Talk:Paul Schäfer

BLP

This is an unreferenced article on a living person. It contains defamatory material that must be deleted at once, according to BLP rules. Therefore, I am going to delete the sex offender material since it is defamatory and unreferenced and also remove the cat. Mattisse (Talk) 11:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is all referenced in the external BBC links, if you care to read them. Occuli (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

what or who are you trying to protect Mattisse? Diplorable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.131.125.49 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Ex-Nazi??

The article asserts that Schäfer joined the Hitler Youth and was a medic in the German Army in World War II. How does either of these qualify him as a "Nazi"? No evidence is presented here that he ever belonged to the Nazi Party. If evidence can't be produced, the assertion should be removed. (Hint: Most Germans lived through the Nazi era in the 1930s and 1940s without ever joining the Nazi Party, and it would be an obscene distortion to call any of them "Nazis".)—Quicksilver^{T @} 00:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the BBC, in at least a couple of the stories (provided in article's notes), refers to him as a former Nazi.

BBC is "gold standard" for credible reporting.

Calamitybrook (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The usage of the term "Nazi" suggests a lack of scientific rigor anyway. But making a HJ-boy and Wehrmacht-conscript is even more far-fetched. --197.228.21.207 (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I also think this is not a good descriptor unless there's some evidence that he was in fact a believing National Socialist during WWII or became a convinced neo-Nazi afterward. If anything, as a fundamentalist and orthodox Christian (with no indication that he had NS German Christian beliefs), I think it would be difficult for him to be a committed National Socialist. Let's be clear - Schäfer was an evil man and very much a functionary of Pinochet's criminal regime, and a sexual abuser as well. But I also think accuracy is important, and I don't see much of that in some of the tabloid-level stuff that's given in the lede. Also, I'm not sure about using "child rapist" either, not because he wasn't one, but even the articles on John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Epstein use the term "sex offender" in the descriptor, and I think that precedent should be followed here.

Also, don't put so much weight on newspaper articles for historical accuracy. Even BBC does sensationalist articles on occasion. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether one Wikipedia editor thinks that Schäfer was "a believing National Socialist during WWII or became a convinced neo-Nazi afterward", and whether another editor thinks he was not, is irrelevant to the content of the article. What counts, is what the preponderance of reliable sources say about it. There is general agreement in reliable sources that he was a Nazi, and you can split hairs about what he believed as a youth all you want, but unless you find that a majority sources say he was not a Nazi, then that's the end of debate.

As far as the term child-rapist, same thing applies; we'd have to follow the sources (which I haven't done). So, you may well be right, and perhaps it should be changed to child abuser if that's what the sources say, but note an important caveat: *not* because of what Wikipedia articles on John Wayne Gacy and Jeffrey Epstein say—Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and you cannot base any decision about the content in this article upon what some other Wikipedia article has to say.

Your comment about newspaper articles is your opinion, and does not outweigh Wikipedia's guidelines about WP:Verifiability and the use of Reliable sources. In fact, over a million Wikipedia articles use news sources, as long as they are reliable, and it's fine to use them here, as well. If you would like to challenge a particular news source as unreliable, you may do so; please raise a discussion at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. If it is determined to be unreliable, it would have to be removed from this article. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry dude, I wouldn't call two mentions of Schaeffer called a Nazi you found on Google "the preponderance" of reliable sources. This is a guy whose life and work have been very thoroughly investigated and documented, and there is very scant information about his alleged "Nazi" past anywhere, not even in this very article which is his biography. You cramming a passing quote you lifted from a Washington Post headline from 15 years ago doesn't exactly constitute research. The Independent described him as Nazi colonel (because they seem to conflate the German Army and Nazis, also, no idea where they got it that he had the rank of colonel), while the New York Times was careful to describe him as "a former Nazi-era German soldier who founded a secretive German cult in southern Chile, and literally the only thing World War II related they have to say about him is "A former nurse from the Luftwaffe, Mr. Schaefer was forced to leave Germany after he was charged with sexually abusing young boys in an orphanage he ran there." As for reliable sources, see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, "reliable" does not mean sources are holy books on everything they published ever. And besides, citing only newspaper headlines because the rest is paywalled is pretty bad practice. If you have more information on this, and if you claim there's a plethora od sources talking about what makes him a Nazi (there isn't but be my guest) feel free to add something to the article body. Shouldn't be a problem, should it? Timbouctou (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right, two sources I found on Google are not the preponderance of reliable sources, but they are two highly respected sources that happen to fairly represent the preponderance of reliable sources. It's not a good idea to overload a sentence with a dozen references even if you are able to, so I didn't. But as far as "plethora of sources", no, it shouldn't be a problem, and I'll do that. Finally, using a reliable source that is behind a paywall is completely okay in Wikipedia and is not bad practice. Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there's some very bizarre ideas on "proper sourcing" going around among WP editors these days, notably, that if you can find newspaper sources that say so, it must be true. For historical phenomena like Colonia Dignidad, newspapers are often secondary sources of information, and often not very good ones. Journalists are usually not historians.

I'll note that there actually is a very strong body of scholarly work on Colonia Dignidad and Schafer, primarily in German, secondarily in Spanish, and almost none in English. The German-Chilean-produced Netflix series is probably the best-researched source available in English, actually. These are sources that should take priority over the secondarily-sourced newspaper articles that have been the main source so far.

As for the "Nazi" part, I'm going to point to this University of Vienna Master's thesis, "Perspektiven der deutsch Minderheit in Chile auf Colonia Dignidad", which in section 5.3 takes on the question of Schafer and Colonia Dignidad's "Nazism" in some depth. It notes that Schafer was neither a member of the Nazi Party, nor the SS, nor the Hitler Youth, and that the members of Colonia Dignidad were no more "Nazi" than any other cross-section of postwar Germans, and if anything, were probably a bit less so. The Colonia, while definitely cultlike, was largely apolitical until about 1970, when it took a sharp turn toward the Chilean far-right, including an alliance with Patria y Libertad. If you want to tag them is neo-Fascist based on that, you'd at least have some basis. But a carryover from pre-1945 Nazism? Definitely not.

One other thing - as for my noting other Wikipedia articals, I'm not using those as "sources", I'm using those as precedents for standard Wikipedia usage. I'm amazed that someone would actually conflate the two. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your comment,

I think there's some very bizarre ideas on "proper sourcing" going around among WP editors these days, notably, that if you can find newspaper sources that say so, it must be true.

there is no guideline or policy that says anything about newspaper sources being true or not. In fact, Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, and never claims to be; the most basic standard for inclusion of content is that it is verifiable, not "true". It's worth quoting from the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Verifiability:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors.

See the essay WP:NOTTRUTH for more about this.

Later on the Verifiability policy page in the § Neutrality section, it discusses how to deal with subjects for which opinions differ in reliable sources:

Even when information is cited to reliable sources, you must present it with a neutral point of view (NPOV). Articles should be based on thorough research of sources. All articles must adhere to NPOV, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

These are the core principles that govern how we must deal with the "Nazi" question at this article. Namely, 1) we follow what the majority of reliable sources say, and 2) when there's a difference, we represent all views neutrally. That's it. We don't ourselves as Wikipedia editors go around opining that some Master's thesis overrides opinions in books and newspapers because it is somehow better; that would be original research on our part, or somehow place all reliable newspapers in the junk heap of reliability because "journalists are not historians". Bottom line: you don't get to pick which sources you trust at this article because they happen to match your point of view.

Finally, contrary to what you say, there is plenty of information available in English, and I'll be adding a list of them later. As it happens, I can read German and Spanish, and reliable sources in other languages are welcome at Wikipedia, the only caveat being that "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance." But when a particular point is not covered in any English source, we can certainly include reliable sources in other languages, within the constraints of verifiability and WP:DUEWEIGHT. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "equal quality and relevance" implies that not all sources are equal, and your equating journalistic sources with acadmic ones is simply bizarre. Especially the idea that you can simply do a head count of news articles that use the word "Nazi" and somehow declare that to be a "consensus" view. Much of what you're doing here smacks of rules lawyering and article ownership, and that is distinctly uncivil behavior and not assuming good faith. (I'm aware of Wikipedia rules, too, BTW.) If there is a significant *point of view* that Schafer was a "Nazi", and not just sloppiness by sources that are poorly researched and tertiary at best, then I'd really like to see some evidence of that. But it seems clear from my reading of academic sources that have done proper research is that Schafer was not a National Socialist, and that is a view that you just can't handwave away. I may just have to report take this exchange to arbitration, as your behavior in this conversation is obstinate, uncivil, and seemingly designed to discourage participation by other editors. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: Two additional sources, again, both solid, scholarly, published books:

* Vom Folterzentrum der Militärdiktatur zum Ferienort

* Der Fall Colonia Dignidad: Zum Umgang bundesdeutscher Außenpolitik und Justiz mit Menschenrechtsverletzungen 1961-2020

Both go into depth on allegations that Schafer was a "Nazi" and find that these do not hold up. And I will not even dignify the idea that an English-language tabloid source is to be preferred over a German-language scholarly one. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, I second that, this is a clear case of WP:LAWYER and WP:OWN via distorted interpretations of WP:UNDUE and disregard of WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. See also WP:LABEL. FYI the same discussion (involving the same editors, including myself) has been raised at Talk:Colonia Dignidad.
• Academic sources certainly trump newspaper headlines (and I'd like to emphasize these are headlines not supported by anything in article body) which User:Mathglot bases his WP:OPINION on. User: Peter G Werner already listed several ACADEMIC sources which looked into this in matter in detail. The last one isn't available in my country, but I see the other two are academic sources, including an entire book published by the Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, a scholarly publisher in Germany, in 2022. I might add that there's also a 2006 book in Spanish (pdf available with registration) written by Hans Stange and Claudio Salinas, published by Random House Mondadori in Chile. It's a meticulously researched 260-page book about the history of Colonia Dignidad, and it too rejects that Schaffer was ever a Nazi (p.47). Timbouctou (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  All three sources I've listed so far (The Master's thesis and the two books) are available online and I've linked to them. There are even more sholoarly titles on the topic, apparently, in German and Spanish, but more difficult to access in the English-speaking part of the world. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If the article suggests he was 'a Nazi', while he was never a member of the NSDAP, than it shouldn't be considered a reputable source. 105.12.6.23 (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Follower of William Branham

The Reuters news article - http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-chile-sect-idUSBRE8480MN20120509 - is clear that Schäfer followed the teachings of William M. Branham

It specifically states:

Schaefer followed the teachings of American preacher William M. Branham, one of the founders of the "faith healing" movement in the 1940s and ‘50s. Born in a log cabin in Kentucky, Branham said he had been visited by angels and attracted tens of thousands of followers with sermons that advocated a strict adherence to the Bible, a woman's duty to obey her husband and apocalyptic visions, such as Los Angeles sinking beneath the ocean.

I appreciated that followers of William Branham will not like this relationship but that is not grounds to remove the reference. Taxee (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Location of Birth

Note: According to his birth certification, uploaded in Commons but deleted due to copyright restrictions from the archive of Bonn City Schaefer was born in the city of Bonn, and not Troisdorf (and also not Siegburg, which is another wrong alternative). Thank you.--KarlV 08:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Unproven bull.

" In an accident with a fork, he lost his right eye. Schaefer tried to join the elite Nazi SS corps later, but was rejected because of this infirmity. " Cut that out. Even though Schaefer was a criminal, none of this made-up stuff (sounds like The Sun LOL) has been proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF12:8100:ED22:97B7:D0D8:E422 (talk) 21:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't in the business of "proving" things or taking sides; what we do here is to summarize the reporting in reliable sources. The incident of poking out his eye is reliably sourced, and I've added (another) source for this, including a quotation which backs it up word for word. Mathglot (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The part about Schafer trying to join the SS is indeed false - there is no evidence for this, beyond repreated unsorced stories that are exaggerated by repetition and recirculation. Fact: Schafer did lose an eye as a child, and it was the reason why he was rejected for any combat role in the Wehrmacht, instead being consigned to the role of army medic. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

There should also be some application form, if it was true. Or was that based on hear-say, story-telling and the like. Unbelievable what is all sucked out of the thumb trying to frame a benign church figure here. 105.0.6.195 (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Netflix series: October 2021

In October 2021, Netflix released the original documentary series "A Sinister Sect: Colonia Dignidad". Lots of archival footage, and first-person accounts from people who were there and knew Schafer. See a review. Mathglot (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

As I've said before, this documentary is indeed well-researched and would make a good source, both for this article and the Colonia Dignidad one. I have every intention of using it as such. Peter G Werner (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I am removing the "Nazi" desognation . . ...again

I took this out:
"Nazi,"
the fact some newspaper calls him a nazi does not make him one. We need a better source. Carptrash (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC) Carptrash (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

References

The question has been asked, was he a Christian?

The first place I looked say this ,"· Example: Paul Schafer, devout anti-gay Christian cult leader". That was MSN.com Carptrash (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

neo-Nazi vs. Nazi distinction

The person who changed the category from Chilean neo-Nazi to Chilean Nazi obviously missed that simultaneously he is listed as "German neo-Nazi". Anyways, as for I why I think it is fair to type him a as "neo-Nazi" I´ve explained in the edit I made that his career occured mostly after the second world war and when he was living in the third reich he was not politically active to our knowledge. StrongALPHA (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Section "Colonia Dignidad," what "rescue" is referred to?

In the section Colonia Dignidad, this is stated: "When Chilean children were treated and survived, their rescue brought fame to Schäfer in the region." There is no clarification of this and no other mention of a "rescue" in the article. Can this be expanded (slightly?) and clarified? 2601:600:A401:83E0:4869:C428:56B5:86C1 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)