supervisor?

I don't have at the moment, sorry :-( Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


war criminal

How can he have been a war criminal if he was never prosecuted? This is legally incorrect, and any quotation that describes him as a war criminal is stating an opinion and not a legal fact. This is a problem. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

There was no quote containing the words "war criminal". I did clarify, in two places, that he was listed as a suspect. Please give specific references to things you believe need to be corrected.
If there had been such a quote, it would have been an opinion; that is why it would be a cited quote.
Also, the entire war crimes process was not strictly founded in law. Nevertheless, there was at least some legal basis, for acts against civilians. in the Hague Conventions. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I have altered them. Could you also please be sure to reference specific accusations against him? I know we don't always do so on CZ, but for this I think we need to. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see the alterations when I wrote the talk page note, but I have restored Lifton's comment about him as a war criminal, phrasing it as an opinion. Lifton is generally believed to be the best source on Nazi atrocities.
I am not willing to banish the phrase war criminal, but I am willing to make it opinion. Neither the International Military Tribunal nor the Nuremberg Military Tribunal worked by strict rules of evidence. The preponderance of evidence here, and the fact of his flight, means that things need to be addressed in the context of the law of the time.
Are you saying there was not sworn testimony about crimes? I see no reason, then, to take it out and suggest something as vague as "some think." This article is quite contextualized and gives other factors, such as the influence of von Verschuer, but objectivity does not require phrasing everything with a presumption of evidence. Or should we suggest Hitler himself merely had crimes "alleged"?
I also restored two paragraphs about his experimentation, directly quoted both from people who worked with him and generally accepted experts. These were over 50 words; please do not delete so much without discussion. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Howard, that is not neutral. I am repeating my alterations. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not delete any paragraphs. Check the history. I have reverted because I do not accept that you can use the word criminal without legal process. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
First, we are no longer required to be "neutral". We are required to be "objective". Objectivity, in my opinion, is based on a preponderance of expert opinion. Is there serious opinion that says Hitler or Goering cannot be called a criminal because they were never tried?
I'd welcome another History or Military editor helping make the determination of what is acceptable. I do not accept that "criminal" cannot represent expert opinion when it was impossible to try an individual, and it is not even clear who had authority to try the accused. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

You deleted,

Different observers questioned the quality of his experimentation. Lengyel said "His experiments were carried out in abnormal fashon. When he made blood transfusions her purposely used incorrect blood types. He did whatever pleased him and conducted his experiments like a rank amateur. He would inject substances and then ignore the results. He was not a savant. His was the mania of a collector." Nyiszli also called his work "pseudoscience". [1]

Lifton also called him a "collector". He quotes a prisoner anthropologist, Teresa W., said the measurements were taken in an accepted manner. Mengele himself, however, wrote, in his 1935 dissertation, "It is not useful to take as many measurements as possible; one must restrict oneself to the most significant ones."[2]

I restored it, with the additional information that Teresa W. was subsequently identified as Dr. Martina Puzyna. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

  1. Astor, p. 102
  2. Lifton, pp. 344-366