# Talk:Josef Mengele

Hi Diannaa, curious why you reverted back to the wellesley source here? That site is just a copy paste of the original NY Times article. Isn't that a WP:COPYVIO source? I thought it make more sense to use the NY Times link, which is why I made the change. Zenomonoz (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the NY Times link, but I also added an archive link that has access to the full article in NY Times. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
That's a good idea. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, shifting conversation from my talk page to here :)
One change of my contributions I disagree with is this sentence: Marwell believes that Mengele was administering adrenaline drops into the eyes of subjects while researching the condition heterochromia (color differences of the iris) as part of a collaboration with biologist and eugenicist Karin Magnussen in Berlin, who carried out Reich-funded research on the genetics of eye color at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology.
My issue lies with the first two words and how they related to the second half of the sentence. It is established that Mengele was working in collaboration with Magnussen. The opening – "Marwell believes" – suggests this whole collaboration is just speculation. The speculation/belief is mores about the chemical used was actually adrenaline.
Perhaps it could be modified to something like: "According to Marwell, evidence indicates that Mengele was most likely administering adrenaline into the eyes of subjects while researching condition heterochromia; as a part of his collaboration with biologist and eugenicist Karin Magnussen who researched the genetics of eye color at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin.
In another reliable book on Nazi experimentation, Paul Weindling also writes: "While it is said that Mengele wished to change eye colour, more likely is an investigation to isolate and determine genetic factors" (page 132). Another good source.
Weindling cites this book as further reading on the revelations regarding Mengele and Magnussen's eye research. So this is not just Marwell's stance alone.
Zenomonoz (talk) 03:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't used your exact wording, because on page 101 Marwell states there were four components to Magnussen's research: studying the anatomy of the eye; genetic studies involving breeding rabbits; introducing hormones and other substances into the eyes to try to influence eye color; and studies on the development of eye pigment in children. So the introduction of adrenalin into the eye not part of her genetics studies. It was a separate study. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood what Marwell is getting at, and what Weindling also affirmed.
You state: "the introduction of adrenalin into the eye not part of her genetics studies", and here you state "you can't change genes by injecting things".
Nobody said anything about "changing genes by injecting things". Rather, if certain hormones on the eye can produce changes in pigment, then you can potentially isolate genetic pathways that effect eye colour in the first place. That is, if a certain hormone produces changes in eye pigment, then you might want to look at genetics that affect the production of that said hormone in development.
I don't think you should be deleting WP:RS analysis an expert like Weindling, because you don't believe that technically non-genetic experiments can contribute to understanding of genetics. This was the type of genetics research that was done before the structure of DNA was discovered. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
Diannaa, In addition to my issues highlighted above, would you also remove a quote of an inmate doctor stating they were using adrenaline from the page? Zenomonoz (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
On page 102 of Marwell it states that the introduction of adrenaline or other hormones was to test whether they had any impact on the development of pigment in the eyes. We have already said that, in the opening paragraph of the section. I found the the quote from Weindling unclear, implying that genes could be changed, so I took it out.Another consideration: Wikipedia articles are supposed to be comprised of freely licensed prose that we write ourselves; it's not intended to be a collection of non-free quotations. Quotes should be used sparingly, and only when necessary. Please see our Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline for more details.Regarding the second quote I removed: We don't need the quote from a doctor stating he used adrenaline; we've already stated it using our own words, so we don't need it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
If you read the subchapter on eye-studies in full, it is quite clear that Marwell is discusses the pigmentation research as relating to the understanding of genetics behind eye colour. Mengele and Magnussen were trained in genetics. E.g. "It was theorized that eye color was dependent on “various pigment-forming, pigment-distributing, and pigment-concentrating genetic factors.”
We don't need the quote from a doctor stating he used adrenaline – detailed forensics are useful for the reader to understand what Mengele was doing. We don't need the quote, we can just say something like "Inmate physician Rudolf Diem stated that Mengele ordered doctors to use eye drops containing adrenaline on people with different color irises".
I found the the quote from Weindling unclear, implying that genes could be changed, so I took it out – this is a repeat of what you already said. I explained that this had nothing to do with the idea that "genes could be changed". I'm not just going to accept the discarding a very reliable historian on Nazi human experimentation because an editor does not understand it. I want to restore it.
Zenomonoz (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
I will explain my actions another way. I removed the quotes because the section was disproportionately long, giving undue weight to this one topic compared to the rest of the material on his human experiments. The eye studies section contained four quotations, of which I removed three. The quotes seem unnecessary, because we have already explained adequately and in our own words. I also found one quote to have an unclear meaning. Another valid reason for removal: excessive or unneeded quotes are problematic under our non-free content guideline. My personal opinion is that excessive quotes don't make an article better; they make it worse. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Alright, but I can rework some of those quotes as short sentences. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Article needs delisting as a GA, by the way. Not stable, content dispute. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Articles are not de-listed for routine content disputes. This is a minor content dispute that seems to be over. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers – thank you for your reply on teahouse, I felt I should move this over here because this is a content and sourcing dispute that Diannaa is a party to. I think we need independent input.

"I think Diannaa is serious about creating and maintaining top-quality work" – yesterday she cited a book on twin numbers. The author isn't a topic expert on Mengele, and the book claims that two boys "were stitched together [by Mengele] like Siamese twins; they screamed night and day before they died”. The Auschwitz museum and Mengele historians consider this to be a myth [1][2].
I had previously advised editors (in conversations above) to avoid sources that were repeating this discredited hearsay, and Diannaa was in some of these conversations. I proposed we use historians who are experts on Mengele, such as David G. Marwell and Paul Weindling. Editors cannot be picking and choosing which parts are “true” and then ignoring the rest of the source. Why direct readers to these sources?
Diannaa told me [3] that my citations are a problem, because this is a "good article". She had no issue when editors added a large list of frankenstein surgery hearsay in WP:WIKIVOICE. As I'm reworking to remove them and update the article with high quality academic sources, suddenly there is a non-existent rule that I must use the paperback? She has become concerned about ensuring attribution to Marwell (framing it as 'belief', and trimming back evidence seemingly supports his less sensational forensic account). She's also removed some of my additions which use expert sources like Weindling because she doesn't think they "make sense" (see above).
I'm happy to have Diannaa evaluate and modify my additions. But she has not addressed this citation/sourcing question (I tagged her on teahouse). I want to continue overhauling the article, is she going to let me do this without the paperback per WP:EBOOK? And will she continue using sources that repeat sensational hearsay that is largely rejected by expert consensus?
Zenomonoz (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

We can absolutely use our editorial discretion to include parts of a book and not other parts. If you think the error is serious enough to disqualify the whole book, that's a reasonable take. If there's no consensus on that point, consider WP:RSN, but it's tough to get an informed opinion when everyone involved is an apparently reliable historian. I don't see any "make sense" discussion above, so I'm not sure which prior section you're referring to.
I continue to believe that citation of ebooks is perfectly appropriate, so I'd oppose anyone objecting solely based on the format of a source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. That is sensible.
Regarding the confusion over the discussion It was this which I discussed here.
Zenomonoz (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The page numbers I have provided are from the hardcover edition, ISBN 978-0-393-60954-7. The paperback edition appears to have the same page numbering, since the hardcover describes the death as a stroke on page 233. If you could check a few of the page numbers that I already added to confirm, that would be great. Thanks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, yes they do seem to align. For me the epilogue ends on page 345. Notes start on 353?   Zenomonoz (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Yes. The page numbers are the same.I was thinking of working on early life and pre-Auschwitz military career. I will verify material from Posner & Ware and add anything that's new or make corrections if warranted. Posner wrote some really good books but a 1986 book (written before the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1991) might be missing information not available at that time. But let's not overdo it though; over-relying on Marwell, while probably better than over-relying on Posner & Ware, would not be appropriate. Thanks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

I've switched the lead from where he was nicknamed the "Angel of Death", to read often dubbed the "Angel of Death" to better align it with Britannica. 
As Marwell notes in the Jewish Report, "There’s a whole series of Mengele-like caricatures which have populated culture since the 1960s. I couldn’t find the first use of ‘Angel of Death’, and I’m not sure when it happened, but he is certainly far more notorious and famous at that point than he was in 1945. [4]
As far as historians know, he wasn't necessarily called the angel of death until after the war. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Diannaa, do you think it might be worth having a few sentences briefly covering the other experiments carried out by other doctors (mentioned by Marwell)? This could help clear up some of the misattribution to Mengele, as readers might wonder why some of the more disturbing ones are not mentioned (x-ray sterilisation and genital removal, for example). Zenomonoz (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

No. I think it's off-topic. If such material was present at the time of the GA nomination, I would likely be asked to remove it. Also, it borders on original research to speculate as to why people attribute other people's activities to Mengele. You would also need a source thas specifically states that experiments or procedures conducted by others have been misattributed to Menegele. Saying it without a source means we are drawing our own conclusions, which is original research, which is not allowed.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense. Some sources refer to misattribution to Mengele (a Weindling source I have) but don’t specifically outline which things were misattributed. So we can probably only say some things are misattributed, that were in fact carried out by other doctors. I’ll have a look tomorrow. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
If you find it, the section "Myths and apocryphal anecdotes" would be a good location. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Josef Rudolf Mengele has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 26 § Josef Rudolf Mengele until a consensus is reached.  PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)