Talk:Aktion T4/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Commentary: WP:Death Assessment, WP:MilHist Re-assessment

This is a great article with a comprehensive view on the topic. I have assessed it C-class by WP:Death standards and re-assessed it 'Start' according to WP:Mil Hist, as I believe it does not quite meet the standards for that Wikiproject at this time. Here are some points of improvement that I believe will make it B-class:

• References: There are only 2 or 3 places, tops, that need citations. I believe they are all currently marked.
• Text: I would delete this line: "Euthanasia opponent Murray Rothbard claimed that there is an affinity between pro-euthanasia movements and Aktion T4, saying that the right to die with dignity really means a right to kill because it requires a decision not to prosecute a deliberate failure to prevent death.", from near the end of the text. It is argumentative POV, and beyond the scope of the topic.
• Supporting Materials: All are excellent. There may be a relevant infobox that could be inserted (something related to laws or official policies), but not completely necessary. However, I would remove the image of "Bernberg in 1650" from the section on Gassing. While not detrimental to the text, the image of a location 300 years prior to the described event isn't very helpful either.

Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree! Rothbard's (personal) opinion is indeed not notable here, nor is Lee RocKwell's website something you can consider a reputable source. Rothbard personal thoughts might be notable in his article, but not here. To make Rothbard's notion of any notability here, they would need to have been published in some reputable journal (or a book which has been reviewed by scholars (on subject) and the review discussing his views on euthanasia too) --Kmhkmh (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly that section is precisely a section build with personal opinions about euthanasia, for example with a long parahraph from a certain unknown author Dr.Stein who claims AktionT4 is not euhanasia. The section is showing opposite point of view about the relation between Aktion T4 and euthanasia, so Rothbard opinion fits exactly as fits the other authors opinions. The source is as reliable and verifiable as the mentioned quote from the Dr.Stein. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but your argument is not quite correct Stein is apparently an academic whose expertise is directly related to the topic [1]. I agree however that both he and Rothbard are basically cited for private opinion, that have no been published in a proper journal or book on T4 or euthanasia (at least both sources don't provide an indication to the contrary). Some imho in doubt both should be removed and potentially replaced by more authoritative properly published opinions/assessments.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S: I also don't quite see the long consensus regarding Rothbard you claim in the version history. At least at first glance I see 3 recent editors explicitly disagreeing with you and in the past the Rothbard statement went in and out. Also in the past there was an SPS concern which still has not been addressed (Rothbard is on an expert on the subject, so there's an argument that he fails WP:SPS and proper publication of his opinion in a journal, books or newspaper has still not been provided).--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I meant the consensus on the whole section (Euthanasia and AktionT4). And I also remember there was certain user (currently expulsed due undue sockpuppetry) trying to delete any word of any author claiming any similaritie between modern euthanasia and the nazi euthanasia program aktionT4. It seems he prefered to keep just those opinions claiming that there is not similitude, obviously because he was well recognized by his editions in every euthanasia article, forcing POV editions pro-euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes the article has been instrumentalized & politicized by pro & con euthanasia factions over the years. However that doesn't mean that Rothbard's opinion is particularly suited here. As outlined above there are issues with it and hence it should be replaced by a more appropriate source (with a similar opinion) to "even out" the section (assuming that was indeed a reached consensus, I'm not keeping close enough tabs on the article to tell easily). However after taking a closer look as far as I'm concerned the whole section could be deleted. It is not really needed for the article on T4 and seems to be a breeding ground for pov pushing anyhow.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The topic concerns medical ethics. Rothbard is an economist. Including his opinion here is undue weight and designed to load up the section with negative opinions about euthanasia. It must stay out. Current consensus is clearly against it. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Hmm, Jabbsworth you are editing the same articles, even the same sections and claiming similar arguments, and using similar terms than the above mentioned sockpuppet expulsed. And you are also properly refering to WP-rules (as also the sockpuppet used to do) to be you an user who just did open his account only few days ago. Should be just a coincidence. But Rothbard is not only an economist but also a well known thinker and writer about liberalism and so called liberties, included the euthanasia topic. but here also applies what someone told to the sockpuppet months ago: euthanasia is not merely a medical topic and medical ethics does not concern only to medical doctors; but it was actually an argument that the sockpuppet used to delete those editions showing identities between euthanasia and nazi-euthanasia as claimed by reputable, reliable and verifiable but non-medical authors. Also it is not the first time that should be pointed that it seems a sort of convenient misperception when some users (like the expulsed sockpuppet) claim "undue weight" for a short sentence against euthanasia in a section where most of the paragraphs are claiming pro-euthanasia, indeed the longest, included all the quoteboxes.

2. Kmhkmh, I agree. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

You are breaking yet another rule, the WP:AGF rule, by accusing me of sockpuppetry. And by continuing to argue your point against consensus, you are flogging a dead horse and wasting everyone's time. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To Kmhkmh, I agree with your suggestion to remove the section. It is quite inappropriate in this article and functions as a sort of coatrack for opinions. Suggest you go ahead and remove. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, since there seems to be agreement and the edit warring unfortunately continued, I'm going ahead with deleting the whole section. If I'm misreading te agreements feel free to revert the delertion. However in that case I think a review by other reliable editors might be required and then we'd have to see in what corrections or deletions that might result.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There is not any "edit war". I was just reverting the editions made by Jabbsworth as that account was permanently blocked because of sockpuppetry to evade a permanent block. I agree with the deletion of that section -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Trying to fix some of the style problems

I just made a fairly substantial edit [2] to what I saw as some of the style problems that the article has - there are still improvements to be made, in my opinion. Some of the eugenics and euthanasia related pages have been the subject of some contentious editing lately, so I just wanted to start a discussion here to see if there were any objections to what I did. Of course it goes without saying that anyone unhappy with my edit can revert it or improve upon it - I'm not getting into an edit war - but it would be great if we could work here to find consensus. --Dawn Bard (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Goebbels's "congenital" clubbed foot

According to William L. Shirer (who was personally acquainted with Goebbels) in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", Goebbels's handicap was caused by a bone marrow infection (osteomyelitis) and a failed operation to correct it during early childhood. A citation for the handicap being congenital is needed if this claim is to be rebutted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.84.77 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

First use of gas

Brandenburg Euthanasia Centre wasn't first place were CO was used against psychiatric patients. In occupied Poland, Germans used it in Poznań, against patients of Owińska Hospital in October 1939. Look at the plate in former "KL Posen" in Fort VII. Also [3]

Radomil talk 23:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

List of criterion for the program?

As it stands, the article is rather vague about which disabilities would qualify for being killed under this Nazi program. A few examples are given, but it would help to know the scope of the operation if a full list was given.

[BTW a detailed list of criterion for babies/children is given in the sister article http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Child_euthanasia_in_Nazi_Germany ] 14:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedTomato (talk • contribs)

And why would such a list be beneficial for this article? The Banner talk 08:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

German Aktion -> English "Operation"

I would like to see the page moved to "Operation T4". The cognate for the German word is not an idiomatic translation. (And don't tell me it's a "literal translation": there's no such thing.) Wegesrand (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you just link the title "Operation T4" to this article with a footnote in the start of this article. I don't know how to do it.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Article needed for Dr. Linden

Too much content was added to his listing under "Other people involved", but he appears notable enough for an article. The following (removed from this article) could be much of the draft: ".. The Planning Department tried between May 1941 and October 1942 through spot checks to determine how the institutional capacities after the murder of the sick of the action T4 were reused. Central planning was often the responsibility of regional authorities. On 5 August 1942, Dr. Linden initiated a survey among the competent authorities to assess how many asylum patients in corridors, common rooms, and chapels could be accommodated. In November 1942, Dr Linden ordered the twice-yearly survey of all psychiatric patients during Action T-4.

In his capacity as Reich Commissioner for the hospitals and nursing homes, Linden coordinated patients of the medical and nursing homes in Northern and Western Germany in 1943. These areas were first affected by the allied air strikes. When the sick arrived at the target institutions, they were subject to killings in Action Brandt, also called the second phase of Nazi euthanasia. Methods of killing were by drug overdose as well as the systematic starvation of patients. Linden worked to fill directorships in institutions with supporters of euthanasia. In 1943 it was important, he wrote, "that the psychiatrists increasingly turn to the idea of euthanasia from inner personal conviction." "In this respect currently the majority of current euthanasian [sic] doctors are even more in demand". And, it was "especially important to bring in reliable euthanasia psychiatrists into Directorships". (trans. from German) "Parkwells (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

The name "Dr Linden" is too short IMO. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Did Action T4 Cause the Holocaust?

The first paragraph in the Background section seems to imply that it did.

"The T4 programme is thought to have developed from the Nazi Party's policy of "racial hygiene", the belief that the German people needed to be "cleansed" of "racially unsound" elements, which included people with disabilities. Historians consider the euthanasia programme as related to the evolution in policy that ordered the extermination of the Jews of Europe."

In my view this connection needs to be more substantiated with facts and citations because Action T4 and the causes of the Holocaust are not so well known they can go without citations. I added tags, but they were removed by another user who said this is common knowledge. Action T4 may be one factor that led to the Holocaust but colonialism, the drive for empire, nationalism, 20th century religious and racial prejudice, and the Fascist ideology are also other factors. Publiceditz (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

"Murder"

Can anyone explain why this article uses the word "murder" over and over again? States don't murder people; they execute them. Substituting murder (illegal killing of a person by a non-state actor) for execution (state-sanctioned killing) is just an attempt to make an emotional point at the expense of accuracy.--Drolz⁰⁹ 20:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have sources that prove that the killings were state-sanctioned? Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The killings were never legal under German law. I'm not sure where that places the terminology. - Bilby (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I think they were technically legal during the period that Hitler authorized them by a written order, i.e. Sep 1939 to Aug 1941. Actually murder is a legal term too, so maybe it's better avoided and "kill" or "execute" or, where appropriate for large numbers, "slaughter", used. None of this excuses the actions of the Nazis, which were clearly beyond the pale. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

execute denotes 'for punishment of a crime.' so the crime these victims did was --what exactly? Cramyourspam (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

As it was showed here, the doctors involved in the euthanasia program were judged and condemned due they commited murder, crimes, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Therefore: crimes including murder. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

States certainly do organize and commit acts of murder. If a person kills another in his capacity as an officer of a state, you could say the state commited the act. If the killing was premeditated and unjustifiable, then it was murder. Naturally it's a bit disturbing to realize that states, to which we the citizens cede great power, are not infallible, but it's true. Wegesrand (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This program is being planned here in the United States. Search under "post-birth abortion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.50.1.3 (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I, too, was surprised to see the loaded word used so often. We should substitute "killed" in almost every case. This would be much less sensationalist, more matter of fact. ThemFromSpace 18:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Language

Today, this article got a new section "language" with as rationale added section on 'language' to illustrate that the program, despite the name, was not about mercy. Readers ought to know that 'euthanasia' means something entirely different than the use here. The section gives me an uneasy feeling. Do we need that section in the article and do we need it in the present form? The Banner talk 21:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the section in question. I did so because the term "euthanasia" has a very specific meaning at odds with the use to which it is put here... but it is not in use here because of sloppiness in language: there were deliberate efforts to invest this program with moral imprimatur and medical respectability. Furthermore, most (if not all) of the instances of the word euthanasia are in quotes, indicating this contradiction without explaining it. Perhaps you can articulate further what you mean by an "uneasy feeling"? TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Banner: On just about any other topic, I'd be in complete agreement with you. However, WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight, taken together, mean that Wikipedia should reflect the attitudes of society, especially (or perhaps, strictly speaking, only) when we can back it up with reliable, independent sources. The Nazis, like other despotic regimes before and since, used language and euphemisms to downplay the evil of what they were doing or, perhaps simply as an act of self-delusion or as a means for the higher-ups to delude/brainwash those who were not the major decision-makers into thinking their actions were not as horrific as they were.

Unless the cited sources can be impeached or someone can show that not only those sources's understandings of the Nazi Holocaust and related crimes against humanity do not line up with the general opinion of history, the recently-added text is perfectly appropriate. The only reason I can think of not to add it is if it redundant to existing text.

Having said that, a drier, less-opinionated way of saying the same thing could probably be found and such text would serve the same encyclopedic purpose of warning the reader about the different meaning of the term "euthanasia". I would have no objection to such a change, and I hope that, as long as the message about the euphemistic use of the term was clear, that TreebeardTheEnt wouldn't object either. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the addition is completely legitimate, and most certainly does not violate WP:NPOV -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Do something practical, add citations from a source like: The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide by Robert Jay Lifton ISBN 0-465-04905-2.Keith-264 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It would probably be better to have this information in the second paragraph of the lead. Something along the lines of "Although the stated objective was euthanasia (mercy killing) of the incurably sick, the program was soon expanded to involve killing of nearly anyone considered by the regime to have mental or physical defects." The statement "No evidence exists..." is so strong that it is almost certainly false. Rather than claiming that there were exactly zero cases of euthanasia under the program, it's probably better to emphasize that the program was largely used for eugenics and genocide.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This seems sensible enough. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The first para on the definition of Euthanasia doesn't seem very useful - a Wikilink to the term should do the job (and I don't see why explaining the origins of the English language word in Ancient Greek is at all useful given that this was a German program, and the German word - according to German Translate - is the rather different sterbehilfe). The second para is useful, but could be integrated into the background section. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I cribbed the definition and the link wholesale from the Euthanasia page so as to have something in the first paragraph with which to use as a counterpoint for the second paragraph. (Wikipedia doesn't have to pay for ink or paper, so I'm not one to feel constrained to a minimum brevity merely for the sake of brevity...) That is, however, a really good point about the German word. I would support both the inclusion of it and it's definition as well as some analysis of the difference between that and the English term. I don't think they are all that dissimilar, but it is important to note these things. The translation of the actual directive from Hitler that is quoted at the beginning of the article uses the words "mercy death" and has yet another term, "Gnadentod", inserted. Perhaps this is germane also? TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that Breggin adequately supports the entirety of the section, eg "minimal public relations" and Breggin does not consider the language aspects of the word "euthanasia" at all. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

involuntary vs. non-voluntary euthanasia

The pages on Involuntary euthanasia and Non-voluntary euthanasia discuss the difference. I think you want involuntary here, but it currently says non-voluntary.

Mdnahas (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

execute vs murder

OK, the article used to talk about execution.

• 86.154.153.145 changed verbs to murder in this dif
• The Banner reverted back to "execution" in this dif
• Andy Dingley reverted back to "murder" in this dif
• i reverted back to execution (last stable version) in this dif

Instead of edit warring, would you please discuss per WP:BRD? I reckon you should solve this by seeing what reliable sources call it, and going with that. None of you have made an argument from sources yet. Please don't make it about what you prefer, because that will just be a descent into hellish bickering. And for sure, stop edit warring. Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The disagreement goes back quite a bit further than the one day indicated in the diffs. See the section #"Murder", above.

I found that the things I came here to say – possibly using the generic, non-judgmental "kill[ed]", or relying on the post-war murder convictions of participants – have already been broached there, but there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus yet. 2600:1006:B123:235C:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The nasty thing is that sounds like murder and feels like murder, but because the nazis had made it legal at that time, it is execution as it was forced termination of life within the law. But we describe here what is not what feels. The Banner talk 07:51, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

If you read the text of the article, it makes clear that the "executions" were illegal since they were not a direct order from Hitler (or Fuhrerbefehl). There was no statute to justify the killings whatsoever, so that must surely make it murder. 86.154.153.145 (talk) 09:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

look at what the sources say. Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment: By all means, it was murder, and not execution according to Oxford, Macmillan etc. Execution requires the presence of a sentence to be caried out in a formal way usually as punishment for a crime real or imagined. None of the named victims have ever received a judicial sentence for being disabled. The killings were kept secret. That's murder, as defined by most English language dictionaries. Poeticbent talk 17:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Action T4 initiated The Holocaust because murder was legitimised by the nazis, whether it be disabled people, any one who disagreed with them, or various racial groups including the Jews and Roma as well as large numbers of Slavs. 86.154.153.145 (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

what is needed, is what sources call what Action T4 did. Please stop arguing based on generalities and deal with the sources say about Action T4. It is the only way to avoid bickering. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As it was legitimised by general policy at the time then I would use "euthanised". As you note, "execution" would require a specific legal judgement that each individual was to be executed. "Murder" is emotive, although I would still favour that to "execute". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You could start by reading the article and then stop making stupid and ill-informed comments. Murder is a legsl term and has no emotional content. Action T4 was not legitimised at all, which is why the nazis wanted it kept secret. When the rumours came out, there was substantial opposition from the church and some medics, so the action was apparently stopped by orders from Hitler. As we now know, the action continued, but with even greater efforts to keep the murders secret. 86.154.153.145 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

please keep the emotion out of this and focus on what the sources say:

• proctor, in his epilogue, referes to the "T-4 child murders" (p300)

* burleigh 1995 refers to murder on p 125 and elswhere

• friedlander 1995 calls it "killing", "murder"...

haven't found a source yet calling it "execution." are there any? The Banner do you have any? if not, we should switch to murder or killing, it seems to me. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was attending real life, I will take a look. The Banner talk 10:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Took a quick look and found referral to "killing" here, here and here (all Lifton). Bleuler uses both "killing" and "murder", but the last often in quotes or as "mass murder". Clearly, execution is out of place. So I suggest the neutral word "killing". "Murder" is in my opinion a judgement, subject to changes in the law (The killing of mentally handicapped people was respectively legal, illegal and de facto legal again under German law. The Banner talk 10:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this. please keep your opinion out of it, and rely on what sources say. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So the sources say "murder". Can we now revert the term "Execute" to a non-emotive, neutral word like "murder"? 86.154.153.145 (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

for now, changed "executed" to "killed". awaiting further discussion of sources by The Banner and others... please keep the discussion focused on the content and sources. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that sources confirm that participants in the killings were convicted of murder is sufficient to use the term murder in the article (Nazi German law notwithstanding, under the Nuremberg principles). That said, I'm not a big fan of purposely hammering home a point by continuous repetition. "Killed" seems perfectly adequate in describing the fate of individuals, such as in captions of images of single victims. Inline text referring to multiples would be better referring to murder or mass murder, per the references mentioned above. 2600:1006:B123:235C:5AD:4287:E314:1B02 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Another one here to support "killed". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice, now mr. IP is edit warring to get "murder" in the text, ignoring this discussion and failing to provide sources. The Banner talk 11:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I cannot believe the level of immaturity you guys are demonstrating. I am removing the image and caption until one of you brings a fucking source describing his her death. wikipedia is NOT driven by editors' preferences but what sources say. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC) (correct gender Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC))

The death is that of a lady, not a gentleman, and this is surely a non-judicial killing (aka Murder), as described in many sources. 86.154.153.145 (talk) 17:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

please provide a source describing that particular person's death as "murder" you are not listening and you are a hair away from getting blocked for being disruptive. same goes for banner. you are both ignoring the requirement to look to sources and editing badly. Jytdog (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

86.154.153.145 self-revert and keep the image deleted, or I will file an action against you. I will seek a topic ban and I will likely get it. Jytdog (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

argh, i do not want to waste my time filing an action. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

i am going to unrevert. leave it alone and i will not file the action. here goes. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Where is the archive of this talk page?

Where is the archive of this talk page? We had discussions on the number of people killed. The numbers have dropped by 50,000. My source of 250,000 killed is the Montreal Holocaust Museum http://www.mhmc.ca/en --Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay found the archive. I'm going to comb through it to see where the number changed.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

"between 200,000 and 250,000 mentally and physically handicapped persons were murdered from 1939 to 1945"

http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/mentally-and-physically-handicapped-victims-of-the-nazi-era/euthanasia-killings I do not know why the previous editor went with the lower number. I am increasing back to 250,000 --Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

To be true, your "correction" is at least strange. Based on the given source above, it is incorrect to say led to more than 250,000 additional deaths. You claim that there can be more deaths than even the upper limit of the estimate. By stating led to more than 200,000 additional deaths you stay on the safe side of numbers. The Banner talk 23:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "euthanasia"

I am objecting to the unquoted use of the word euthanasia in this article.

I added quotes to some instances of the word in a few edits, using comments like this:

"euthanasia --> 'euthanasia', as it really had nothing to do with euthanasia. Maybe another more fitting expression should be found? Killing of the weak? The word 'euthanasia' was only a cover-up and we should really not continue th[is deceit]." (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Action_T4&oldid=646629743)

But ClaudioSantos undid my change or changes with this comment:

"that involuntary euthanasia is not euthanasia is an opinion, even the article on involuntary euthanasia does not add any quote to the word euthanasia. plus proam of euthanasia was one of the terms widely used for example during the nuremberg doctors' tria" (https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Action_T4&oldid=646647545)

I do not believe that the meaning of this word is a matter of opinion.

And I definitely also believe that there should be changes in the article about the so-called "involuntary euthanasia". The concept of "involuntary euthanasia" (in stark contrast to the very different concept named "non-voluntary euthanasia") seems to me just as deceitful as the original Nazi spin or lie; it really has nothing to do with euthanasia at all, because it is not done to eliviate pain from the victims. It is the intention behind – the real intention – that makes a world of difference: Whether you kill because you want to eliviate pain in the one you kill, or whether you do it for any other reason, for instance in order to save money or for political reasons.

The very welcome section about Language in this article rightly states:

"Euthanasia (from Greek: εὐθανασία; "good death": εὖ, eu; "well" or "good" – θάνατος, thanatos; "death") refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering. Hitler's directive to create the programme used the German term "Gnadentod" which translates to merciful death.

The Aktion T4 programme used the term 'euthanasia' as bureaucratic cover and in the minimal public relations efforts (see poster) to invest what was essentially an outgrowth of eugenics with greater medical legitimacy. It is clear that little, if any, of the killing, however, was done to alleviate pain or suffering on the part of the victims. Rather the bulk of the evidence, including faked death certificates, deception of the victims and of the victims families, and widespread use of cremation, indicates the killing was done solely according to the socio-political aims, and beliefs, of the perpetrators."

Also read the different definitions of euthanasia on http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/euthanasia: They are all about helping a patient be free of pain and there is nothing about killing other people for your own sake. A killing doesn't become euthanasia just because the one you kill is ill or handicapped.

Euthanasia is all about helping someone be free of pain. So the intention is to help the one being killed. For instance, we euthanise pets and other animals when they suffer from incurable diseases that brings them pain. We kill them for their sake. And when we do that, it is non-voluntary euthanasia (to use the terms used here on Wikipedia), because the pet cannot say yes or no to being killed. But we still do it for their sake, to alleviate their pain.

That was not what was happening in Germany. It was not done to help the victims at all. That was a cover, a deceit used to make the general public accept it. And by still using the word "euthanasia" about these killings without quoting it, we are in fact continuing that deceit. The word "euthanasia" that was used as a spin – a plain lie about something that was not euthanasia – in the 1930s is still being used for the same thing in the 2010s. It really shouldn't. And definitely not on Wikipedia that seeks to tell the truth.

We can still use the word "euthanasia" in quotes until we find a better term for these specific killings, but it really should be quoted every single time it is used to refer to these specific killings – killings of the sick, weak and perhaps just different people – during and after the Action T4 programme. It really wasn't euthanasia in any shape or form, and it was never meant to be. It was just presented as if it was. We really should not perpetuate that lie and deceit here on Wikipedia.

Some could argue that "euthanasia" is just when you kill someone in a way that brings as little pain as possible to the one being killed (a possible interpretation of "good death"). But then almost the whole holocaust could be called "euthanasia", and many executions in general in the world likewise, if the execution is carried out in a way that is meant to minimize the pain of the one being killed (such as lethal injection, high drop hanging, a shot to the neck, or decapitation). So such an argument would not hold. Euthanasia is not about that.

"Euthanasia" is all about the intention of helping. If you do not kill another being in order to help that being, it is simply not euthanasia in any shape or form. That is why what happened in Germany was not euthanasia at all.

So, I definitely believe every use of the word "euthanasia" when used about those specific killings should be quoted.

References

--Jhertel (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You can read on the Nuremberg trials the defendant doctors claiming they had the intention to relieve those lifes from their unworthy and painful lifes. They were so convinced of their goodness that even claimed the same when they were to be steps to be hanged. I am not saying they were telling the truth nor saying I do agree. You can also see they were judged and condemned also on the ground euthanasia (and that was the word used by judges) was not legal in Germany. I won't also extend here discussing if the euthanasia definition is correct or also an euphemism. But the point is the name "euthanasia program" was the term used and there is no reason to put quotes for a term just because we do not agree it is or it is not euthanasia, as we also do not add quotes around "socialism" in the National Socialism term despite of we can argue it has nothing to do with true socialism. In the article is well explained euthanasia or mercy death or other terms are preciselly terms to cover mass murder, even in spite of the claims of the doctors intentions, etc. --ClaudioSantos¿? 16:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"You can read on the Nuremberg trials the defendant doctors claiming they had the intention to relieve those lifes from their unworthy and painful lifes.": This means that they possibly believed it was euthanasia, but it doesn't mean that it was. And it is even very likely that they just lied as a way to avoid (a harsher) punishment.

"They were so convinced of their goodness that even claimed the same when they were to be steps to be hanged. ": Still, that doesn't make it euthanasia, and they may very well still have lied.

"You can also see they were judged and condemned also on the ground euthanasia (and that was the word used by judges) was not legal in Germany.": Well, that can be seen as just a sensible way to make it easy to judge them, as they already "admitted" to "euthanasia", and if real euthanasia is even illegal, you have an easy and straightforward conviction.

"But the point is the name "euthanasia program" was the term used and there is no reason to put quotes for a term just because we do not agree it is or it is not euthanasia, as we also do not add quotes around "socialism" in the National Socialism term despite of we can argue it has nothing to do with true socialism.": Yes, there is definitely reason to quote a term that is used wrongly. We do not put it in a name such as "National Socialism", but if we start using the actual term "socialism" about Nazism, it should definitely be quoted every time, because it was not socialism. Likewise, DDR – Deutsche Demokratische Republik – was of course not democratic, so if we use that label about it, it should be quoted. That is the point of quotes used in this way – to say that the choice of words are not ours and that we do not condone the use of those words for the object or event in question. And likewise with the "euthanasia program" – it should be quoted, unless it is capitalized and used as the exact name of the program, but in that case it should really be written in the original German wording.

"In the article is well explained euthanasia or mercy death or other terms are preciselly terms to cover mass murder, even in spite of the claims of the doctors intentions, etc.": Yes, it is explained that "euthanasia" was used to cover over mass murder, and therefore it was simply not euthanasia at all. By still using the term unquoted, we perpetuate that cover-up here on Wikipedia. We can quote it (instead of completely replacing it) to state that "euthanasia" was the word they used (which it actually wasn't; euthanasia is the English translation), but it really needs to be quoted to show that it was not euthanasia (or at least to indicate that it was extremely unlikely to be euthanasia). Quoting the word euthanasia when used about these specific killings is really on its place in this article. And probably also in the so-called "involuntary euthanasia" article – as opposed to the non-voluntary euthanasia article were the use of the word euthanasia is completely legitimate.

--Jhertel (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, as an example, you can check that most or every name of those "Democratic" Republics, is not in quotes in wikipedia. And I do agree, we can´t even say they are really democratic, exactly as I doubt that for example a Policlinic is really a clinic subserving people as the word 'Poli' implies. And as I said, if it was or not euthanasia, based on your opinion on what is euthanasia or even on the deinition of a dictionary, is a debatible point. For opponents to euathansia, it was euthanasia, an historical example of what happens when under the guise of euthanasia and on alleged good intentions, it is allowed to the doctors kill patients. Even euthanasia historians like Ian Dowbiggin has shown it was comparable with the concept and definition of euthanasia held on those times by pro euthanasia organizations. Leo Alexander has noticed also similitudes and warned his american doctors colegues. And if we are going to talk about cover up, well perhaps then we should follow those who claim that we should write euthaNAZIa for every case that word come up in any context. But leaving apart those our own feelings and insights, I am afraid we are bounded by the standards of the encyclopedia: it does not quote every word in every term based on the ground that we consider using the term in certain context just dirty or defile the term since it refers to a practice that perhaps you support, so you want the respective term clean. Let the facts talk, even the insights made by reliable sources around the term and the context are in the article as I already said. ----ClaudioSantos¿? 19:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Well, as an example, you can check that most or every name of those "Democratic" Republics, is not in quotes in wikipedia.": But I explicitly stated that I do not believe that names should be quoted. They shouldn't.

"And as I said, if it was or not euthanasia, based on your opinion on what is euthanasia or even on the deinition of a dictionary, is a debatible point." It is not based on "my" opinion. It is based on the definition in the dictionary. This is not about opinions. I already stated that.

"For opponents to euathansia, it was euthanasia, an historical example of what happens when under the guise of euthanasia and on alleged good intentions, it is allowed to the doctors kill patients. Even euthanasia historians like Ian Dowbiggin has shown it was comparable with the concept and definition of euthanasia held on those times by pro euthanasia organizations. Leo Alexander has noticed also similitudes and warned his american doctors colegues.": Still, I believe the program was not made with the intention to help the ones killed. Can we agree on that? Because it is all about intention – true intention, not stated intention.

"And if we are going to talk about cover up, well perhaps then we should follow those who claim that we should write euthaNAZIa for every case that word come up in any context." I never stated that we should do that, nor do I believe that we should do that – that would be extremely silly, stupid and childish. I am simply trying to tell the truth. Not an opinion, but the truth. I feel my words are being twisted and misunderstood here.

"But leaving apart those our own feelings and insights, I am afraid we are bounded by the standards of the encyclopedia: it does not quote every word in every term …": There is absolutely no need to "quote every word in every term" – where did you get that idea from? The vast majority of articles in Wikipedia are fine. No need to quote anything. I am only talking about this specific article and about this specific word. I am not talking about all words in all articles, and it doesn't apply to that. Please don't twist my words or put words in my mouth. Listen to what I am actually saying. And it is not about "our own feelings and insights". I am seeking the truth, not personal opinions here.

"… based on the ground that we consider using the term in certain context just dirty or defile the term since it refers to a practice that perhaps you support, so you want the respective term clean." It is not about a dirty term or about my personal beliefs. It is simply about what that word really means and how it was misused. This is not about me. It is not about my personal opinions. If it was, I would not have changed anything or written anything. I am only doing this because I see something that is really not true written on Wikipedia, and I do not like that.

Maybe some doctors actually believed in the lie (after all, that is what a lie is for), but that does not make the lie true. It just means that some of the perpetrators believed in a lie. That's similar to telling soldiers a lie about why they should kill the enemy. It doesn't make the killings right that the soldiers believe that lie. In other words: A lie does not change the truth in any way. And what I am trying to do here is just to let the article reflect the truth and not the lie.

My only personal involvement in this is that I hate lies and love the truth. It is not about opinions, but about true or false. And calling the nazi "euthanasia program" euthanasia is a plain lie – no matter how many believed in that lie, doctors included. That is why the word "euthanasia" should be quoted in the contexts I mentioned earlier. Not "every word in every term" in all of Wikipedia, but this concrete, single, specific word in this specific article when talking about this specific program.

--Jhertel (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Technology and personnel transfer to death camps "

To my feeling this section is overly detailed and insufficient related to the subject. A severe trim or restoration of the former version seem better options. What do you think? The Banner talk 20:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• What is it, that you're trying to say, User:The Banner? Words such as "overly detailed" and "insufficient" mean exactly the opposite. Either, the section is "overly detailed" in your view, or "insufficiently detailed" in relation to the subject according to your opinion. The article size (text only) is 40,813 characters. The size of the section in question is 1,588 characters, a tiny fraction of the total. Meanwhile, the stationary gas chamber technology making use of the carbon monoxide gas as the lethal agent practically did not exist before Action T4 on a mass scale. It would not be possible to think about the Holocaust without Action T4, and any "severe trim" down from a single paragraph could only mean a complete loss of sensitivity for the events leading to it. I'm sure you didn't mean that... Poeticbent talk 22:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Let me start by pointing out that I was referring to "insufficient related to the subject". Not "insufficiently detailed" what you assume. The Banner talk 22:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you don't mind, I would like to add a second short paragraph to that section because I was planning on doing that before you made your comment from above. – It's about the leading personalities from T4 who transferred to Reinhard in 1942 as camp commandants. The information is grossly insufficient here about them. Christian Wirth and Franz Stangl were both commandants of euthanasia centres first and foremost, but the article does not say which centres, when exactly, for how long, and what their leadership in those centres entailed. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 11:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Action T4. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.waynemorinjr.com/Germany%20Psychiatry%20Murder%20of%20Mental%20Patients.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Editorialising

User:The Banner, please explain why you think removing this is "not an improvement". It is pointless editorialising, out of chronological sequence, and misleading (Von Galen had detailed knowledge of the program in July 1940). zzz (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Plain badly written. The Banner talk 08:48, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Just remove the sentence entirely. zzz (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Albinos

Hello, do the albinos were killed by the Aktion T4 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Non-neutral, far too detailed

@The Banner: please explain your reasoning zzz (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@The Banner: Robert Lifton is described as a "psychiatrist and author" on his WP page so I deleted his views, however it seems he actually would qualify as a historian for this article. Therefore I suggest restoring my other edits but retaining the quote by Lifton. Also paraphrasing the long quote I added. zzz (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aktion T4. 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/20060504015049/http://www.ushmm.org:80/research/doctors/three.htm to http://www.ushmm.org/research/doctors/three.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151029003413/http://www.belzec.eu:80/articles.php?acid=77 to http://www.belzec.eu/articles.php?acid=77

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

'Low Importance'

A 'Low Importance' article for disability and discrimination? This is equivalent to listing the Holocaust as a low importance article on Judaism and discrimination. Aktion T4 is fundamentally important to the understanding of the degree of discrimination faced by disabled people prior to recent year, in combination with and as an extension of eugenics. A practise which is still regularly argued for by various extremists (and leading philosophers such as Peter Singer). Aktion T4 was a systematic programme to exterminate a specific minority, disabled people, just as the Holocaust was a specific programme of extermination directed at the Jewish minority (together with gypsies, gays etc). Aktion T4 additionally formed the essential technological prototype to the mass killing of the Holocaust itself. Unless you can argue that the Holocaust should be downgraded to Low Importance, then Aktion T4 should be allocated similar importance to its younger parallel. 82.24.122.84 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversial move

The move, which did not show up here because it was listed as a non-controversial technical move, was in fact highly controversial. Read article please. Aktion T4 is a German phrase, not English (obviously), and yet the operation was never known in German as such during World War II as the opening statements in the article clearly indicate. It looks almost like the move was requested without reading. Poeticbent talk 22:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

RS use "Aktion T4" not "Action T4". Hence "uncontroversial". ("Action T4" wouldn't be the best translation, in any case.) zzz (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The programme is pretty much universally known as Aktion T4 among disabled people (including those of us of English background) and among relevant historians. Any change would not reflect actual usage

82.24.122.84 (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing issues

I found 6 or 7 refs to "Kershaw II", but nothing by Kershaw in reference bibliography. Also "Kershaw estimates that by the end of 1941...", with no ref. zzz (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I marked them all but retaining original ref details. zzz (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted your edits as they were in fact damaging. I restored (and improved) the original referral to the book of Kershaw. The Banner talk 22:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

CE

The notes, citations and references are in a bit of a muddle. made a start. The citation style needs to be uniform, anyone object to sfn?Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Went through the article and changed the variety of citation styles to sfn as it's the only one I really know. Cleaned up references and separated notes and footnotes. Happy to discuss with interested parties. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Aktion T4. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ushmm.org/research/doctors/three.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903214558/http://www.holocaust-history.org/lifton/ to http://www.holocaust-history.org/lifton/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/about/01/non_jews_persecution.asp?WT.mc_id=wiki
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110814164425/http://disabledmemorial.webs.com/IF2.doc to http://disabledmemorial.webs.com/IF2.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The official number of victims

Below, is the copy of table from Wikipedia Aktion T4 article augmented by the list of psychiatric hospitals in the Second Polish Republic where patients were liquidated following the September 1939 invasion of Poland. The list is based on research findings by historians Artur Hojan and Cameron Munro and other sources. Hojan & Munro claimed that the killings in the Polish hospitals were not part of Aktion T4 because the killers weren't paid by the same office in Berlin, and there was no paper trail left behind (among similar points, such as the use of gas vans). However, both in Poland and Germany, the euthanasia programmes were controlled by Himmler who personally witnessed at least one of the gassings in occupied territories (Browning 2005, p. 188). It was up to Himmler to decide what accounts the salaries were being drawn from. The Chancellery department at Tiergartenstraße 4 was set up in the spring of 1940 several months after the killings in Polish hospitals (see below) led by Lange have already taken place (and continued beyond that date probably by the SS also). Poeticbent talk 17:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Victims of Aktion T4 (official data), 1940 – September 1941

T4 Center	Operation		Number of victims
	From	To	1940	1941	Total
Grafeneck	20 January 1940	December 1940	9,839	—	9,839
Brandenburg	8 February 1940	October 1940	9,772	—	9,772
Bernburg	21 November 1940	30 July 1943	—	8,601	8,601
Hartheim	6 May 1940	December 1944	9,670	8,599	18,269
Sonnenstein	June 1940	September 1942	5,943	7,777	13,720
Hadamar	January 1941	31 July 1942	—	10,072	10,072
Total by year:			35,224	35,049	70,273
Territories of occupied Poland
Hospital	Region	Extermination of mentally ill	Number of victims
Owińska	Warthegau	October 1939	1,100
Kościan	Warthegau	November 1939 – March 1940	(2,750) 3,282
Świecie	Danzig-West Prussia	October – November 1939	1,350
Kocborowo	Danzig-West Prussia	22 September 1939 – January 1940 (1941–44)	(1,692) 2,562
Dziekanka	Warthegau	7 December 1939 – 12 January 1940 (July 1941)	(1,043) 1,201
Chełm	General Government	12 January 1940	440
Warta	Warthegau	31 March 1940 (16 June 1941)	(499) 581
Działdowo	Ostpreussen	21 May – 8 July 1940	1,858
Kochanówka	Warthegau	13 March 1940 – August 1941	(minimum of) 850
Helenówek (et al.)	Warthegau	1940 – 1941	2,200–2,300
Lubliniec	Oberschlesien	November 1941	(children) 194
Choroszcz	Bezirk Bialystok	August 1941	700
Rybnik	Bezirk Kattowitz	1940 – 1945	2,000
Total			~ 16,153

References

Further reading

• Catherine Epstein (2010), Model Nazi: Arthur Greiser and the Occupation of Western Poland. ISBN 0191613843
• S.J. (2007), Lange, Herbert. Dramatis Personae, H.E.A.R.T, HolocaustResearchProject.org
• Henry Friedlander (1997), The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution. ISBN 0807846759

Please comment, if this already expanded list should be added to article, or not? Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

"...because the killers weren't paid by the same office in Berlin, and there was no paper trail left behind (among similar points, such as the use of gas vans)" this doesn't seem definitive but if they are the RS for the data it has to be on their terms. I think I would add the information, with a[the] qualifying note that it might have been an analogous murder plot, rather than being strictly attributable to A-T4. Regards.Keith-264 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I've just altered the authors parameter to last1, first1 because it's deprecated now and saw that you have used the id= parameter. I changed them to efn when I homogenised the citations, because I thought it was an old form of layout and to separate citation from commentary. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Keith-264. Much appreciated. The scholarly sources of data are quite reliable actually, and the number of hospitals fully documented is even larger (at 18 ... as oppose to 12 listed above) for the total of 21 hospitals including those documented partially, with the total number of 16,153 victims listed by Project InPosterum.[4] Let's wait and see if anyone else would like to add their own comment to it. Personally, I would not be inclined to list the facilities with less than several hundred victims attributed to euthanasia.Poeticbent talk 20:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Apols for taking so long, I'd add them but in an efn.Keith-264 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you please elaborate on that @Keith-264: in March, I suggested expanding the table to include more locations, but the 'efn' would obviously not have the form of a table. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello again, I sometimes use efn after a sfn cite in a table or table header to indicate more information but not clog a table; I wondered if you might like to try it. If you want to be comprehensive with total numbers but exclude places where fewer than several hundred people were murdered, putting them in an efn will show how the number has been arrived at. I'm not much cop at tables so I'm rather hoping to be the one who learns something here. ;o) Keith-264 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

[redacted] Keith-264 (talk) 08:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Signedzzz happy to discuss why you want to suppress the quote in the lead, not happy to see it suppressed for "serving no purpose here". Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

How nice that you are "happy to discuss". Unfortunately I am not in the business of conversing with people who call me a holocaust denier. zzz (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't, you inferred it; there were two editors at work last night. Do you have a guilty conscience. You have broken 3 RR and judging by your talk page, you're in enough trouble already.Keith-264 (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see no reason why that quote should be added to the article. It adds in fact nothing useful. To add it to the lead is an absolute nono. And I take it as a PA to be called the things you mentioned in your first edit under this header. The Banner talk 16:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You again? You can infer what you want but I'd like to see why a quote can't be included in a lead.Keith-264 (talk) 16:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Third request to remove the personal attack and insult, User:Keith-264. The Banner talk 19:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

With respect, I request that you identify the editor you infer I insulted. To be helpful, I suggest you look back at edit notes. Why can't a quote be included in a lead? I can't find any prohibition. Keith-264 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

No hard and fast rules about quotes in ledes, per wp:lede, but note that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Ratel (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll check that.Keith-264 (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• So would you support using the quote outside the lede?

I'd support using the quote (although I'd like to see it dated). I'd support using it in the lede too, although I'm flexible over that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, some constructive criticism at last. I think it should be in the lead to make Hitler's involvement clear straight away. Keith-264 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is the quote

Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are entrusted with the responsibility of extending the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, so that patients who, after a most critical diagnosis, on the basis of human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen], are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod].

— Adolf Hitler

which is a translation of the letter shown in the infobox dated 1.Sept.1939., courtesy of Poeticbent [5]

References

Keith-264 (talk) 16:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Put the quote back in at the point in the text where it's mentioned (eventually) with date.Keith-264 (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

As per Andy's comments does anyone else want it back in the lead?Keith-264 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

No, bad idea. The Banner talk 08:29, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Why?Keith-264 (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Per Ratel and WP:POV. The Banner talk 11:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What's NNPOV about putting the smoking gun in the lead, proving that Hitler was behind it?Keith-264 (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You do answer your own question already: we write an encyclopaedia in a neutral style and tone. What you are doing is adding activism. The Banner talk 15:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Description isn't activism, it's the opposite. I'd avoid the royal we if I were you, it isn't neutral and it doesn't AGF. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

So you oppose the neutral encyclopaedia? The Banner talk 19:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you infer that? Keith-264 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Inline quotes in ledes are okay if they add a lot of clarity to the article. Not quote boxes though IMO. Quote boxes in ledes is the sort of thing you see in magazine and newspaper articles. An encyclopedia has a different format. Ratel (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for a civil answer.Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Colons

Is it an American usage to preface a quotation with a colon? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This American was taught to place a colon before a block quote if the quote does not flow directly from the introductory text. See this http://writeanswers.royalroads.ca/a.php?qid=1139503 and this http://blog.apastyle.org/files/block-quotations.pdf --Khajidha (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

PS - And this http://blog.apastyle.org/apastyle/2013/06/block-quotations-in-apa-style.html --Khajidha (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I did wonder, there's a wiki [6] here on it too. Keith-264 (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Put a barebones reference for MK into the bibliography but don't know what version the editor was using so can't do the rest. Keith-264 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

CE

Changed ~ to circa, rv if preferred.Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Programme

wikt:program (sic) I wonder if this term is overused in the article? At times it seems an obfuscation and that the article might be better served with a bald descriptive term like killing. I am also a little dubious about using the term Involuntary euthanasia for the same reason, it seems like a euphemism for murder. Keith-264 (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We use neutral wordings and a neutral style, so no need for inaccurate terms. The Banner talk 08:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

That's my point, what's yours?Keith-264 (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

That you want to hide the fact that is was an organised killing campaign. The Banner talk 11:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I want to make it explicit.Keith-264 (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

By leaving the usual stance of keeping the article neutral. Activism is not suitable. The Banner talk 19:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, hence my suggestion bland language like programme isn't neutral and in this case is the opposite of descriptive. Slack terms like "organised killing campaign" is not neutral either. Keith-264 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I find that the usage of "programme" drives home the truly horrendous nature of the events. It illustrates that these killings were treated as no different from a government plan to repave roads or replace worn out street signs. --Khajidha (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I find it a US euphemism that does the opposite, hence preferring the descriptive term "killing" of at least "killing programme/conspiracy" and "murder" rather than the rather oxymoronic "involuntary euthanasia". If it was as mundane as emptying dustbins, why the secrecy and dishonesty? Keith-264 (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Several instances of programme in the article are referring to the bureaucracy and organization as opposed the actual killings. In others, changing it to "killings" would simply make the article read like an overly florid essay by a child ("OH! those EVIL Nazis! They were killing people! KILLING THEM!"). --Khajidha (talk) 12:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see why; descriptive language in an encyclopaedia limited to describing what RS contain is better than using euphemisms and synonyms, all the more so when similar crimes are being committed or proposed now. Keith-264 (talk) 12:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is a very long and detailed article at 86,229 bytes. The meaning and context of the word 'programme' is obvious to any reader already by the first few paragraphs. Sometimes, we just have to build sentences according to their linguistic functions, switching words so as not to sound repetitive. The message remains the same. Poeticbent talk 19:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps but why use it at all? Clearly it's a matter of opinion but for me the term is dubious. I'm in two minds about synonyms on Wiki, they make the prose less repetitive but there's a risk that terms which aren't descriptive can be used. An attempt in good faith to fulfil one characteristic of good prose contradicts another; I think that programme is a synonym too far.Keith-264 (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Epistemological question

The infobox has

• "Incident type Forced euthanasia". Is this supported by RS? It seems like a fatuous sophistry and an oxymoron to describe murder in such a circumlocutory way. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone object to replacing it?Keith-264 (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

@The Banner: Why unhelpful? Keith-264 (talk) 11:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

It was the friendly version of telling you that you are POV-pushing again. Please keep the article neutral. The Banner talk 11:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

No POV, your hobby horse, pack it in.Keith-264 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The proper name was "T4 programme". You made it "T4 killing programme". And that is not a neutral way to address it. The Banner talk 13:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Is that what the Germans called it? The Nuremberg judges? The RS? Keith-264 (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming your POV. The Banner talk 21:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Scholarly, neutral, based on RS, who could want more? What is your source for T4 programme?Keith-264 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was simply given the code name "T4" by the Nazis. Not even the NYT calls it a "killing program". [7] Ratel (talk) 02:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.Keith-264 (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Banner, try to see the difference between a copy edit to tidy prose and your hobby-horse. I'm quite willing to discuss each of my recent changes one at a time to achieve consensus. Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Original:

Extermination centres were established at six existing psychiatric hospitals: Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, and Sonnenstein.

my edit:

The psychiatric hospitals at Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim and Sonnenstein were chosen as killing centres.

References

same meaning, fewer words. Show me your alleged NPOV.Keith-264 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Not the same. Just keep the article neutral in style and tone. The Banner talk 12:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No slogans, show me where.Keith-264 (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably you did not read the source: The selected patients were then shipped to holding facilities and then ultimately to one of the six psychiatric extermination centers -Hartheim, Hadamar, Sonncnstein, Grafeneck, Brandenberg, and Bernbcrg [5] Just follow the source. The Banner talk 12:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the quote, what's the difference between the original paraphrase and the alteration I made? Is it that you don't like "killing" instead of "extermination"?Keith-264 (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You are inventing terminology to make it sound even worse than the truth already is. The Banner talk 13:09, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

In early January 1940, the first 20 patients were led into a “shower room” at the Brandenburg asylum and killed. This method was judged to be highly successful and was later adapted for the killing of Jews. Five additional asylums, at Bernburg, Grafeneck, Hadamar, Hartheim, and Sonnenstein, were designated as killing centers, and patients marked for death at other hospitals were transported to these regional centers. By August 1941, 70 273 patients had been killed. Careful records were kept, and the 6 centers competed with each other in efficiency. Hadamar, eg, “celebrated the cremation of its ten-thousandth patient in a special ceremony, where everyone in attendance—secretaries, nurses and psychiatrists—received a bottle of beer for the occasion.”9 (Psychiatric Genocide: Nazi Attempts to Eradicate Schizophrenia E. Fuller Torrey1,2 and Robert H. Yolken3) [8]

"Killing/killed" = 4 "extermination = 0

The selected patients were then shipped to holding facilities and then ultimately to one of the six psychiatric extermination centers - Hartheim, Hadamar, Sonncnstein, Grafeneck, Brandenberg, and Bernbcrg [5]. Up to 100000 German psychiatric inmates were killed before Hitler ended the official program late in 1941 [6,7]..

— Breggin p. 2 [breggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/psychiatrysrole.pbreggin.1993.pdf]

"Killed" = 1, "extermination" = 0 [edit: = 1]Keith-264 (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This is what I mean. Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

After the war in West Germany

During the cold war West Germany was dominated by ex-Nazis who low balled the German civilian victims of the Nazis, their publications gave extensive coverage to the 2.2 million dead in the expulsion of the Germans, 500,000 civilian bombing deaths and the 1 million POW dead in Russia. Any mention of German civilian victims of the Nazis was considered a taboo subject. Historians outside of Germany regurgitated the official West German figure of 70,000 T4 victims. They ignored the evidence presented at the Nuremberg Trials that there were 275,000 victims of the Euthanasia Program [9] Just because a statistic is published in a reliable academic source does not make it correct.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Very few of the perpetrators and accomplices of the National Socialist »euthanasia« killings were brought to justice. The only serious attempts to pursue criminal proceedings came directly after the end of the war, for example with the Nuremberg Doctors Trial in 1946–47. Many of the doctors who had been involved in the crimes continued to practice after the war. For many years both state and society refused to acknowledgethe victims. In West Germany, only a small minority of those who had undergone forced sterilization were eligible for payments under the Federal Compensation Law. See section After the war[10]--Woogie10w (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)