Talk:Josef Mengele/Debate Guide

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)

Could I point out that the purpose of the Debate Guide is not to have you two debate, but to have you two present the evidence of the two (or more) sides? Clearly, Lifton, for example, believes that Mengele was a war criminal. So an explanation of his position on the matter would be placed under "yes." And as the Debate Guide is not a talk page, the use of first person voice and signatures should be avoided. Russell D. Jones 18:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Modified, as appropriate. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The last paragraph of YES is highly misleading and ambiguous, as well as not being particularly relevant to the position is claims to support -- rather, the opposite I would say. If there is no code of individual responsibility, then how can breaking a non-existent code be a crime? It doesn't make sense. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)