Talk:Ingeborg Rapoport

Discussion of repairing the vandalism commited by user Tadeusz_Nowak in October/November 2015
User Tataral wrote in defense of Nowaks vandalism:


 * If you have any particular objections to the text, you need to raise them on the talk page instead of reverting/mass deleting thousands of characters and replacing the article with a biased hagiography. (...), see section Older Discussion

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:


 * "The attempt to portray her as just someone who was denied a medical degree and finally got it is misleading, considering that she was a very prominent member of East German academia (…)"

— 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; 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.

First paragraph:

 * „shortly after“ << Not quite. Had you read Rapoports autobiography (which I inserted as a source), you would know that Rapoport stayed for more than a year in Vienna, seeking a job. My wording „after staying in Vienna for a year“ is more accurate.


 * „a professor“<< changed to: „first chair of neonatology in whole germany“, because it signifies her life achievement. Rapoport has established neonatology as a clinical discipline in its own right in Germany. Prior to her, the whole discipline was not existant in Germany. Newborns were treated in the same clinics as older children. Establishing the new neonatology-stations was a direct consequence of her being in Childrens Hospital Cincinatty.. In other words, she was pretty much the person who, after the war, imported the state-of-the-art in newborn midicine from the US to Germany.


 * defended east german communist regime etc << I have moved this statement to section „Views on east germany“. Mind you, this is still the first paragraph, outlining her life, her achievemants and her impact. Her political views, which might well be controversial, are not a major part of this. Any physician might hold political opinions; many of the East German physicians might have even been defensive for East Germany or the East German healthcare system. All of that, however, is only as relevant as these political views lead to (biographical) actions (like for instance being a political functionary or activist, being part of a political affair, committing a politically motivated crime etc.). Other than that, they might be of interest for specialists, but are largely irrelevant for Wikipedia.

Second paragraph

 * „East German Habilitation“ << incorrect term. Habilitation is a scientific degree, not given by a state, but by a University. In this case by the Humboldt University.


 * I had inserted a sourced statement about her real work and merits as a pediatrician: „She helped to considerably reduce infant mortality in East Germany, which, during her active years was even lower than in West Germany“ plus source. Please, de not delete sourced, factual content.


 * „She received an East German Habilitation in 1959, and in 2015 she received her second doctorate, the oldest person to do so.“ (your/Nowaks version)


 * vs.


 * „In 2015, the Faculty of Medicine of Hamburg University corrected the injustice of the Nazi regime and awarded her a medical degree after an oral examine. She became the oldest person to receive a Doctorate degree at the age of 102.“ (my version)


 * Clearly, my wording expresses much better her achievement of becoming the oldest person in the world to recieve a Ph.D. While yours/Nowaks version puts this remarkable accomplishment in a half sentence, it deserves a paragraph. After all, that is, what she became famous for (even though I myself find her work as a pediatrician much more important.).


 * Also, what is wrong about the wording „correcting injustice“ of the Nazis? In fact, that is exactly what happened here. See eg. Ref. 4 (Wall Street Journal: „Ingeborg Rapoport to Become Oldest Recipient of Doctorate After Nazi Injustice is Righted“). It was not for her scientific merits that the Ph.D.-process was resumed but to correct the injustice inflicted on her by being denied the Ph.D. for racial reasons. Mind you too, that the whole process was initiated by the Dean of Hamburg University Clinics, Prof. U. Koch-Gromus for precisely this reason. He is a well known activist in revisiting the Nazi-past of the UKE and - within boundaries - achieved amends for victims and revealed the names of the Nazi perpetrators. Many of those are contradictory persons, like eg. R. Degkwitz, who on one hand was a Nazi, but on the other opposed euthanasia (to the point of risking his execution).

Early life, second paragraph

 * R. Degkwitz << the important thing here is not Degkwitz himself, but his attest of having accepted her thesis, had it not been impossible for racial laws. This attest served as a record to certify the existence of Rapoports written dissertation, which was not findable anymore. For a detailled record see eg. Ref. 4 (Wall Street Journal); there, even a facsimile of Degkwitz attest is depicted. In conclusion, my wording of this process is much more precise than Nowaks, who merely repeats irrelevant (and initially even wrong) facts about Degkwitz. For this, a link to Degkwitz should perfectly suffice.


 * Also, I have repaired the link to reference 4.

Life in the united states, second parapgraph

 * Inserted a link to Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center.

Unamerican Activities

 * „Communist Party advised them“ << put’s it in wrong perspective. Leaving the country was a decision, Rapoport and her husband made privately, witnessing the hysterical atmosphere of that time and in particular the execution of Ethel und Julius Rosenberg. This can be read up in autobiography of Rapoport (Ref. 11, Rapoport, Ingeborg (2002). Meine ersten drei Leben. Nora Verlag. ISBN 978-3935445818.) — An important source that you keep deleting for no apparent reason.


 * Vienna: Probably due to pressure etc: I have deleted this admittedly speculative content. The speculations themselves, however, can be sourced in Ref. 11 (autobiography of Rapoport).


 * The whole Israel-story is exaggerated and given too much space here. R. apparently never got a serious offer from Israel; but this is under investigation (wrote a letter to Hans Mikosch, asking about his sources). — Basically, in Vienna Rapoport and her husband seem to have been „stuck between the worlds“. They were too communist for the west and too western for the communists. This seems to be why the Soviet Union did not want to have them. They also applied in England (to the laboratory of Hans Krebs) but were declined there as well (Autobiography of Rapoport). Must have been a strange time, being quite famous scientists on one hand but being unable to find a job, on the other. (Thats why I would shorten, if not ommit the Israel-Story. If you find this details important, I would - for the sake of balancing the whole paragraph - also include the application to England.)

New section: Life in East Germany
(made this a section)


 * Habilitation << not a state degree


 * „involved in establishment of first clinic of neonatology“: Not quite right. As I said, she brought the very idea that newborns have their own particular needs and therefore need a special clinics/treatment to Germany. Therefore, she was not just „involved“ but initiated the idea and conducted the setup and installation of the clinics after the American model. „Founder“ is the appropriate term here.


 * In East Germany, Rapoport was co-founder of the Society of Perinatology of the GDR, council-member of the European Society of Perinatology, a member of the “committee for the reduction of infant mortality”, and a leader of a national research project on perinatology. << This sentence is central for understanding her life, her merits and her very being listed in Wikipedia. Please stop deleting it.

Views on east germany

 * now includes the broader overview and the sources, Nowak gave


 * I must however, raise a some criticism here. Almost all of Nowaks claims rely solely on statements he found in a book by Walter Laqueur („Generation exodus“). I have researched this book (pp 186/187) and found that Laqueur himself gives no sources on Rapoports statements. While I would not doubt Laqueur’s quotations (he is a well respected and prolific researcher), I find this a little dubious. Seemingly, he read Rapoport’s autobiography but makes no clear references to where in the book he took his quotes from. I tried to look it up myself but to no avail. But, I might ask him about his exact sources.

Life in retirement and 2nd doctorate

 * „chose to submit her original thesis“ etc. << False fact. Not only did R. not chose to submit her original thesis, but the original (written) thesis was not in existence anymore (see above; refer eg. to Wall Street Journal). Instead the Dean of Hamburg University Clinics (UKE) Prof. U. Koch-Gromus came across the story of her being denied the Ph.D. by the Nazis and initiated the process of atonement. This is why the whole Ph.D.-thing happened at all, and this is also why, as you may come to appriciate, it is indeed nothing short of the correction of an injustice.


 * however, not etc << clearly, the whole paragraph is worded in an attempt to belittle Rapoports achievements. While I for one find it remarkable, that a 102-year old person is still able to hold an oral Ph.D. examn, I refrained from exaggerating this accomplishment. But I would, OTOH advise everybody to refrain from maring it as well. After all, it might be the reason, many people research Rapoport in Wikipedia. It should be given an appropriate space and wording.

Personal life

 * I concur that the children, who are not listed in Wikipedia can be omitted. I have removed the respective passage in accordance with your criticism.


 * I have contributed a major source here (her memoir). Do not delete.


 * I have also added another reference to a biographic movie. Do not delete.

Final remarks
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)

Older Discussion (History as of May 11th 2016)
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 Edit_warring! 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.


 * For a brand new account with an apparent conflict of interest who is only interested in two close relatives, your talk of 3RR and other Wikipedia initialisms is quite surprising. However, that rule applies to edits within a 24-hour period, and it certainly doesn't apply to edits that undo plain vandalism such as unjustified mass removal of sourced content. You will soon enough find yourself blocked if you continue with your mass deletions of sourced material from that article that you don't like. Your claims about Degkwitz not having been a Nazi Party member and so on are plainly wrong, he was in fact even a participant in the Beer Hall Putsch, which I easily discovered when looking into this today, and the claim seems reliably sourced in the article as well. Other than that, I don't need to point out "specific criticism" to your mass removal of sourced content, because I'm not the editor mass deleting sourced content without any good reason, and replacing it with a POV hagiography. --Tataral (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

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)


 * You seem to have misunderstood what 3RR is about. If the information about Degkwitz's ambiguous relationship with the Nazis could be worded in a more precise way, I don't object to that, but your edits also included removal of many sourced statements for no obvious reason. Specifically, the claim about the Weizmann Institute cites a source which says that "Eine angebotene Stelle am Weizmann-Institut in Rehovot in Israel [...] hatte er als Internationalist und Gegner des Zionismus abgelehnt." So why is this claim about him having been offered a position at the Weizmann Institute and having turned it down due to his opposition to Zionism wrong? Regarding "functionary", perhaps there is a better word, but there is no doubt that she was a prominent figure of the East German establishment/regime/academia. Also, your edits included numerous removals of other sourced information, e.g. about her views on East Germany. You also changed "they attributed (not finding employment in Austria) to pressure by the American government" to "probably due to pressure by the American government" as if this opinion was somehow an undisputed fact. --Tataral (talk) 11:21, 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)


 * If you have any particular objections to the text, you need to raise them on the talk page instead of reverting/mass deleting thousands of characters and replacing the article with a biased hagiography. "She fought for social justice" is not a neutral way to describe a (prominent) member of the East German communist party (one of the most repressive totalitarian parties in Europe), for starters. The attempt to portray her as just someone who was denied a medical degree and finally got it is misleading, considering that she was a very prominent member of East German academia for decades and also received much higher qualifications than a doctorate there. Her life's work is her work in East German academia, and the article clearly should focus on that. Also, she has herself clearly actively participated in debate on East Germany and defended the system, and her views should be addressed adequately. --Tataral (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why is she not listed as "MD, PhD"?
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)