User talk:Russell D. Jones/Mengele

From Editor's Talk Page

Obviously unofficial, but I am continuing to improve the non-stub war crimes at User: Howard C. Berkowitz/W and Mengele at User: Howard C. Berkowitz/M. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lack of current information here.

Just to clarify, so there’s no misunderstanding or hard feeling, this issue is above editor input level.

This matter has gone to the ME and the Ombudsman, and is currently before the EC as Case http://locke.citizendium.org/cz_ec/DR-2010-001.

I believe that due to the time zone difference, the EC Secretary will have retired already, which is the reason I’m commenting.

I am sure the EC will contact Dr. Jones officially should his input be needed.

Aleta Curry 05:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, I didn't post a request, but are you saying that no one can comment or read the materials without EC approval, if it's simply a matter of interest? Although no rules have been written for the procedure, are you saying that the accused could not seek opinions? Howard C. Berkowitz 05:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe my words were clear. Aleta Curry 05:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept that anything is "above the editor input level", or for that matter above comment by non-editor citizens. It may be out of scope for an editor decision, as this appears to be, but not for input.

The Charter says "Whenever possible, disputes shall be settled informally at the lowest possible level by subject matter Editors." In my view, this dispute should obviously have gone there first. I do not at all regret trying to involve these editors, only that I did so rather late. They are, after all, the experts on the issues at hand. Sandy Harris 05:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

But one aspect of the dispute is which workgroups the articles should be in, and hence which editors might have authority. Only the EC could decide that authoritatively. Peter Jackson 10:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that the disputant took it to the ME immediately, and subsequently rejected the role of the Ombudsman, i have to say that I find Sandy's position quite incomprehensible. The matter has gone to the Editorial Council, and that is that. Any Citizen is, of course, perfectly entitled to consult any Editor in any workgroup for advice and opinion; however, it is a matter of common courtesy to inform that person that he or she is potentially getting involved in a formal dispute procedure of CZ. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Workgroup Editor Suggestion

Article 40: Whenever possible, disputes shall be settled informally at the lowest possible level by subject matter Editors.

Sandy Harris was correct to ask the Workgroup Editors to intervene in this dispute. If the workgroup's solution is not acceptable to the parties, they are free to use the other remedies outlined in Article 40. Russell D. Jones 14:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well. not really, Russell. There are too many other factors involved. For the sake of resolving the specific matter of usage of the term "war criminal", I am prepared to engage in your debate -- which I do agree is an appropriate way to discuss such issues. Thank you for your help. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really, Martin. It's a content dispute. If you wish to use this as an example for policy formation that's another matter. And it's not "my debate." It's your debate. I think most of the discussion on the talk page has merit. I think also we should resign ourselves to the fact that scholars often are never able to persuade opponents of the correctness of their views. But this fact does not invalidate those views. I think the solution I propose here moves the debate from the attempt to reach consensus on controversial matters to a recognition of the validity of opposing points of view. Yes, many people consider Mengele a war criminal; No, he was never tried so his war criminal status was never confirmed. Someone could even write a "maybe" position. Russell D. Jones 15:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The petition lodged with the EC goes far wider than content, which you are probably not aware of, Russell. But I have no problem with your approach here, which I consider very helpful for content disputes on CZ.

Was Mengele a War Criminal?

The authors of this article have discovered a fundamental dispute about this topic. Obviously, there is no "correct" answer to this question, although two principal authors of this article have found different ways to argue the proposition. This debate has intellectual merit and is worthy for a proper intellectual discussion. The two sides will not reach agreement about a definitive answer to this question.

I therefore propose that each side present cogent arguments (and counter arguments) in civil and professional ways on the Josef Mengele/Debate Guide page. This debate should be referenced in the main article along the lines "there has been some debate about whether or not Mengele was a war criminal (see debate guide for more)." But the main article does not need to elaborate or rehash the debate. Let the readers decide for themselves which argument is correct. I think most readers will find merit in both positions. After all, neither side is arguing that what Mengele did was not an affront to humanity. I think most readers will understand that. Russell D. Jones 14:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

For an example of how this works see Thomas Jefferson#President: Troubled second term, 1805-1809 and Thomas Jefferson/Debate Guide.

I agree there are many other factors, but this may be constructive. May I clarify one thing?

I, Howard Berkowitz, never said, in my own words, that Mengele was a war criminal. I used a single direct quote from Robert Jay Lifton, which was in the context of social effects -- books, plays, and movies inspired by the "mythic" quality of Mengele. The article does have part of the history of accusations against him, but I never explicitly called him a war criminal -- suspect at best.

In User: Howard C. Berkowitz/M, I have continued to clarify this and other issues. In User: Howard C. Berkowitz/W, I elaborate on "war criminal". The links have related text boxes.

I submit these links purely for information, not for argument. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article follows convention. But, if you wish to make a stronger case, there is a venue for that. Russell D. Jones 15:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Use of the term

Question: Should the term "war criminal" be used in the main article to describe Mengele?

As per above, that neither side will be able to resolve concretely the question of whether or not Mengele was a war criminal, the article should recognize the controversial nature of this term and use it sparingly. There are some facts that must be included, however. The current text in the Josef Mengele#Postwar heading seems mostly objective. It states that there is some controversy among the War Crimes Tribunals and among the historians as to whether or not Mengele was officially identified as a suspected war criminal. I would like to see, however, this vagueness cleared up. Surely there are lists of people identified by the War Crimes Tribunal as suspected war criminals. Proper evidence will resolve this.

Regarding the use of the term in the lede, I don't see anything that controversial there. The use of waffle language "he ... committed what many consider to be individual crimes" seems appropriate for and introduction.

Regarding comments in the Auschwitz section, I'd like to see citation for "he was widely accused of random acts of gratuitious cruelty and murder." Russell D. Jones 15:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, there are examples of suspected war criminals, who were indicted and tried but acquitted. Just because they were indicted and tried, does not necessarily make them war criminals. In this case, I think the most we can say of Mengele is that he was suspected of war crimes but never tried. But I think for the most part, the article in its current form, makes this claim. Russell D. Jones 15:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I've continued to work on this in userspace, and will try to answer some of your additional questions there since the main article is locked. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And I agree with Russell. Howard seems to have done a fine job stating some very political "hot potatoes". I also believe Howard should be given the opportunity to complete the article he started. Editors can later step in and edit the article for style and content, if needed. As I have written before: you need to allow writers to write and editors to edit. You need both to have articles.Mary Ash 15:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: was Lifton's use of the term legitimate?

Unless the reputation and credibility of Lifton can be established, no, I don't think that his use of the term was legitimate and I think it was proper to elide the use of the term "war criminal" in his quotation. If you want to put in "[suspected]" into the quote and restore "war criminal" to make Lifton's words accurate, that would be okay with me. Russell D. Jones 16:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be proper to discuss in the Debate Guide the rationale for Lifton's use of the term. Russell D. Jones 16:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

I have reviewed all of the commentary and text. I have commented on the major questions raised on the talk page that I have considered content issues and have offered some solutions to them.

I further think that the article, since it is not yet approved by the history workgroup, be moved to Josef Mengele/Draft and the mainspace page be blanked until the content is approved. But I think, also, that this should be universal policy for all CZ drafts. So such a page move is not for me to decide here now.

There are other questions of policy regarding neutrality and objectivity. In short, I find the article to be (mostly) objective but not neutral. But I also believe that such a opinion is consistent with CZ's goals and purpose. History is never neutral but always reflects the biases of its authors (just like all writing, including science). To remove these biases is to remove authorship. But to reflect on these biases and account for them is to make the presentation of the evidence and the story more objective. How authors and editors are to accomplish this at CZ is not for me to decide here. Nor was I asked to give an opinion on the neutrality or objectivity of the writing. I just offer this as food for thought.

Last, I would like this page to be moved to the Josef Mengele cluster, either as a subpage or included in the talk page. I don't want this under my User space.

Russell D. Jones 16:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)