This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ingeborg Rapoport article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User Tataral wrote in defense of Nowaks vandalism:
On the contrary: The user Tadeusz Nowak (who was blocked for vandalism in March this year) has wrecked what has been a sound Wikipedia-Entry before. He introduced a great deal of false facts into the article. He also muddled it up with politically tainted and judgemental vocabulary. Like he did with other articles too, he tried to abuse this Wikipedia-entry to express his own political views.
I have undertaken a considerable effort to revert the article to Wikipedia-Standards. What you inappropriately call „mass deletions“ was in fact the rectification of Nowaks false facts as well as the return to a more objective, appropriate language. In other words, I have cleaned up the mess of a known Wikipedia-vandalist.
Now. As it seems necessairy to repeat myself: Rapoport was first and foremost a pediatrician. That was her profession. She dedicated most of her life to being a doctor. As such, she helped to considerably lower the infant mortality in east germany. Pursuing these activities made by far the greatest part of her life, not only in East Germany, but also in Nazi-Germany (where she studied and graduated to become a doctor) and in the US (where she had to study anew and eventually became a pediatrician).
In East Germany, she neither did a whole lot of teaching, nor write a textbook, nor contributed in any other important way to the academic agenda of east germany. Her main contribution was her work as a pediatrician. Also, as repeatedly stated and admitted by you, she was not a political functionary. It is therefore inappropriate and misleading to portrait her as a political figure or abuse the article to voice your own political opinions.
Frankly, you seem to have completely misunderstood her biography and her merits. Take for example your following assertion:
— Excuse me, but why should it be „misleading“ to state the very fact that R. was denied her Ph.D. by the Nazis for being classified as a „Mischling“ - an injustice which was corrected by taking her oral examn at the age of 102? And what exactly has this episode to do with her being part of the East German academical life? The connection that you insinnuate between these aspects of her life is unreasonable at best, if not purely nonsensical.
Undisputedly, Rapoport holds political views in defence of East Germany and communism in general. Therefore, a separate section of the article is devoted to that part of her life. I do not find it hard to understand that it is advisable to move all political commentary to that section. Also, it would be in accordance with Wikipedias NPOV-policy.
Lastly your false accusation of me writing a „hagiography“. The proposition „She fought for social justice“ refers directly to a number of statements R. gave in interviews about her motivation of working as a pediatrician (see eg the movie „Die Rapoports - Unsere drei Leben“ by S. Hüetlin and B. Wauer). It therefore refers to her life-long struggle to lower infant mortality, which, obviously, has a lot to do with social justice (infant mortality is higher in the poorer class of populations). Since indeed, she achieved remarkable success in lowering infant mortality, it is therefore a correct statement about her merits. I will, however, change the sentence to better connect it with her occupation of being a pediatrician.
This has already been raised with you repeatedly now: Mass reverting the text to an old (and quite biased) version, especially after other editors' edits including a number of improvements by myself to address some of your concerns and my own concerns about various issues, and to improve precision and formatting, is not the way to go about it if you want to change anything. In this process you are also erasing formatting and a number of recent improvements. For example, you reintroduce communist functionary instead of professor which I changed it to previously in the infobox. You also continue to reintroduce many biased statements such as "probably due to pressure by the American government" (speculation) and to delete sourced material on her views on East Germany. "Corrected the injustice" is not an encyclopedic wording and not a wording we use in Wikipedia articles under any circumstances; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, as already explained to you, Wikipedia doesn't list names of children who are not notable, only names of notable children. You also really need to stop with your silly accusations against everyone else for "vandalism", it is really your (mass revert) behaviour that is problematic here, and it will not get you anywhere. -- Tataral ( talk) 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, for the record I find both that both the version that you are reverting to, and the other version before that, had some problems with biased and/or unsourced statements (either too negative or too positive), but I think I have addressed most of these concerns now and if there are still parts of the article that you object to (it's not clear to me if you've even read/considered the recent changes, which you are required to before editing the article), I urge you to address those issues specifically on the talk page, without resorting to personal attacks and without mass reverting to an old revision, which is not the way we do things here. -- Tataral ( talk) 04:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Let me continue our discussion by raising two points about how to proceed:
(1) The first point is that my latest version of the article is by Wikipedia-Standards the working basis of this article. This means, any corrections, improvements etc. should be done to my version of the article, not to Nowaks version.
Let me elaborate: Although it is clear that Nowak abused Wikiedia to voice his own political opinions, I did not just undo Nowaks vandalism to the previous state of the article but seeked to rescue his sources and additions, where appropriate. By contrast, you keep reverting to his version of the article and work from there. This is neither common practice in Wikipedia nor acceptable for me, as I have added sources that you keep deleting (see below). Also, to substantiate the use of my version, I have (in addition to the points already raised) assembled a list of errors, inaccuracies and inappropriate wordings introduced by you/Nowak in the subsection below.
It is Wikipedia-Standard to work on the latest version of an article and not - as you keep doing - on different versions.
(2) My second point pertains the political statements/language of the article. I understand that our main discrepancies seem to stem from your/Nowaks political views on communism, East Germany etc. That’s totally fine with me. I have no objections whatsoever to address these issues in this article. However, it must be done in accordance with Wikipedias NPOV-policy.
Specifically, sticking to a NPOV would mean to abandon all politically tainted and judgemental language from the main text body. As proposed several times, I moved all political statements to the subsection „Views on East Germany“ and would advise you for the sake of NPOV to stick to this practice, too.
(made this a section)
Please stick to the current version of the article and work from there! Do not continue to delete my sources! Stick to the points raised above. Discuss changes according to them.
David Jonathan Cohen ( talk) 05:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion copied from user talk page of user Tataral):
see Tom Rapoport above; same holds here. I had corrected many errors, improper wordings etc. If you whish to contribute to the article, please specify your reasons in detail.
Added after your second "undo" of my corrections: What is so hard to understand in requesting to substatiate your undos? Please bear the 3RR in mind
Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule! This is already the second time. Please let's avoid bringing this issue to the attention of the administrators (which could result in you being blocked from editing.) Instead, I would again urge you to point out your specific criticism to my changes. Feel free to give your points below. Should you not be able to substantiate your "undo" action within the next 24 hours, I'll again undo your changes, which will unevitably bring us to 3RR.
Now we're talking content. First off, I never denied Degkwitz being a NSDAP member. Let me clarify:
The original text was changed because it contained numerous errors and was politically biased. For example, it is incorrect that Ingeborg Rapoport was a “communist functionary”. A functionary would be a person who performs political work as a profession or at least as a part time job. Rapoport was a professor for pediatrics and never occupied a political function. Second, her husband was never “offered a position at the Weizmann Institute of Sciences in Israel”. Then, as hinted, the statements about her thesis advisor Rudolph Degkwitz are incorrect: He (Degkwitz) was not imprisoned for opposing childhood euthanasia. This was my point about one of the articles wrongs. Here's another: R.'s son Tom Rapoport was never fired as the original article suggested. And so on. So, what exactly is your talk of "mass removal" referring to?
Let me also state that being "brandnew" to wikipedia has no effect whatsoever on 3RR. You are permanently undoing my changes whitout giving propoer justification while I have corrected and clarified the article. Please either clarify your undo-actions point by point or refrain from undoing my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Jonathan Cohen ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Let’s see what we've got here. We have four points, three of which go in favor of my corrections, while one awaits clarification. In particular you concede that (1) R. was first and foremost not a political functionary but a pediatrician, (2) the information about Degkwitz needed clarification and (3) R.’s son Tom Rapoport has not been fired from his job. The last point (4) of an offer to R.s husband at the Weizman-Institute is still in question. I have sent a letter to H. Mikosch, one co-autor of the linked pdf, asking him to elaborate on his sources.
Given the 3:1 ratio of arguments I revert the text to my version. I will, however, keep the Weizman-passage until the issue gets settled.
And let’s keep things straight. The very reason Ingeborg Rapoport is listed in Wikipedia at all, is because she was (1) a pioneer of pediatrics, (2) she is (afaik) the oldest person in the world to recieve a regular Ph.D. and maybe (3) also because of her husband SM Rapoport, who was a famous blood-researcher himself.
If you, for whatever reasons, find her political views worth mentioning (which I for one don’t, but nevertheless) - noone keeps you from summarizing these in a separate chapter. But mixing the main text body with your own political views, using a great deal of politically tainted vocabulary and plain wrong assertions is just not acceptable. I have done my best to delete the judgemental, non-objective phrases and false information. I have, in other words, tried to objectify the text. It is nothing short of vandalism if you keep undoing my work without proper justification. David Jonathan Cohen ( talk) 20:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Since one of her great achievements was receiving a PhD in her later life, why is she not listed as "MD, PhD" at the heading on the top of the page? Bgross27 ( talk) 18:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ingeborg Rapoport article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
User Tataral wrote in defense of Nowaks vandalism:
On the contrary: The user Tadeusz Nowak (who was blocked for vandalism in March this year) has wrecked what has been a sound Wikipedia-Entry before. He introduced a great deal of false facts into the article. He also muddled it up with politically tainted and judgemental vocabulary. Like he did with other articles too, he tried to abuse this Wikipedia-entry to express his own political views.
I have undertaken a considerable effort to revert the article to Wikipedia-Standards. What you inappropriately call „mass deletions“ was in fact the rectification of Nowaks false facts as well as the return to a more objective, appropriate language. In other words, I have cleaned up the mess of a known Wikipedia-vandalist.
Now. As it seems necessairy to repeat myself: Rapoport was first and foremost a pediatrician. That was her profession. She dedicated most of her life to being a doctor. As such, she helped to considerably lower the infant mortality in east germany. Pursuing these activities made by far the greatest part of her life, not only in East Germany, but also in Nazi-Germany (where she studied and graduated to become a doctor) and in the US (where she had to study anew and eventually became a pediatrician).
In East Germany, she neither did a whole lot of teaching, nor write a textbook, nor contributed in any other important way to the academic agenda of east germany. Her main contribution was her work as a pediatrician. Also, as repeatedly stated and admitted by you, she was not a political functionary. It is therefore inappropriate and misleading to portrait her as a political figure or abuse the article to voice your own political opinions.
Frankly, you seem to have completely misunderstood her biography and her merits. Take for example your following assertion:
— Excuse me, but why should it be „misleading“ to state the very fact that R. was denied her Ph.D. by the Nazis for being classified as a „Mischling“ - an injustice which was corrected by taking her oral examn at the age of 102? And what exactly has this episode to do with her being part of the East German academical life? The connection that you insinnuate between these aspects of her life is unreasonable at best, if not purely nonsensical.
Undisputedly, Rapoport holds political views in defence of East Germany and communism in general. Therefore, a separate section of the article is devoted to that part of her life. I do not find it hard to understand that it is advisable to move all political commentary to that section. Also, it would be in accordance with Wikipedias NPOV-policy.
Lastly your false accusation of me writing a „hagiography“. The proposition „She fought for social justice“ refers directly to a number of statements R. gave in interviews about her motivation of working as a pediatrician (see eg the movie „Die Rapoports - Unsere drei Leben“ by S. Hüetlin and B. Wauer). It therefore refers to her life-long struggle to lower infant mortality, which, obviously, has a lot to do with social justice (infant mortality is higher in the poorer class of populations). Since indeed, she achieved remarkable success in lowering infant mortality, it is therefore a correct statement about her merits. I will, however, change the sentence to better connect it with her occupation of being a pediatrician.
This has already been raised with you repeatedly now: Mass reverting the text to an old (and quite biased) version, especially after other editors' edits including a number of improvements by myself to address some of your concerns and my own concerns about various issues, and to improve precision and formatting, is not the way to go about it if you want to change anything. In this process you are also erasing formatting and a number of recent improvements. For example, you reintroduce communist functionary instead of professor which I changed it to previously in the infobox. You also continue to reintroduce many biased statements such as "probably due to pressure by the American government" (speculation) and to delete sourced material on her views on East Germany. "Corrected the injustice" is not an encyclopedic wording and not a wording we use in Wikipedia articles under any circumstances; Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, as already explained to you, Wikipedia doesn't list names of children who are not notable, only names of notable children. You also really need to stop with your silly accusations against everyone else for "vandalism", it is really your (mass revert) behaviour that is problematic here, and it will not get you anywhere. -- Tataral ( talk) 01:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, for the record I find both that both the version that you are reverting to, and the other version before that, had some problems with biased and/or unsourced statements (either too negative or too positive), but I think I have addressed most of these concerns now and if there are still parts of the article that you object to (it's not clear to me if you've even read/considered the recent changes, which you are required to before editing the article), I urge you to address those issues specifically on the talk page, without resorting to personal attacks and without mass reverting to an old revision, which is not the way we do things here. -- Tataral ( talk) 04:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Let me continue our discussion by raising two points about how to proceed:
(1) The first point is that my latest version of the article is by Wikipedia-Standards the working basis of this article. This means, any corrections, improvements etc. should be done to my version of the article, not to Nowaks version.
Let me elaborate: Although it is clear that Nowak abused Wikiedia to voice his own political opinions, I did not just undo Nowaks vandalism to the previous state of the article but seeked to rescue his sources and additions, where appropriate. By contrast, you keep reverting to his version of the article and work from there. This is neither common practice in Wikipedia nor acceptable for me, as I have added sources that you keep deleting (see below). Also, to substantiate the use of my version, I have (in addition to the points already raised) assembled a list of errors, inaccuracies and inappropriate wordings introduced by you/Nowak in the subsection below.
It is Wikipedia-Standard to work on the latest version of an article and not - as you keep doing - on different versions.
(2) My second point pertains the political statements/language of the article. I understand that our main discrepancies seem to stem from your/Nowaks political views on communism, East Germany etc. That’s totally fine with me. I have no objections whatsoever to address these issues in this article. However, it must be done in accordance with Wikipedias NPOV-policy.
Specifically, sticking to a NPOV would mean to abandon all politically tainted and judgemental language from the main text body. As proposed several times, I moved all political statements to the subsection „Views on East Germany“ and would advise you for the sake of NPOV to stick to this practice, too.
(made this a section)
Please stick to the current version of the article and work from there! Do not continue to delete my sources! Stick to the points raised above. Discuss changes according to them.
David Jonathan Cohen ( talk) 05:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Discussion copied from user talk page of user Tataral):
see Tom Rapoport above; same holds here. I had corrected many errors, improper wordings etc. If you whish to contribute to the article, please specify your reasons in detail.
Added after your second "undo" of my corrections: What is so hard to understand in requesting to substatiate your undos? Please bear the 3RR in mind
Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule! This is already the second time. Please let's avoid bringing this issue to the attention of the administrators (which could result in you being blocked from editing.) Instead, I would again urge you to point out your specific criticism to my changes. Feel free to give your points below. Should you not be able to substantiate your "undo" action within the next 24 hours, I'll again undo your changes, which will unevitably bring us to 3RR.
Now we're talking content. First off, I never denied Degkwitz being a NSDAP member. Let me clarify:
The original text was changed because it contained numerous errors and was politically biased. For example, it is incorrect that Ingeborg Rapoport was a “communist functionary”. A functionary would be a person who performs political work as a profession or at least as a part time job. Rapoport was a professor for pediatrics and never occupied a political function. Second, her husband was never “offered a position at the Weizmann Institute of Sciences in Israel”. Then, as hinted, the statements about her thesis advisor Rudolph Degkwitz are incorrect: He (Degkwitz) was not imprisoned for opposing childhood euthanasia. This was my point about one of the articles wrongs. Here's another: R.'s son Tom Rapoport was never fired as the original article suggested. And so on. So, what exactly is your talk of "mass removal" referring to?
Let me also state that being "brandnew" to wikipedia has no effect whatsoever on 3RR. You are permanently undoing my changes whitout giving propoer justification while I have corrected and clarified the article. Please either clarify your undo-actions point by point or refrain from undoing my work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Jonathan Cohen ( talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Let’s see what we've got here. We have four points, three of which go in favor of my corrections, while one awaits clarification. In particular you concede that (1) R. was first and foremost not a political functionary but a pediatrician, (2) the information about Degkwitz needed clarification and (3) R.’s son Tom Rapoport has not been fired from his job. The last point (4) of an offer to R.s husband at the Weizman-Institute is still in question. I have sent a letter to H. Mikosch, one co-autor of the linked pdf, asking him to elaborate on his sources.
Given the 3:1 ratio of arguments I revert the text to my version. I will, however, keep the Weizman-passage until the issue gets settled.
And let’s keep things straight. The very reason Ingeborg Rapoport is listed in Wikipedia at all, is because she was (1) a pioneer of pediatrics, (2) she is (afaik) the oldest person in the world to recieve a regular Ph.D. and maybe (3) also because of her husband SM Rapoport, who was a famous blood-researcher himself.
If you, for whatever reasons, find her political views worth mentioning (which I for one don’t, but nevertheless) - noone keeps you from summarizing these in a separate chapter. But mixing the main text body with your own political views, using a great deal of politically tainted vocabulary and plain wrong assertions is just not acceptable. I have done my best to delete the judgemental, non-objective phrases and false information. I have, in other words, tried to objectify the text. It is nothing short of vandalism if you keep undoing my work without proper justification. David Jonathan Cohen ( talk) 20:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Since one of her great achievements was receiving a PhD in her later life, why is she not listed as "MD, PhD" at the heading on the top of the page? Bgross27 ( talk) 18:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)