Talk:Konrad Lorenz

message: While I am a great admirer of Mr. Lorenz and his work, I believe it is not justifiable to leave out his at least ambivalent role during the rule of the Nazis. Certain ideas of the Nazis regarding eugenics certainly appealed to him -- though it should also pointed out that eugenics appealed to a whole lot of people throughout the 20th century, including leading American intellectuals and politicians. The German page, unsurprisingly, devotes considerable space to this aspect []Dietwald 07:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that does not follow since the extent of Lorenz' Nazi past was not publicly known at the time of reconciliation. We cannot know what Tinbergen knew about Lorenz' involvement in Nazi warcrimes or whether they shared political views or not. Reliable source state that also Lorenz' post WW@ writings have antidemocratic and eugenic elements similar to aspects of Nazi ideology - so we follow the sources. It is of course hyperbole to claim that he was "a total nazi" - but it is doing History and science a disservice to attempt to exculpate Lorenz etirely and suggest that there was no relatin between his biological and political views when there clearly was.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

text: You are obviously not familiar with the literature on Lorenz' wartime activities. Lorenz worked in the department of racial hygiene and conducted racial experiments on Polish prisoners, participating in determining who could be "germanized" and who should be sent to concentration camps.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably read Ute Deichmann's thorough and well respected historical study before you embarrass yourself further.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Lorenz's role in the Third Reich

message: This article is biased toward Lorenz and his apparent non-envolvement in the Nazi party during WWII.  Please add information relevant to his entire life, not just his scientific ideas.
Also, this article does not cite its references sufficiently.  Dates, as well as facts, need to be diligently documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperFluid (talk • contribs) 05:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vic from the UK writes: Can I add a remark? It is not especially hard to find details of Lorenz's involvement with the Nazi party. Perhaps the Wikipedia entry (which is essentially correct) might fairly remark that public misgivings about his war time affiliations dogged Lorenz on and off for the rest of his career. I wouldn't rush to judge people living in another country and another time, but I might cite a letter from Hans Kruuk's much-praised biography of that other great founder of ethology, Niko Tinbergen ('Niko's Nature'  pbl. OUP 2003). Tinbergen had been friends with Lorenz prior to the war, but was interred by the Nazis and was - inevitably - deeply mindful of the suffering inflicted by them on his native Holland.  Writing to a US ornithologist in 1946, Tinbergen said: "He [Lorenz] was rather nazi-infected, though I always considered him a good fellow. But it is impossible for me to resume contact with him or his fellow countrymen... this is  not a result of a desire for revenge, but we simply cannot bear to see them". Three years later the pair did meet again at a mutual acquaintance's house in London, when their friendship was (according to Kruuk) re-established in an emotional session that ended with Tinbergen saying to Lorenz "We have won!" (ie their friendship had overcome events).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.0.119 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is biased 

message: In the article, I have tagged the phrase "Lorenz's writings about evolution are also now regarded as outdated" thus: " " –Æ. ✉  03:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words

message: It would be better to have a translation directly from German to English, rather than from German to Italian to English. Also, "competition between humans" should perhaps be "competition among humans." Erudil 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Translation

message: Certainly Lorenz did wrong to express support - however briefly and half-heartedly - for Nazi ideology. Six years of captivity in Soviet POW camps is sufficient punishment for that transgression. Erudil 15:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Free speech is just that. To judge what someone said against the politically correct views of a later society is surely meaningless and subject to constant revision. He said what he thought at the time, and western civilisations allow that. We punish for transgressions of the law of the land at the time, not belief or speech, and certainly not with retrospective judgement, otherwise we make a mockery of the idea of 'free speech'. --Memestream (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Konrad paid a penalty

message: :Image:The Russian Manuscript.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:The Russian Manuscript.jpg

message: I propose deleting this section:
His contribution to philosophy
In his 1973 book Behind the Mirror, Lorenz considers the old philosophical question of whether our senses correctly inform us about the world as it is, or provide us only with an illusion. His answer comes from evolutionary biology. Only traits that help us survive and reproduce are transmitted. If our senses gave us wrong information about our environment, we would soon be extinct. Therefore we can be sure that our senses give us correct information, for otherwise we would not be here to be deceived.
I do not think his views have been written about or even seriously considered by any recognized philosopher or work of philosophy. A citation from any source contradicting me would be welcome. Unfortunately his speculation doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Colorblindness and various other congenital conditions are obvious refutations to his statement.  On an individual basis, how can we know whether are parents or other ancestors have such senses or even have existed except through our own senses? There are numberless assumptions about heritability of traits, ancestry, and truth in what we read or hear about them.  It's a nice thought,though. Perhaps a change in the section title might be in order? Cuvtixo (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Deletion: His contribution to philosophy 

message: This sentence should be quoted, modified or deleted altogether (under Politics):
It seems highly likely that Lorenz's ideas about an inherited basis for behavior patterns were congenial to the Nazi authorities, but there is no evidence to suggest that his experimental work was inspired by Nazi ideas. Dingsaller (talk) 10:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words, Verifiability 

message: There is a vandal who keeps inserting claims that Konrad Lorenz was captured by the Soviets in 1944 and spent only 4 years as a POW, from 1944 to 1948. This is false. The historical fact is that he was captured in 1942 and spent 6 years as a POW. The vandal purveyor of untruth should be barred from editing the article on Konrad Lorenz.  Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please provide a source for your "fact" which is contradicted by a a slew of reliable sources already in the article? And then please read WP:VANDAL, and stop referring to non-vandal edits as vandalism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

text: Das Baz's edits contradict the facts which are supported by reliable sources and yet he/she keeps enforcing his/her view. It is insolent that he/she denounces Maunus as an alleged vandal. 㓟 (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Threat from vandal

message: See:
"In 1944, Lorenz was taken prisoner by the Russian army and released only in 1948"
" After serving as a military psychiatrist in Poznan from 1942 to 1944, Lorenz was called up in April 1944 to the Eastern Front as a physician.132 In June, near Vitebsk, the Russians took him prisoner. "
"The Russians captured him in June 1944, and he remained a prisoner of war, working in hospitals in Soviet Armenia, until February 1948"
"In 1944, Lorenz was wounded near Witebsk, and was taken by the Russians as a prisoner of war."
" He was a prisoner of war in the Soviet Union from 1944 to 1948."
Only one book on that page has 1942. The pattern seems to continue, with most books saying 1944 and a handful 1942. 
At something called The Annual Obituary says 1944. So I checked, and his NY Times obit says 1944-1948.. So does the Times Higher Education (the UK Times). The Britannica  says 1944.
Part of the problem, or maybe the problem, is that he seems to have contradicted himself. See - in an"autobiographical note on the occasion of the grant Nobel Prize writes: " In spring 1942 I was sent to the front near Vitebsk and two months later taken prisoner by the Russians " ? (5). While in his autobiography of 1985 was given " In 1944 I was sent to the front to a hospital In Vitebsk". So he's given 2 dates for this. 16:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't seem to be vandalism to say he became a POW in 1944 - hesaid 1944 and 1942 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Konrad Lorenz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041123091548/http://www.univie.ac.at/zoology/nbs/gruenau/ to http://www.univie.ac.at/zoology/nbs/gruenau
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041112095117/http://www.oeaw.ac.at/klivv/ to http://www.oeaw.ac.at/klivv
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This sentence is confusing:
"The precedent narrow-minded catholic regime in Austria induced better and more intelligent men than I was to cherish this naive hope."
1. Does "precedent" here mean "unprecedentedly" ?
If not, it is very unclear to me what it does mean. This needs to be fixed.
2. Does "catholic" refer to Catholicism, the religion?  Because if that is right, then in English this needs to be spelled with a capital letter "C" in order to be clear.
The reason for this — especially in this sentence — is that the word "catholic" spelled with a lower-case letter "c" means exactly the opposite of "narrow-minded". Here is the definition from Merriam-Webster: ": COMPREHENSIVE, UNIVERSAL
especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests".
This is a quote from Lorenz, but presumably it has been translated into English from German.
Maybe there is a more accurate translation?2600:1700:E1C0:F340:60A2:CF71:94D1:77A5 (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence