Talk:Josef Mengele/Debate Guide: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz
(Will argue the "maybe" position, and decide who argues "yes")
Line 11: Line 11:


::This is a debate guide to the terminology in the Mengele article. i am deleting nothing. I suggest that you put some cogent arguments on the page. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
::This is a debate guide to the terminology in the Mengele article. i am deleting nothing. I suggest that you put some cogent arguments on the page. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
:::I shall, therefore, put a "Maybe" position on the page, which is my actual position. Either one of us can give the argument "yes".  I will not, however, merely put up a heading, but at least 50 words so they cannot be deleted without discussion.
:::If you are arguing "no", you certainly can argue against the "maybe" position there, in a reasoned manner, or at least the emotional position permissible in debate. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:23, 22 November 2010

Debate guide, not arguing article

I reiterate that I, in my own words, have never called Mengele a "war criminal". Robert Jay Lifton, then of CUNY and now a semiretired visiting professor at Harvard Medical School, a distinguished writer on The Genocidal Mentality (coincidentally the title of another book), is quoted in using it in a very specific context -- the quote makes no sense if the words are elided.

Nevertheless, if we follow Russell's suggestion of making this a debate guide, comments about specific articles are irrelevant.

If I write a "maybe", I'd further contextualize his quote. My "maybe" position, really more appropriate to war crime than Mengele alone, is that the unqualified term was used in 1945-1950 historiography and precedent-setting tribunals. It is not used in contemporary international law or historiography. Insisting on rigorous in the past is presentism; Lifton's reference was for impact and can be contextualized. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I intend to restore my Maybe and add arguments for it. Further, I request that Martin delete the paragraph arguing about the article in its present form, which I have offered to modify once it is unlocked AND a debate guide added to receive the questionable quote.
He certainly can use his words to speak against calling Mengele a war criminal, but all should be aware I personally have never done so -- I've used words such as "alleged" or "suspected". The only positive statement in the article that refers to him as a "war criminal" is a direct quote from Robert Jay Lifton, a widely accepted authority on Mengele and the broader context of Nazi medical atrocities. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
This is a debate guide to the terminology in the Mengele article. i am deleting nothing. I suggest that you put some cogent arguments on the page. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I shall, therefore, put a "Maybe" position on the page, which is my actual position. Either one of us can give the argument "yes". I will not, however, merely put up a heading, but at least 50 words so they cannot be deleted without discussion.
If you are arguing "no", you certainly can argue against the "maybe" position there, in a reasoned manner, or at least the emotional position permissible in debate. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)