Talk:Carl Værnet

Photo

Does anyone have a better photo of Vaernet? The one here is rather horrible. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 08:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia category, moved from my talk page

Likewise your edit to Carl Værnet. The reverting editor's reason is more or less the same as mine. Apart from that, are you sure Dictionary of Homophobia is a reliable source on this subject? Debresser (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain to me why you think that book is not a reliable source? Alec Fischer (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't say it wasn't. I just have a little doubt, that's all. It might just be possible that the book was compiled by people who aren't completely neutral on the subject of homophobia - I mean people who might themselves be potential (ot even actual) victims of homophobia, and a book of their hand might include certain biases. Debresser (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I read the editorial reviews at http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Homophobia-History-Lesbian-Experience/dp/1551522292/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1242591127&sr=11-1 and the book sounds entirely legitimate. I think this is a notable reference to Vaernet as a homophobe, so wouldn't you agree that the category applies? Alec Fischer (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The reviews are very positive. Tin is gay. This means that, as I said before even knowing that, his book might be biased. Personally, I don't think it is though.

My point, which was also raised by the other editor, has nothing to do with the reliability of the source, but with an absence of statements about Vaernet's homophobia as such. In http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/54741.html, which you brought as a source, it says: "Dr. Carl Vaernet's criminal experimentations at the Buchenwald concentration camp, in which he tried to cure homosexuals by injecting synthetic hormones into their groins, were also encouraged by Himmler." Nowhere does it imply even that Vaernet was a homophobe. Perhaps he was just a physician trying to make a living by utilizing the political climate? Or perhaps the subject interested him from a medical, scientific point of view? We need clear, unambiguous sources. Hope you understand my point. Debresser (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you object if I categorized a Buchenwald concentration camp doctor as an antisemite on the basis that he experimented on Jews? Would it matter if he were listed in the Dictionary of Antisemitism, as being encouraged by Himmler? Alec Fischer (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-argument and a train of thought better left sooner than later. Please, don't get emotional about it. Debresser (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to understand what you consider sufficient evidence, and your lack of an answer hasn't really helped very much. To be quite frank, I find it very odd that a deeply religous Jew is trying so hard to defend the motives of, literally, a Nazi death camp doctor. Ideally, we would spend no effort discussing whether we think someone is a homophobe, and simply accept that a reliable source lists him as notably homophobic. Instead, you show a relucatance to accept the authority of this book, and I cannot understand the source of your reluctance. I would appreciate it if, rather than accusing me of getting emotional, as if being emotional about the Holocaust were a bad thing, you would simply explain. Why do you object to calling him what he was? Alec Fischer (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't believe this source brings any prove he was homophobic. Apart from that there is another point. Wich has also been mentioned before. The article doesn't focuse on him being homophobic. It dwells more on his political and medical career (indeed with the Nazis, unfortunately). We should not add a category unless it has some importance, which in this case it does not seem to have. Me being a religious Jew, and even the fact that most of my family perished in the Nazi concentration camps, do not have to do with it at all. Debresser (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to prove that he was homophobic, nor does it matter. All that matters is that, regardless of what either of us might think, a reliable source recognizes him as notable in the history of homophobia, whether or not he was personally homophobic. The fact that the article is also in the "LGBT History of Germany" and "Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust" categories confirms that this one is important.

Here are some other links that support this:

http://www.lsvd.de/gedenk-ort/hin-indep120601.htm

http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/concentrationcamp.htm

http://www.petertatchell.net/international/vaernet.htm

http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/hunt_for_danish_kz.htm

http://andrejkoymasky.com/mem/holocaust/05/ho05e.html

http://www.devoiretmemoire.org/actualites/sorties/extrait_site_auschwitz_2.html

I've tried very, very hard to understand where you're coming from and to avoid the disparaging conclusion. I've also explained myself and supported my own conclusions. At this point, I can only suggest that we agree to disagree and request that you join me in a consensus edit to restore this category. Alec Fischer (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to the left margin. :)

Please do not try to understand where I'm coming from. Stay uninvolved, please.

This article calls him "a coldhearted doctor". Which shows he had no personal agenda with homosexuals. This article says that "Vaernet had a pet theory for which he required gay guinea pigs.", so again no personal agenda.

The other point also remains in force. And since User:Chuckiesdad agrees with me I see no consensus here. Homophobia just is not anywhere a subject in the article, and therefore we can not add it as a category. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've already explained that whether Vaernet's biography belongs in the Homophobia category is not strictly dependent upon whether he was personally homophobic. The issue is whether he is relevant to the topic of homophobia, and due to his "coldhearted" experimentation on gay men, he very much is. Categories aren't supposed to be statements about people, but guides to finding related articles, and the Homophobia category would be of less use to researchers if Vaernet was removed.

I can't say I fully understand the Wikipedia notion of consensus, since it doesn't seem to match the real-world notion at all. I could just as easily say that, since I disagree with good reason, the three of us do not have a consensus to remove the category. Or I could point out that, with only three people, being ahead or behind by one vote is just statistical noise. Since you seem, to be quite frankly, entirely obstinate, and since I'm even starting to wonder about your motives, perhaps the best answer is to get other people involved. I'm researching how this is done and will get back to you when I find something. Alec Fischer (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Per the request on WP:3O I have come here to try and resolve this dispute. There are three important things to note here:

1. The definition of Homophobia - "an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality, homosexuals, or individuals perceived as homosexual."
2. The inclusion category of the disputed category - "articles that discuss or refer to the topic of homophobia. It does not imply that the subjects of any biographical articles are homophobic... for issues relating to homophobia, including organizations or individuals that are particularly noted for being involved in the subject of homophobia."
3. Wikipedia guidelines on categorization - "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions."

Given the two definitions, I believe we have a very close call here. From point number 2, clearly it doesn't matter whether Vaernet was personally homophobic. Now is the desire to "cure homosexuality" inherently within the definition of homophobia defined in point #1? I would probably say no, although I am sure some people would say yes.

In regards to point number three, Vaernet is currently in Category:Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust which is a distinguished subcategory of Category:Homophobia. By rule "If category B is a distinguished subcategory of category A, then pages belonging to category B are placed directly into category A if otherwise appropriate." So the question is: is it otherwise appropriate? Considering, that not a single item is in both "Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany..." & "Homophobia", I would say the precedent is that no, it is not appropriate.

In conclusion, I see no reason to override the existing precedent given that it could reasonably be argued that Vaernet's actions weren't inherently homophobic and would recommend against the extra category being added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I will keep an eye on this page in case further discussion is desired. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you explain how the whole "distinguished subcategory" system works or at least point me to where I can read it on my own? Alec Fischer (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

All the details are in Wikipedia:Categorization, but in short a category is distinguished if it is not part of a systematic break down of categories. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The question whether this category should be included seems very difficult to decide, and would require more than cursory knowledge of Vaernets biography. But this comment by Debresser seems a bit odd to me: "Tin is gay. This means that, as I said before even knowing that, his book might be biased. Personally, I don't think it is though." Even with the disclaimer added in the end, it does seem like a questionable method to dispute the neutrality of a source because the author is gay. Are you saying that heterosexual authors should be preferred when finding sources on homophobia? The premise of that argument is absurd. Do feel free to dispute the logic and the validity of adding the category in question, but please refrain from making such generalisations as they do not exactly further your cause. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your comment is out of the line of discussion indeed. I suppose you disagree with this. But I do not', in no way, want to go in to this. And I didn't even say I agree with that link (just to make sure you really won't have what to continue this comment with). Debresser (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I thank ThaddeusB for his willingness to provide his uninvolved opinion on the argument about applying the Category:Homophobia to this article. I was especially glad to see that he seems to agree with my opinion. Please notice that I made a note about the "distinguished subcategory" on my talk page two days ago in this diff. I was suprised not to see the argument that homophobia is not a focus of this article but just a sidepoint. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, the question you refused to answer still stands. Would you bring up the same argument for a doctor that experimented on Jews? There is no evidence that some NAZI Doctors were personally anti-Semitic, yet they experimented on those of the Jewish faith and are thus considered anti-Semitic. It is blatantly obvious that Vaernet was homophobic as he spent his time trying to eradicate homophobia. Sorry, your argument is pretty suspicious and a bit illogical. The Mummy (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline of medical practise

Dr Vaernet ran a medical practice. I doubt that in "the late 1930s" this would have "waned due to the dubious quality of his research, and also because he was considered a collaborator in his native country". Patients are rarely interested in the research work or politics of their GP's. Being a Danish Nazi in the 1930's could not be regarded as being a 'collaborator'. There is also a contradiction in implying both that the decline of his practice occurred despite joining the Nazi party, and also because of it.101.98.175.68 (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Lack of clarity

What does "an operation with an artificial gland" mean. Inserting an artificial testes perhaps?

Why say that "there is no evidence that any of the inmates were castrated". Did anyone suggest that some were?

He did medical research. To say that the "Danish authorities wanted to press charges of his SS involvement", is both bad English and factually incorrect.

Did he feign heart trouble and escape, or feign heart trouble and get released? The latter seems more likely.101.98.175.68 (talk) 05:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul

I have done a large overhaul of the page. I think I was pretty careful, but other editors should double check things. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)