Talk:Aktion T4/Archive 3

Relation to Holocaust Denial
Can anyone answer this question: do Holocaust deniers also deny the existence of this program? --Apeloverage (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute still valid?
Dear all, In my humble opinion this article does a nice try to be as factual as possible and give references at important issues. Even in the section which neutral point of view is disputed (Action T4 and euthanasia). I would argue that there are several clear references in this article showing that indeed the Action T4 program has been referred to as an "euthanasia program", but that the concept of Nazi Germany euthanasia is different from the modern concept of euthanasia (references 63, 65, and 66). Is the neutrality of this section still disputed? LennartVerhagen (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not after I fixed it. :) ► RATEL ◄ 07:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the last section was highly POV and gave undue weight to the opinion that T4 is unrelated to the euthanasia movement. The fact of the matter is that euthanasi advocates in the west had also sought involutary euthanasia even seeking to introduce it in legislation.  Many writers on euthanasia do not draw the sharp line between T4 and the euthanasia movement that Friedlander does.  I've made edits to give the section balance and remove undue weight. Mamalujo (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand the basics of editing. You do not come and make wholesale changes to a consensus version without going to talk, especially when your changes consist of your own unsourced opinion. Hint: it is against wikipedia rules to insert weasel phrases like "some people say" (or the equivalent) before cited opinions, simply because you disagree with the sourced views. The way to do it is to find other sources that say the opposite. Do NOT change the consensus version unless you have reliable sources that offer other opinions. ► RATEL ◄ 00:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are quite wrong that I must seek approval to a "consensus" article before editing. You simply think you own this article and go about deleting reliably sourced material which conflicts with your POV - in violation of Wikipedia's first principle. Mamalujo (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Modification of the T4/Euthanasia section
Of course there are sources, even "reliable" sources according to Wikipedia policies, like for example: Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, 1949, No.241, pages 39-47, which clearly state that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4. Therefore sources, and even "reliable" sources according to Wikipedia policies, but even though censored sources, because:
 * PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA, and even so,
 * THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA, therefore,
 * CRIME APOLOGY

For details, see below ...

I just reverted a significant modification of the T4 and euthanasia section. There are a few issues: the first is the grammar and wording, which seems awkward in places, although admittedly can be fixed, the second is the lax citation style (citing a BMJ volume in bulk, for example), which again could be fixed with some clarification. The big issue to me is whether the addition meets neutral point of view; it seems to be slanted in the direction of paralleling modern right to die advocates with the T4 program. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But as you are the one who is not sure if the editions are truly facts, therefore you can't assumme the other version, which sustains the contrary, is true. My editions were citated and supported in documents, your revertions does not. --> N.N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.99.48 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I found the addition largely unreadable, and the point it was trying to make unacceptable (essentially saying that euthanasia is not unlike the Nazi's eugenicist murder program, which is an extremist view and an unacceptable synthesis of data). Suggest removal of entire edit. ► RATEL ◄ 02:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is Ratel's OPINION still not supported on nothing else but his own OPINION. ->N.N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.107.149 (talk • contribs)
 * User 190.25.107.149 was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. -TeaDrinker (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was just only 1 revert. Not 3. There was a wide correction of the spelling and redaction to answer the demands of User:Ratel. This correction was deleted by User:TeaDrinker because he was "...not sure...". This insecure deletion  made by User:TeaDrinker was reverted ONCE (1 not 3), precisely because he was not sure and he didn't support his OPINION. ->N.N.
 * Yes, that is Ratel's OPINION still not supported on nothing else but his own OPINION. ->N.N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.107.149 (talk • contribs)
 * User 190.25.107.149 was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. -TeaDrinker (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There was just only 1 revert. Not 3. There was a wide correction of the spelling and redaction to answer the demands of User:Ratel. This correction was deleted by User:TeaDrinker because he was "...not sure...". This insecure deletion  made by User:TeaDrinker was reverted ONCE (1 not 3), precisely because he was not sure and he didn't support his OPINION. ->N.N.
 * There was just only 1 revert. Not 3. There was a wide correction of the spelling and redaction to answer the demands of User:Ratel. This correction was deleted by User:TeaDrinker because he was "...not sure...". This insecure deletion  made by User:TeaDrinker was reverted ONCE (1 not 3), precisely because he was not sure and he didn't support his OPINION. ->N.N.
 * There was just only 1 revert. Not 3. There was a wide correction of the spelling and redaction to answer the demands of User:Ratel. This correction was deleted by User:TeaDrinker because he was "...not sure...". This insecure deletion  made by User:TeaDrinker was reverted ONCE (1 not 3), precisely because he was not sure and he didn't support his OPINION. ->N.N.

(moving left) Do not switch IPs to avoid your block It will result in longer blocks, article protection, or other more drastic measures. Please do not edit again for 24 hours, the duration of your block, from any IP address or username, except to edit your talk page.

I suppose it is my view, my opinion if you will, that your edits are a violation of the neutral point of view policy. However it is your opinion that it is not. I ask you to answer that (I'll post this to your talk page, so you can answer). The edits seem to be trying to make the case that modern right to die movements are similar in structure and motive to the T4 program; can you find notable authors who share this view? Are they answered? What is the most common view of the professional ethicists debating this? To take one side, or disproportionately discuss one side, or to advocate at all are all prohibited under the neutral point of view policy, no matter how compelling you think the arguments are. To make the argument yourself is original research no matter how strong you think the argument. I would also ask that you track down the full citation for each claim; a citation to "Basic Books" (a large publishing house) or a volume of the BMJ is not enough information to locate and verify the information. Hope this helps, --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. I already supported -also with citations to documents- "my" "point of view", it means the FACTS (well documented) of the identity between aktion t4 and euthanasia. It was put in my editions also the differences between T4 and euthanasia, including the point of view which claims that T4 is no euthanasia. Proof:
 * 2. The citations to "Basic Books" are a quote made by OTHER users, not by me, and precisely to support that OPINION which claims that T4 is not euthanasia.
 * 3. So about the sources: already the Military Tribunal of Nuremberg found and concluded that the euthanasias commited by those doctors were murders as well, and as such were judged and condemned. In other words: those judges stated that: 'euthanasia was punishable as murder under a legal, thus an objective point of view'. Are those judges of the Military Tribunal of Nuremberg an "enough notable" author to satisfy your desires?. I have to ask it because I DON'T HAVE TO answer that question. ->N.N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.107.149 (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. So about the sources: already the Military Tribunal of Nuremberg found and concluded that the euthanasias commited by those doctors were murders as well, and as such were judged and condemned. In other words: those judges stated that: 'euthanasia was punishable as murder under a legal, thus an objective point of view'. Are those judges of the Military Tribunal of Nuremberg an "enough notable" author to satisfy your desires?. I have to ask it because I DON'T HAVE TO answer that question. ->N.N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.107.149 (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I already add the citations for each fact posted and other corrections. ->N.N.


 * I address this to the person posting from IPs starting with 190.* (the ETB network in Colombia):
 * 1) Unfortunately, you do not have adequate grasp of English to be editing the English wikipedia. Your edits are gobbledegook. I struggle to understand what you are trying to say with your edits to the T4/Euthenasia section.
 * 2) You seem to be writing an essay, or putting an argument. This is not the purpose of the encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Please study what Wikipedia is not.
 * 3) From what I can make of your argument, you have a viewpoint that is quite unusual. Wikipedia does not give much weight to maverick opinions and crackpot theories.
 * 4) You were blocked from editing but continued to edit, even when told not to. This should earn you a range block, or get the page semi-protected. ► RATEL ◄  01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the admin you're refering to is me, thanks for the additional citation. However my concerns are the same as Ratel.  Moreover I read the article you referenced in the British Medical Journal ("Dutch reporting of euthanasia cases falls—despite legal reporting requirements") and no where does it support your claim that people are killed against their will.  But this is indeed only one problem out of many with your addition.  Please do not add the material to the article until there is consensus to do so here on the talk page.  See Consensus.  Continuing to add the material back may be considered disruptive editing, and lead to page protection, blocks, and all manner of nastiness.  Surely discussion here is preferable.  Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * About the citation and demands of the admin:
 * 1. why my version is deleted and not the other? Why not to mantain my version instead of the other? You say: "please don't ADD until consensus", why do you DELETE BEFORE that?
 * 2. Let me correct the citation and let me choose a better one. I'm sorry if the citation of the BMJ misled you in your intention to corroborate the facts. Because it is not "my" claim, and not even a claim, but a FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE EUTHANSIED, THUS KILLED AGAINST THEIR WILL OR WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. You could read by yourself the official statistics about euthanasia in The Netherlands, published in New England Journal of Medicine (Number 19,May 10/2007) . See for example the table on the page 1961. This report shows the porcentage of non-voluntary euthanasias and also of terminal sedations leading to death with out any consent of the patients (read for example page 1960), thus showing the fact that people are killed against their will. But please let also add the following citation, taken also from the "New England Journal of Medicine" (Number 352, March 10/2005): '"Of the 200,000 children born in the Netherlands every year, about 1000 die during the first year of life. For approximately 600 of these infants, death is preceded by a medical decision regarding the end of life"', which is the first paragraph of that article.
 * And also add this one: Euthanasia statistics highly spun from ->Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot
 * And also add this one: Euthanasia statistics highly spun from ->Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot


 * About Ratel's claims:
 * 1. It is allowed here to delete anything that you are not able to understand?
 * But really it seems to me that you already understood my editions because you said above: " ... and the point it was trying to make unacceptable (essentially saying that euthanasia is not unlike the Nazi's eugenicist murder program, which is an extremist view and an unacceptable synthesis of data)..."
 * Or perhaps it is me who didn't understand you? Am I allowed to delete your words then?
 * it is good for you if I (-speaking in my bad english-) do invite you to correct and rewrite "my" facts in your own words? or you just want to keep well spelled opinions although false?
 * 2. It seems an essay for you? why? it is hardly a list of facts even the opinions contrary or in favour are well quoted as opinions.
 * It is allowed here to say, and only say, that an article seems an essay to DELETE it?
 * it is good for you if I (-speaking in my bad english-) do invite you to correct and rewrite "my" facts in your own words? or you just want to keep well spelled opinions although false?
 * 3. Maverick and unusual opinions? well as unusual WAS, a lot of centuries before, the "opinion" that Earth is NOT flat. But I quoted FACTS not opinions, just the opposite of you who just DELETE.
 * To mention that the "opinion" (FACT) that T4 is identical to euthanasia (thus also different, because: have you ever read Hegel?), this is not only also the "opinion" of the judges of the Military Ribunal of Nuremberg, but of a lot of people around the world, as you can corroborate on a search on internet. how much percent of people is enough for you? it is the quantity of people who believes in a fact, the criteria to include that fact here?
 * As it was mentioned above: I already supported -also with citations to documents- "my" "point of view", it means the FACTS (well documented) of the identity between aktion t4 and euthanasia. It was put in my editions also the differences between T4 and euthanasia, including the point of view which claims that T4 has nothing to do with euthanasia.
 * it is good for you if I (-speaking in my bad english-) do invite you to correct and rewrite "my" facts in your own words? or you just want to keep well spelled opinions although false?
 * ->Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.192.49 (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing it to the talk page. If I understand your question, we usually maintain the article in the original version.  Informally, also, you may note there are two editors opposing your version.  Incidentally, you may want to register a username, to facilitate communication.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, following this logic and criteria: it should be deleted also the version which claims T4 has nothing to do with euthanasia thus letting a previous version of the article. But I have a proposal:
 * Please remember that: what you call "original" version, thus the version claiming that Aktion T4 has nothing to do with euthanasia, was also pointed out (BEFORE I made my editions) as NPOV, BUT NEVER DELETED UNTIL A CONSENSUS. Therefore, and indeed, a consensus not reached yet, but it was precisely Ratel who (ON 14 FEBRUARY/2009 = BEFORE I made my editions) summarily removed the NPOV advertising and edited without any consent or discussion, but in favour of his well known OPINION ("T4 has not to do with euthanasia").
 * So, am I being too maverick or too crackpot if I DEMAND THE SAME TREATMENT (no deletion) to my editions? editions which, moreover, also includes the previous version. Could you help correcting instead of deleting everything?
 * Note: Please call me Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot, as I was baptized by Ratel, if you need to use a name for me.
 * You are editing in bad faith. Create an account, as an admin advises (or have you done that in the past and simply found yourself on a long block?) Don't evade blocks either. Then please put your proposed edit here on the talk page, in a summary form (shortest possible form), so that we can discuss it. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 08:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Please call me Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot, as I was baptized by Ratel, if you need to use a name for me.
 * You are editing in bad faith. Create an account, as an admin advises (or have you done that in the past and simply found yourself on a long block?) Don't evade blocks either. Then please put your proposed edit here on the talk page, in a summary form (shortest possible form), so that we can discuss it. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 08:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are editing in bad faith. Create an account, as an admin advises (or have you done that in the past and simply found yourself on a long block?) Don't evade blocks either. Then please put your proposed edit here on the talk page, in a summary form (shortest possible form), so that we can discuss it. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 08:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Against selective discrimination here

 * Please remember that: what you call "original" version, thus the version claiming that Aktion T4 has nothing to do with euthanasia, was also pointed out (BEFORE I made my editions) as NPOV, BUT NEVER DELETED UNTIL A CONSENSUS. Therefore, and indeed, a consensus not reached yet, but it was precisely Ratel who (ON 14 FEBRUARY/2009 = BEFORE I made my editions) summarily removed the NPOV advertising and edited (in bad faith?) without any consent or discussion but in favour of his well known OPINION ("T4 has not to do with euthanasia").
 * So, am I being too maverick or too crackpot if I DEMAND THE SAME TREATMENT (no deletion) to my editions? editions which moreover, also includes the previous version. Could you help correcting instead of deleting everything?
 * --->Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot

(moving back left) Just to be clear, although I am an admin, I am taking part in this discussion as a user. Since I am involved in the content dispute, I will generally try and steer clear of admin actions related to this article. That said, I do think your editing is bordering on disruptive. Please do not add the material back without consensus here (meaning, general agreement on the appropriateness of the edits). Let's start with the version before you started making edits? Is your issue with that version that it is biased in some way, or just that it does not make the claim that T4 is the same as modern euthanasia laws? Thanks for going through the process, --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Until 14 February/2009 -thus BEFORE my editions- there was a NPOV advertising, bacause some OTHER users thought this section was biased or claiming false statements (see the discussions above). There was also another info until 14 february/2009. On 14 february/2009 the NPOV advertising was removed and new info was added by Ratel, this happened without any consensus but by the free decision of Ratel. This edition without consensus, made by Ratel, was never deleted.
 * I DEMAND THE SAME TREATMENT (NO DELETION) to my editions? editions which moreover, also includes the previous info, the NPOV advertising and also includes the info added by Ratel.
 * I ALREADY REVISED AND CORRECTED EACH STATEMENT OR FACT ADDED BY ME AND ITS RESPECTIVES CITATIONS. I agree with you, the REAL identity between Euthanasia Program Aktion T4 and modern euthanasia is disruptive, but that is not my fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.153.9 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ->Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.106.52 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ->Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.106.52 (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this issue is well covered by WP:REDFLAG. You are making claims or putting an argument significantly outside the mainstream. The mainstream is typified by authors like Henry Friedlander, as quoted in the article. Just because the Nazis appropriated the word "Euthanasia" to cover their murders does not mean that we should now adopt that usage. They also called killing, invasion and conquest "the search for Lebensraum" (habitat/living space). Should we now associate the words "habitat" and "living space" with murder? The Nazis loved euphemisms. Do you know what a euphemism is? ► RATEL ◄ 23:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First: BEFORE I made any of my editions, YOU Ratle summarily removed, on February 14/2009, the NPOV mark and also added editions without any consent and without regard the OTHER users. Neverthless I KEPT your editions. You are the one DELETING me.
 * Second, answering your question ("...euphemism...euthanasia..."): Precisely my editions are showing the identity (thus also the differences) between AktionT4 and euthanasia. I agree with you: the term euthanasia has been used as an euphemism. So, do you realize that: as indeed nowadays the term euthanasia is also being used to cover murders, therefore it is a common euphemistic use of the term euthanasia, thus an identity between modern euthanasia and Aktion T4? that is exactly ONE of the FACTS (supported with more than one citation) which is showed in the editions that you insist to delete.
 * ->Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot
 * Discussion here could be productive, but will not be so long as your disruptive editing continues. Please note that Ratel's edits had consensus on the talk page.  If you feel the original section is not still not neutral we can discuss the options for how to improve it.  Would you agree to cease adding your material if the original section were restored with an additional Template:npov-section tag?
 * But I will reiterate, your violates the three revert rule and seems to be disruptive. I recognize you may be a new editor, unfamiliar with the rules here on Wikipedia.  However constantly reverting to your version is not helpful, nor is it permitted.  Your disruptive editing needs to stop before any productive discussion can take place here.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. That is NOT AN ORIGINAL version. REALLY that is a version PRIOR mine, but also REALLY that is the version when Ratel REMOVED SUMMARILY the NPOV mark and added a paragraph without any consensus,
 * 2. yes, no consensus, but summarily. Of course, in the Talk, the SAME RATEL affirmed to himself: "...There is no need of that NPOV mark...". Until now: no one concerned have answered, nor deleted nor changed Ratel's version. UNTIL NOW because obviously there is not any consensus yet, of course because I DON'T AGREE. But I didn't felt free to delete him, but I added info, I added verifiable statements, I added FACTS, of course against the opinion claimed by Ratel (Aktion T4 has nothing to do with euthanasia and viceversa). And now he and you are deleting me.
 * 3. I agree with you: NO DELETION BUT CORRECTIONS. As with my editions was added more information and citations, but also was kept the last info from the last versions, included the info given by Ratel, therefore:
 * would you agree to stop deleting and reverting, if we kept "my" version including the NPOV mark? you are free to DEMONSTRATE here (if you could) that the statements or real facts I put are FALSE. Thus, if they are not real facts, then for sure I myself will delete them forever. so: why would you need to block the editions to enforce your opinion?
 * ->Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot
 * Thanks for the information and reply. On your first point, note that Ratel had consensus to make his edits. Ratel's series of edits in which he removed the npov tag is here, which was in response to a question on the talk page of whether the npov tag was still appropriate.  Ratel agreed it was not, added citations and a quote, and removed the tag.  You are welcome to dispute the neutrality of the section as it reads now, but please (i) read npov policy first and give clear reasons why you think it is not neutral.  You belief that the section should be an argument for the parity of T4 and modern right to die laws gives me the impression you do not understand neutrality.  Wikipedia is not intended to lead a reader to any one conclusion. But necessarily the claim is not a neutral point of view, it is an opinion.  Wikipedia may, however, report on notable views/opinions, and you are welcome to track down some scholars who have voiced (in reliable sources) claims of the parity of T4 to euthanasia.  However those views will be presented in accordance with the commonality of such views (see the undue weight section of the neutral point of view policy).  My understanding is that very few people have expressed that viewpoint, so it should not be prominent in the article.
 * I am not sure what you are trying to say in your second point. The "facts" you added (and I find some of them to be dubiously cited) were clearly, by your admission, intended to buttress a specific point, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. As far as keeping your version with the npov tag, I think that is inappropriate.  People have brought up numerous problems from the clarity of the section, to the neutrality, to concerns about copyright.  I appreciate your continued interest in the project, however it seems unreasonable to keep a version so many people have a problem with (and certainly no version under copyright, or a derivative work of something under copyright, may be included in Wikipedia).
 * Another admin has semiprotected the article, which will prevent you from editing it. I think the best course of action from here is to have you (i) describe how you think the present version violates the neutral point of view policy and (ii) find specific, notable claims of the parity of T4 and modern euthanasia from reliable sources.
 * Hope this helps, --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information and reply. On your first point, note that Ratel had consensus to make his edits. Ratel's series of edits in which he removed the npov tag is here, which was in response to a question on the talk page of whether the npov tag was still appropriate.  Ratel agreed it was not, added citations and a quote, and removed the tag.  You are welcome to dispute the neutrality of the section as it reads now, but please (i) read npov policy first and give clear reasons why you think it is not neutral.  You belief that the section should be an argument for the parity of T4 and modern right to die laws gives me the impression you do not understand neutrality.  Wikipedia is not intended to lead a reader to any one conclusion. But necessarily the claim is not a neutral point of view, it is an opinion.  Wikipedia may, however, report on notable views/opinions, and you are welcome to track down some scholars who have voiced (in reliable sources) claims of the parity of T4 to euthanasia.  However those views will be presented in accordance with the commonality of such views (see the undue weight section of the neutral point of view policy).  My understanding is that very few people have expressed that viewpoint, so it should not be prominent in the article.
 * I am not sure what you are trying to say in your second point. The "facts" you added (and I find some of them to be dubiously cited) were clearly, by your admission, intended to buttress a specific point, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. As far as keeping your version with the npov tag, I think that is inappropriate.  People have brought up numerous problems from the clarity of the section, to the neutrality, to concerns about copyright.  I appreciate your continued interest in the project, however it seems unreasonable to keep a version so many people have a problem with (and certainly no version under copyright, or a derivative work of something under copyright, may be included in Wikipedia).
 * Another admin has semiprotected the article, which will prevent you from editing it. I think the best course of action from here is to have you (i) describe how you think the present version violates the neutral point of view policy and (ii) find specific, notable claims of the parity of T4 and modern euthanasia from reliable sources.
 * Hope this helps, --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. The question about removing NPOV was made by User:LennartVerhagen who is of the same opinion of Ratel ("T4 has nothing to do with euthanasia") and that is an opinion, also you opinion for sure, but an OPINION.
 * 2. If really nobody thinks that T4 has to do with euthanasia, why do you think the article needs that section?
 * 3. But I also citated "scholars" who shows the identity and differences between Aktion T4 and euthanasia.
 * 4. It is your opinion that few people realize that identity.
 * 5. You haven't demonstrated the facts I published are not facts. And also you keep claiming general claims nothing specific.
 * 6. I corrected the citations to avoid copyright violations and also I corrected the especific citation about statistics in The Netherlands. also added a citation to each statement. -->Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.194.232 (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always for the continued discussion. I'm not sure what your point in number 1 was; you claimed Ratel did not have consensus for his edits, yet there was indeed agreement on the talk page.  It may well be an opinion you disagree with, but I would say you need to elaborate on your reasons for saying the section as written did not follow the neutral point of view policy.  Your second question/point is an interesting one.  It would seem there has been some notable discussion of that very topic, so it may warrant inclusion.  I am unaware, but open to references, of other authors who the two cited authors might be reacting to.  Are there notable claims of parity between T4 and modern euthanasia practice?  Who are they?  I read through your citations and no one made those claims specifically.  Although they may have, to a greater or lesser extent, buttressed your claim that T4 was the same as modern euthanasia, none of the cited authors seemed to make that claim themselves.  I ask you once again for a list of such authors.
 * You are correct that I have not taken issue with many of the specific facts you cite, although I do believe some of them to be incorrect or misleadingly presented. My real issue is with the use of Wikipedia as a soapbox: that the facts are woven together to try and make a point.  I must emphasize this is not what Wikipedia articles are for.
 * To move us ahead, can you please (i) describe specifically in what ways you think the present version of the article is not neutral point of view and (ii) provide specific references to authors who themselves make the claim T4 and modern euthanasia are similar. Many thanks and best regards, --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I have not taken issue with many of the specific facts you cite, although I do believe some of them to be incorrect or misleadingly presented. My real issue is with the use of Wikipedia as a soapbox: that the facts are woven together to try and make a point.  I must emphasize this is not what Wikipedia articles are for.
 * To move us ahead, can you please (i) describe specifically in what ways you think the present version of the article is not neutral point of view and (ii) provide specific references to authors who themselves make the claim T4 and modern euthanasia are similar. Many thanks and best regards, --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Current Version of the Article is propaganda pro euthanasia

 * 1. When I said that the removal of NPOV mark and the editions by User:Ratel, were made without consensus and summarily: I was NOT claiming for NEUTRALITY NOR FOR A CONSENSUS, but I was testing if I really could get the SAME TREATMENT to my editions, because his editions and removals were NOT DELETED NOR HAD TO WAIT FOR A CONSENSUS. Well, take it as a example or a proof that it is a crackpot claim when asking for a non-discriminatory treatment. Ratel do agree in it with me.
 * 2. "My" editions shows exactly how is FALSE each one of the premises used to claim that T4 has nothing to do with euthanasia. The current version is propaganda pro euthanasia.
 * The current version states:
 * a. "(AktionT4) was not motivated by concern for the welfare of the people concerned or by a desire to release them from suffering – most of those killed were not suffering."
 * FALSE because it is FALSELY stating that modern euthanasia DOES (concern for the welfare...). It is propaganda in favor of modern euthanasia because it is FALSELY GIVING AS A FACT that euthanasia is concerned for the welfare of the people and releasing people from suffering.
 * b. "(Aktion t4) was carried out secondarily to reduce the cost to the state of maintaining people with disabilities at a time when the overwhelming financial priority of the regime was rearmament"
 * FALSE because it is FALSELY stating and FALSELY GIVING AS A FACT that modern euthanasia DOES NOT (carry out to reduce costs...). Economical motivations are claimed by modern euthanasists. Economical circumstances determine modern euthanasia.
 * c."(Aktion T4) was carried out primarily according to the dictates of 'racial hygiene' ideology"
 * FALSE bacause it is FALSELY stating and FALSELY GIVING AS A FACT that modern euthanasia DOES NOT (carry out according to the dictates of racism). It is propaganda in favor of euthanasia hiding that the RACISTS "concept" of 'lifes not worth to live' or the "concept" of 'lives already death' or 'vegetative person' or 'person not human' are discriminatory "concepts" were used not only by T4-euthanasits but ALSO by modern euthanasists. Hygiene or health is a common pretext.
 * d."(Aktion T4) was nearly always carried out without the consent of the people concerned or their families."
 * FALSE because it is FALSELY stating and FALSELY GIVING AS A FACT that modern euthanasia DOES (carry out with the consent of the people concerned). It is propaganda in favor of modern euthanasia, hiding the fact that people are being massively killed, under the guise of euthanasia, without their consent or against their will.
 * e "The consistent use of the term "euthanasia" in this context is somewhat misleading. [...] The underlying objective was the same — the eradication of unwanted segments of the populace. In both instances no term other than murder is congruent with the circumstances."
 * FALSE because it is FALSELY stating and FALSELY GIVING AS A FACT that modern euthanasia objective is not the eradication of unwanted segments of populace. People are euthanasied, killed because they are being considered as a burden for their families and for the society, for example due economical motivations. But I agree euthanasia is a misleading incongruent word and therefore also the authors of the dictionaries and encyclopedias.
 * f. "(Jost and thus Aktion T4) is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's ‘right to die' or ‘right to death' or ‘right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost (and thus Aktion T4) was pointing to the state's right to kill"
 * Let asume the FALSE opinion which claims that Jost's ideology is the only or the main ideology behind Aktion-T4. Whatever: it is FALSE because it is FALSELY stating and FALSELY GIVING AS A FACT that modern euthanasia DOES NOT concern on the "right to kill". It is propaganda in favor of euthanasia, claiming an emphasis on allegedly 'individual's right to die', hiding that really and legally the real thing has to do with juridical exceptions, in other words: WHEN MURDER IS NOT PUNISHED. To remember that euthanasia is still a crime in The Netherlands, but not punished under certain circumstances, for example it is always a crime punishable if the euthanasia is committed by someone who is NOT a doctor. In some cases, like in some documented cases in The Netherlands and in Japan, euthanasia obviously has nothing to do with the will of the people concerned but only with the 'right to kill' (no punishment) of the doctor, for example when the murdered is a newborn infant, other cases are perhaps less obvious or not.
 * 3. I'm sorry but I don't think that AktionT4 is the same as modern euthanasia. I realized that modern euthanasia is worse.
 * You have, in "my" version, enough citations to corroborate my last statements by yourself.
 * < Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.103.129 (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Crackpot theories review
Hi, Crackpot (for this is the username you seem to prefer), hope you are having a good weekend. To answer your points above quickly:
 * 1) You claim my agreement for something ... I don't agree with you about this or any other point you have raised. So far, you are the only person to disagree with my changes to that section, hence the claim of consensus for my edit.
 * 2) a. You say modern euthanasia has no concern for suffering and the welfare of persons. Please provide a verifiable published source for that.
 * b. You say modern euthanasia is about bumping people off to save money. Please provide a reliable medical source (other than websites or papers published by religious or quasi-religious medical groups). How about a scientific paper, published in a peer-reviewed journal?
 * c. You say modern euthanasia has racist undertones. Again, reliable sources please, not fringe websites or unpublished papers.
 * d. Other than the euthanasia of grossly deformed infants, please give examples from the medical literature of documented cases of people being killed without either their own permission or (infants) that of their parents. Anecdotes will not do, only published scientific papers. These are medical matters you speak of, so popular culture or religion-sourced hearsay will not suffice.
 * e. Repeats other points raised above.
 * f. Seems to be your opinion that modern euthanasia is all about the state's right to kill people. If you provide good evidence, we can look at it. However, you may not use non-English speaking websites like muertedigna.org and encolombia.com as sources, ok? Also, no out-of-print books (see WP:V). Again, do not use religious sites like www.lifesitenews.com as a source. It does not pass the reliable sources test. Same goes for www.aish.com and catholicnewsagency.com, other religious sites. Also out are fringe activist groups with religious undertones, like doctorsfed.org.uk. That seems to take care of 95% of your "sources". Study WP:MEDRS. That's all for now. Cheers. ► RATEL ◄ 08:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You have, in "my" version, enough citations to corroborate my last statements by yourself.
 * Ratel, provide you the sources which DEMONSTRATE THAT EUTHANASIA IS REALLY WHAT THE CURRENT VERSION STATES.
 * The following repetition and explanation about only two citations just to show that you are misleading and misleaded:
 * The sources supporting the fact that people are being MASSIVELY KILLED AGAINST THEIR WILL, under the guise of euthanasia, are the official statistics of euthanasia in The Netherlands, published in a Medical Journal and also complementary a Paper based on 22 documented cases of euthanasia on newborn infants, published in the same Medical Journal. < Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.25.106.18 (talk) 10:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you're referring to one of the few good sources you used, the BMJ article . I read it but I do not have any sense of the alarm you seem to feel about it. It deals with people in extremis, dying of cancer in the main, and points out that sedation and euthanasia are not mutually exclusive in all cases. Not everything is black and white, cut and dried. Sic vita est.
 * The second paper you cite is about the Dutch Groningen Protocol, a strict protocol that allows doctors to euthanise a tiny number of births because the infants have a hopeless prognosis. The "22 cases" you keep talking about all involved very severe forms of spina bifida. I wonder how much you know about spina bifida? Below I show a wiki picture of an embryo with anencephalic spina bifida (no brain). So I have absolutely no ethical problem with that either. And it's nothing new — the North American Indians had an even harsher method; they would take a deformed infant and swing its head against a rock, and this was long before the western man with his terrible concept of "euthanasia" happened upon the scene. Sub sole nihil novi est. Bye. ► RATEL ◄  13:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you're referring to one of the few good sources you used, the BMJ article . I read it but I do not have any sense of the alarm you seem to feel about it. It deals with people in extremis, dying of cancer in the main, and points out that sedation and euthanasia are not mutually exclusive in all cases. Not everything is black and white, cut and dried. Sic vita est.
 * The second paper you cite is about the Dutch Groningen Protocol, a strict protocol that allows doctors to euthanise a tiny number of births because the infants have a hopeless prognosis. The "22 cases" you keep talking about all involved very severe forms of spina bifida. I wonder how much you know about spina bifida? Below I show a wiki picture of an embryo with anencephalic spina bifida (no brain). So I have absolutely no ethical problem with that either. And it's nothing new — the North American Indians had an even harsher method; they would take a deformed infant and swing its head against a rock, and this was long before the western man with his terrible concept of "euthanasia" happened upon the scene. Sub sole nihil novi est. Bye. ► RATEL ◄  13:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Therefore MURDERS, EUTHANASIAS COMMITED AGAINST THE PATIENT'S WILL OR CONSENT BUT ON RATEL'S WILL OR CONSENT < Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot
 * Thanks for your unique insights into these matters. To admins: I suggest that the article be given permanent protection against IP-hopping editors with monomaniacal obsessions. ► RATEL ◄ 23:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your unique insights into these matters. To admins: I suggest that the article be given permanent protection against IP-hopping editors with monomaniacal obsessions. ► RATEL ◄ 23:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your unique insights into these matters. To admins: I suggest that the article be given permanent protection against IP-hopping editors with monomaniacal obsessions. ► RATEL ◄ 23:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * UMC, please direct your comments at the content of the edits, not the editors. I admire the strength of your conviction, although I may have different views, but think Wikipedia is not the place for either of our views.  Please note that Wikipedia categorically may not be used as a platform to forward one's own views (neutral point of view is one of our five pillars; it is not negotiable), no matter how well founded you think your ideas. Even if you think you view has unarguable evidential support, it may not be included if it is your own research.  If no one else has said the view, or is an extremely peripheral view, Wikipedia is not the place for it.  If you can find some notable publications which do compare T4 and modern euthanasia, it may be worth considering.  In-print might be an example of commonality of the view, and English is certainly helpful (as the editors here speak English), but neither is strictly needed.  If you can find any significant publications, in any language in or out of print, feel free to put them below for consideration.  Best wishes, --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA althoug one of its authors, who calls himself Ratel, points me out as a monomaniacal obsessed.
 * PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA and the same author Ratel claims it is ok and well done, and that is his argument to keep the current version. < Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot
 * Please note that Wikipedia may not be used to advocate for any viewpoint. This is my principle objection to material you wish to add. I take your concerns voiced in the section titled "Current Version of the Article is propaganda pro euthanasia" seriously, and can appreciate the strength of your convictions.  However we all need to understand that a collaborative project can not succeed if people are yelling at each other or edit warring.
 * Moving forward, my read on the T4 and Euthanasia section seems to be in accord with npov policy, however would be willing to make it more clear. Wikipedia reports on the notable views of people, and we could make it clear in the opening that the section is reporting on the views of the scholars cited later in the section.  If you can find notable views in reliable sources which are also specifically indicating that modern euthanasia is similar to (or worse than) T4, mention them here and we can discuss their inclusion.  However if this is your view alone, it is a violation of policy to include it (no matter how much evidence you have amassed).  I hope this helps move this discussion in a more positive direction.  (please note it is also unnecessary to put a line between every comment; Wikipedia comments are usually separated by indentation.)  Best regards, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the current T4 and Euthanasia section, none of the scholars or books cited are providing not even data or facts about modern or current euthanasia, thus not even a comparisson between AktionT4 real practices and modern or current euthanasia REAL practices BUT rather a summarily comparisson between some AktionT4 real practices and the authors's own opinion on euthanasia, or between some AktionT4 real practices and a definition of euthanasia taken from the dictionary. Those author's opinions and definitions taken from the dictionary are pro euthanasia. Therefore ...
 * Moving forward, my read on the T4 and Euthanasia section seems to be in accord with npov policy, however would be willing to make it more clear. Wikipedia reports on the notable views of people, and we could make it clear in the opening that the section is reporting on the views of the scholars cited later in the section.  If you can find notable views in reliable sources which are also specifically indicating that modern euthanasia is similar to (or worse than) T4, mention them here and we can discuss their inclusion.  However if this is your view alone, it is a violation of policy to include it (no matter how much evidence you have amassed).  I hope this helps move this discussion in a more positive direction.  (please note it is also unnecessary to put a line between every comment; Wikipedia comments are usually separated by indentation.)  Best regards, --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In the current T4 and Euthanasia section, none of the scholars or books cited are providing not even data or facts about modern or current euthanasia, thus not even a comparisson between AktionT4 real practices and modern or current euthanasia REAL practices BUT rather a summarily comparisson between some AktionT4 real practices and the authors's own opinion on euthanasia, or between some AktionT4 real practices and a definition of euthanasia taken from the dictionary. Those author's opinions and definitions taken from the dictionary are pro euthanasia. Therefore ...
 * In the current T4 and Euthanasia section, none of the scholars or books cited are providing not even data or facts about modern or current euthanasia, thus not even a comparisson between AktionT4 real practices and modern or current euthanasia REAL practices BUT rather a summarily comparisson between some AktionT4 real practices and the authors's own opinion on euthanasia, or between some AktionT4 real practices and a definition of euthanasia taken from the dictionary. Those author's opinions and definitions taken from the dictionary are pro euthanasia. Therefore ...


 * THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA althoug one of its authors, who calls himself Ratel, points me out as a monomaniacal obsessed.
 * PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA and the same author Ratel claims it is ok and well done, and that CRIME APOLOGY is his argument to keep the current version. < Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot
 * ((duplicated because NOW it is also a conclusion of the last paragraph))
 * If I understand, you think the author's representation of modern euthanasia is incorrect, so you don't want their opinion included. In short, you do not agree with their arguments.  However, Wikipedia can not require editors agree with the arguments we report on, since it would preclude any reporting on opinions.  Also, please note the talk page is for discussion of changes to the article, not for posturing or something similar.  You don't need to repost the same message.  Many thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't understand. The current version is allegedly showing a comparisson between T4 and euthanasia. But ...
 * No, you didn't understand. The current version is allegedly showing a comparisson between T4 and euthanasia. But ...
 * No, you didn't understand. The current version is allegedly showing a comparisson between T4 and euthanasia. But ...


 * ((repeating because it is NOW also a part of the last paragraph))
 * In the current T4 and Euthanasia section, none of the scholars or books cited are providing not even data or facts about modern or current euthanasia, thus not even a comparisson between AktionT4 real practices and modern or current euthanasia REAL practices BUT rather a summarily comparisson between some AktionT4 real practices and the authors's own opinion on euthanasia, or between some AktionT4 real practices and a definition of euthanasia taken from the dictionary. Moreover, those author's opinions and definitions taken from the dictionary are pro euthanasia. Therefore ...


 * THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA althoug one of its authors, who calls himself Ratel, points me out as a monomaniacal obsessed.
 * PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA and the same author Ratel claims it is ok and well done, and that CRIME APOLOGY is his argument to keep the current version. < Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot
 * ((duplicated because NOW it is also a conclusion of the last two paragraphs))

(moving back left) Let me note that you have no reason to repeat yourself. Constant repetation is not part of a functioning conversation and can be of-putting. If I can summarize, you don't think Wikipedia should report on the views of the authors cited because you don't think they understand the issue. You think they have mistaken views on the facts of modern euthanasia. Is this correct? (You need not conclude with repetition of your views on Euthanasia, you have made them abundantly clear.) Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Those books are researches about Aktion T4 and also about other issues BUT not about modern/current euthanasia. Wikipedia is showing those author's opinions as facts about euthanasia, because
 * the crucial point is
 * PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA, and even so,
 * THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA, therefore,
 * CRIME APOLOGY
 * < Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot
 * I don't think we're really communicating here. Neither of your points seems relevant to the editing of the article.  I'm not sure what your first point even means; do you think Wikipedia's report on the author's views are not accurate to what the author intended?  I feel like we quote them so extensively this can not be the case.  Your second point, that people are being coercively killed, has no place in this article even if true.  Keep in mind Wikipedia does not make arguments, it reports on other people's arguments if notable (and verifiable).  Thus Wikipedia can not state "Hitler is bad" (a view I believe we all hold to be true).
 * I am somewhat concerned that this conversation is becoming repetitious. If you feel like we're getting somewhere, we can continue.  But I would implore you to read some of our policies (such as neutral point of view, reliable sources, and no original research) and direct your suggestions at article improvement in a way which is consistent with them.  Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're really communicating here. Neither of your points seems relevant to the editing of the article.  I'm not sure what your first point even means; do you think Wikipedia's report on the author's views are not accurate to what the author intended?  I feel like we quote them so extensively this can not be the case.  Your second point, that people are being coercively killed, has no place in this article even if true.  Keep in mind Wikipedia does not make arguments, it reports on other people's arguments if notable (and verifiable).  Thus Wikipedia can not state "Hitler is bad" (a view I believe we all hold to be true).
 * I am somewhat concerned that this conversation is becoming repetitious. If you feel like we're getting somewhere, we can continue.  But I would implore you to read some of our policies (such as neutral point of view, reliable sources, and no original research) and direct your suggestions at article improvement in a way which is consistent with them.  Best, --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

propaganda pro euthanasia = crime apology

 * Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot is telling the truth. Of course there are sources, even "reliable" sources according to Wikipedia policies, like for example: Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, No.241, pages 39-47, which clearly state that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4. Therefore sources, and even "reliable" sources according to Wikipedia policies, but even though censored sources, because:
 * PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA, and even so,
 * THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA, therefore,
 * CRIME APOLOGY
 * < Unusual_Maverick_Crackpot on 9 august 2009
 * I think we have heard enough of this. "What I tell you three times is true" does not hold here. If you can find a way of showing this view has been supported  with good sources, a sentence or two  might possibly be inserted. The possible underlying moral equivalence is not at issue in this article--this article is limited to the description of the Nazi program. Personally, it seems to me  that to say that although all killing is wrong implies that all killing is equally wrong is a viewpoint that very few responsible people are likely to support--but in any case, the discussion of this does not belong in this article. Similarly, the view that there is morally an inevitable "slippery slope" between the actions of contemporary euthanasia as practiced in, say, the Netherlands, and the actions of the Nazis in this program, is at least rationally supportable, (though I personally disagree with it); but correct or not, it is not the subject of this article. Nor is it the purpose of this talk page to discuss such views. We have shown a good deal of tolerance in permitting this repetitive irrelevant exhortations. You have had your say; if your arguments will convince anyone, they have had their chance. Now stop, before this becomes further disruptive. I am closing this discussion.  DGG (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * }
 * }

Talk page etiquette
There seems to be some confusion on talk page etiquette and guidelines. It may be overly formal, but there are specific guidelines in place to make talk pages readable and facilitate conversation. Talk page guidelines covers basic etiquette, Talk page covers formatting issues. Archiving is done for the convenience of other editors when a page becomes lengthy, and the talk page archives are there for everyone to read. The archived discussions were all old and inactive, and it is standard procedure to archive talk pages when they become too long. I'm going to suggest, since it seems to have become a problem, we follow these guidelines as much as possible. --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusing lead
I find this paragraph extremely confusing:

"70,273 people" killed during T4? Or "about 275,000" killed under T4? Which is it? The German Wikipedia article says, more than 100,000. I would strongly encourage editors working on this article to pay close attention to de:Aktion T4, as that article's editors have a good reputation and the article is closely watched.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Both figures are correct and refer to different data sets and time intervals. The 70,000 figure refers to the original T4 program from 1939-41, the 200,000 or 275,000 figures include the secret extensions after 41 and provide a total estimate for the 1939-45 period.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight and POV deletions of reliably sourced material on Euthanasia section
I am additing the NPOV tag on the Euthanasia section. One user has been repeatedly deleting sourced material which does not comport with his view that T4 is unrelated to euthanasia. Certainly, there is sourced material which says calling the program euthanasia is a euphemism, but there is also reliable sourced material which notes that the program developed out of the euthanasia movement and, even after news of atrocities, had sympathy within the Anglo-American movement. Simply deleting sourced material with which you disagree and presenting one POV as if it were the only view is a blatant violation of NPOV. The section, with multiple cummulative quotes and a quote box, bolstering the false impression of the view as undisputed fact, also gives undue weight to the idea that T4 and euthansia are so divorced. I think the tags should remain until balance is restored. Mamalujo (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a couple of cns to your paragraph, because I for one would find it useful to evaluate this issue if you could please point me at the relevant references. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page not the article. Please don't edit my posts.  If you'd like to ask for sources, do so, but don't put "citation needed" tags in my post.  If you look at the sourced additions I made to the section which were deleted, that is a starting place. Mamalujo (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is some additional sourced material that the movement, even after the war, continued to consider nonvoluntary euthanasia for the "unfit". Also, the idea that euthanasia is and was so divorced from eugenics is not supported by the historical record as many western advocates of the practice were supporters of eugenics and the two were closely tied. The founder of the Euthanasia Society of American advocated involuntary euthanasia as did other early 20th century American advocates who even introduced such legislation. Mamalujo (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those refs. My intention in editing your post was simply to highlight the pertinent issues in the clearest possible way.
 * These refs indicate that some people unconnected with T4, in another country, also considered involuntary euthanasia for hereditary conditions. Now clearly the meaning of the term "euthanasia", and the level of coercion involved, is somewhat subjective. There's no dispute that "involuntary euthanasia", qualified in that way, means what it obviously does. There's barely any more disagreement that euthanasia, as used today, certainly does not. Now the question is, in relevance to this article, is why the term was used by the authors of T4?
 * Did they mean that it was involuntary euthanasia, were open about this, and used the term to communicate the meaning of involuntary, forced, euthanasia in a society where that was an acceptable interpretation of the term?
 * Was the term used because a broadly-held meaning of "euthanasia" had already shifted (outside T4) to encompass involuntary euthanasia?
 * Or did they instead use the term as camouflage? Hiding the "involuntary" aspect between a term that could be defended as "merciful" in the mind of a public who didn't appreciate just what was being put forward? This is certainly the interpretation put forward by Friedlander(ibid).
 * Your refs indicate that some people, presumably unrelated, had also advocated involuntary euthanasia, and then went on to form a group that advocated euthanasia more broadly (and I don't know if this also included involuntary euthanasia). However that tells us little about T4's own intentions (case 1 above), nor does it support an argument that a wider-held position had shifted from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia (case 2 above) (the Euthanasia Society if anything had gone the other way).
 * Overall, these refs do little to contradict the interpretation, already supported by direct references, that T4's use of "euthanasia" was solely as a camouflaging euphemism, to present the rarely acceptable involuntary aspect as instead a more widely acceptable merciful and voluntary version. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mamalujo, your first source (Shai Lavi book) quotes a source to make the allegation that the early euthanasia movement in the USA considered euthanasia for the medically unfit. So that's not a source itself, merely a book quoting another source. No evidence for the claim is presented. In itself, this is not a notable source for your contention.
 * Your second source leads nowhere, simply to a description of the book And the walls came tumbling down.
 * The Milton James Lewis book makes broad claims about the people who formed the ESA without citing any evidence. What he says may be correct, or not. It's difficult to tell since he presents nothing to support his claims (in the accessed excerpt). Similar claims are made here, this time sourced to an outspoken opponent of euthanasia, Ian Dowbiggin. If you wish to insert claims sourced to an activist like Dowbiggin, we'll have to qualify the his views with phrases like: "Anti-euthanasia campaigner Ian Dowbiggin states that ...".
 * So even if we accepted this badly sourced claim as worthy of inclusion, there is still no support for your contention that "many western advocates of the practice were supporters of eugenics". Apparently Charles Potter thought about it (although I've still seen no actual proof of that). So who are the "many", and where is the article they published along these lines? Where is the proof? Citing claims made by a religious conservative activist like Dowbiggin, who seems to enjoy impugning the reputation of dead people (who cannot sue), or citing sources that cite Dowbiggin (as you have done) is not enough. ► RATEL ◄ 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) I'm somewhat puzzled by the source, which seems to indicate VELS was advocating involuntary euthanasia (VELS is the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalization Society, founded mid-1930s). If there was any such advocacy, it does not seem to be a significant part of their agenda. I don't see the connection to T4 either; simply because there were some people who believed in both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia does not really tie the two. Is there something I am missing? (I'm the admin Ratel mentioned, but since I've been involved in this discussion before, I'm not wearing an admin hat). --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to be true that some members of the very early euthanasia movement in America had positive views of involuntary euthanasia for mentally defective babies, etc. However, this looks to have been a phase that quickly passed, and moreover seems to have emanated not from the wider membership of the movements (which consisted of only a few people in the beginning anyway), but be the maverick opinions of isolated individuals. In fact, the reading around this issue I did today shows that some early members actually resigned from the ESA because of disagreements over this issue, so it was not a firm policy of the ESA's at all, and they even published words condemning involuntary euthanasia. So we're talking about the ideas in the heads of a handful of people as they were deciding what the movement would be. They soon moved on to things like Living wills. The relationship of these minutiae of the early history of some pro-euthanasia society in the US to Aktion T4 is extremely tenuous, at most, and inclusion would raise NPOV and undue weight issues. ► RATEL ◄ 01:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not at all clear what Mamlujo's thesis is here: Is it that T4 was related to a publically-acceptable campaign of euthanasia, or a publically-acceptable campaign of eugenics ? The two are quite distinct: although involuntary euthanasia for hereditary conditions could be described as broadly eugenic, to claim that any and every eugenic program went as far as supporting euthanasia isn't supportable. That would be a right old Bellamy salute to claim! Andy Dingley (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Andy, let's be clear, it's not my thesis but that of RS's. What the original source in my original edit made out was the fact that what T4 was doing was considered "euthanasia", not just by the Nazis, but also by advocates of the practice outside of Germanty - not only Nazi's but also Anglo-American advocates of the practice supported involuntary euthanasia of the unfit.  It is plainly balance for the assertion that T4 was only using the term euthanasia euphemistically - much of the Anglo-American movement likewise saw involutary euthanasia of the "unfit" as euthanasia.  Andy, you may see eugenics as distinct from euthanasia, and today it is much more so, but as you can see from my last two links above, prior to and during the war they were seen as closely linked.  And it was not just some members who advocated involuntary euthanasa but the very founders of the movement, and the involuntary euthanasia of the "unfit" had enough widespread support to be part of a number of pieces of legislation which were introduced.  With regard to whether VELA (U.k.) advocated involutary euthanasia, they did in some instances at some periods.  ESA (U.S.) did so more explicitly.  The sources I gave above were just additional sources which supported the sourced edits I made, they weren't in the original edits.  The RS edits show that T4 was not so distant from euthanasia as the section had asserted. The edits are necessary for balance.  The edits also point out the ramifications of T4 on the Anglo-American movement - causing them to distance themselves from involuntary euthanasia.  As far as all the second guessing of RS's, particularly on Ratel's part, that sinks into OR.  As far as labelling the material from Dowbiggin as being from an opponent of euthanasia, that seems inappropriate and highly POV. Do sources which are advocates of euthanasia get such a label either here or in the euthanasia article.  Also, Dowbiggen is a noted professor of history - it is not "badly sourced" - moreover multiple other sources (see my post above) support the facts he states.    I'm going to reintroduce my edits and remove the POV and undue weight tags. Plainly they provide balance for the assertion that T4 was only euphemistically called "euthanasia", they give historical perspective of the fact that some of the Anglo-american euthanasia supported involutary euthanasia of the unfit generally and even of T4 specifically, and also gives historical ramifications of T4. Mamalujo (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not change the section while the consensus is against you. That's rule one of wikipedia. You seem to be on a mission to link euthanasia of all kinds to eugenics and murder, which is a ploy of certain religious groups opposed to voluntary euthanasia. Are you one of those? I notice you have a long history of edits to articles dealing with religious issues. You need to understand that while Aktion T4 was euphemistically called a "euthanasia" program, it should have more accurately be described as an involuntary euthanasia program. Your attempt to conflate voluntary euthanasia (usually simply called "euthanasia" because involuntary euthanasia is never assumed) and Aktion T4 (involuntary euthanasia, eugenics and simple murder) is pure POV pushing that does not belong in the encyclopedia, notwithstanding your use of activist sources on the same mission, like Dowbiggin. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 04:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Are you one of those?" Please refrain from ad hominems in talk page discussions.  I am not "on a mission" to do anything other than to accurately reflect the historical record regarding this Action T4 and its ramifications in a balanced NPOV way.  The current version is lacking in this regard.  You seem to oppose accurate historical facts from RSs that note the ramifications Action T4 had and the sympathy for involuntary euthanasia and even the Nazi program within some of the midcentury euthanasia movement. Mamalujo (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To address the confusion underlying this issue, I've edited into the article the differences between voluntary euthanasia (aka "euthanasia") and involuntary euthanasia. Aktion T4 is loosely linked to involuntary euthanasia through "mercy killing", although in the Nazi model it simply became murder of anyone disliked by the Nazi minions, according to the Aktion T4 article. <span style="color:#333; font-weight:bold; font-size:9px; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#CEE1DD; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 04:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course there are sources, even "reliable" sources according to Wikipedia policies, like for example: Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, 1949, No.241, pages 39-47, which clearly state that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4 ... 201.244.201.128 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Catholic"
Can someone count how many times the word "Catholic" is written in this article and then perhaps clean it up? Lot's of catholic apologist propaganda! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.75.95 (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

14 times. I think people deemed to be suffering from mental illness are mentioned about four times.FiachraByrne (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Bishop Galen
Hi,

The article currently states A few weeks after the pastoral letter was read out [which happened in July, acc. to the article (Yaan)], the Catholic Bishop of Münster in Westphalia, Clemens August Graf von Galen, publicly denounced the T4 program in a sermon, and telegrammed his text to Hitler, calling on "the Führer to defend the people against the Gestapo". "It is a terrible, unjust and catastrophic thing when man opposes his will to the will of God," Galen said. "We are talking about men and women, our compatriots, our brothers and sisters. Poor unproductive people if you wish, but does this mean that they have lost their right to live?"[59] Robert Lifton says of this sermon: "This powerful, populist sermon was immediately reproduced and distributed throughout Germany — indeed, it was dropped among German troops by British Royal Air Force pilots. Galen's sermon probably had a greater impact than any other statement in consolidating anti-'euthanasia' sentiment."[60] Another Bishop, Franz Bornewasser of Trier, also sent protests to Hitler, though not in public. In August Galen was even more outspoken, broadening his attack to include the Nazi persecution of religious orders and the closing of Catholic institutions. He attributed the heavy allied bombing of Westphalian towns to the wrath of God against Germany for breaking His laws. my questions are:

Did Galen really denounce the euthanasia program in two separate sermons, or are the two mentioned sermons one and the same? and

In which sermon did Galen attribute "the heavy allied bombing of Westphalian towns to the wrath of God against Germany for breaking His laws".? I couldn't really find it in this one, except some sentences towards the ending which more or less predict punishment for those "who do not want what god wants".

Yaan (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Euthanasia template
There's a new navbox available, provided by the Euthanasia template. What relation "Action T4" bears do modern day usage of the term "euthanasia" is of course a hotly debated topic, and I don't mean to state anything one way or the other. What do editors here feel, would it be appropriate to include that navbox in this article? Gabbe (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. This is about murder and eugenics under the guise of euthanasia. Putting the template here is exactly what euthanasia opponents would want. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 14:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that since the nazi usage of the term it has become somewhat ambiguous. Ultimately you cannot simply describe a term as it was defined at one time and declare that to be the "true" meaning of the word. In German the term was used for eugenics and not just int the form of a euphemism or disguise but as official language, i.e. if you look up the term in various German dictionaries or encyclopedias of the 1930s, the term will be defined as "killing unworthy life". Wikipedia should not join ideological battles over the "true" meaning of a certain term, but simply report it as it is/was.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So, since euthanasia means "good death", it clearly has nothing to do with "killing unworthy life". Thanks for clarifying. <span style="color:#646464; font-weight:bold; font-size:50%; border:2px solid #FFCC33;background-color:#cde0fc; padding: 2px 10px; letter-spacing: 6px;">► RATEL ◄ 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you completely misunderstood the point, it says that least in German it does not only mean "good death" but "killing unworthy life" as well. The point is that words are not only defined by their original literal meaning (Greek for "good death") but by their usage over time. To get you some (harmless) language examples to understand that point:
 * "pulling your leg" does not only mean that somebody is literally pull at your leg, but it as also a acquired a second meaning as "kidding or fooling you".
 * "anal" is not just literally referring to the anus but it can also describe a person's attitude/behaviour.
 * "gay" doesn't really stand for happy anymore (it's original meaning in the 19th century) but it usually used for homosexual.
 * In a similar way Euthanasia has at least in German acquired such a double meaning and consequently in German people often don't use that term anymore, when they refer to aids for dying/selt controlled death in order to avoid any disambiguities. The German WP article on the subject explains that point fairly well btw.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the English section of Wikipedia, and it is being written now. Thus, the WW2-era meaning of a word resembling "euthanasia" in German is irrelevant.  English words should be used in the English section of Wikipedia with their current meanings.TimothyFreeman (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But Aktion T4 was a german action. PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the reference to the situation in the German language is merely an illustration of what one has to consider, i.e. the argument put forward above simple referring to the literal translation is not sufficient. The assessment needs to be based on the current and common use in English. If that differs from the use in German, that's fine, but that's, what has to be considered and not just the literal translation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. In order to compare Aktion-T4 with euthanasia, why euthanasia can be merely defined as a "good death", which is the ideal definition given precisely by the supporters of euthanasia?. Under what criteria could be excluded, for example, the legal point of view from euthanasia definition?
 * 2. Would not be a bias when it is assumed that euthanasia nowdays is not a murder under the guise of euthanasia only based on a ideal and propagandistic definition claimig that euthanasia is just a "good death"? where are the proofs that euthanasia nowdays is not a murder under the guise of euthanasia?
 * 3. For instance, there are a lot of reliable sources claiming that euthanasia is a murder, thus a murder under the guise of euthanasia, for example: most of the Criminal Codes around the World. But also there are the following source, which is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies: Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, 1949, No.241, pages 39-47, which is also a source claiming that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4. Would not be a bias to exclude this point of view from the article? Would not be a bias to exclude this point of view from the criterias used to decide the inclusion of the euthanasia-template? PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing neither for the template nor against it. Nor I am going to start a discussion about the nature of euthanasia here or whether T4 should be called Euthanasia in English or not. My point was merely that the original argument further up. which was simply referring to the literal translation, is not good enough. For whatever assessment you want to argue you need to look at most common uses of euthanasia in (English speaking) societies and not just the original literal translation. The situation in Germany was given as an illustration to show, that common uses can significantly deviate from the original literal translation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Kmhkmh. Therefore, I'm asking everybody: would not be a bias when it is assumed that euthanasia nowdays is not a murder under the guise of euthanasia (like Aktion-T4), only based on a ideal and propagandistic definition claimig that euthanasia is just a "good death"? Would not be a bias to assume this ideal point of view as the only criteria used to decide the inclusion of the euthanasia-template in the Aktion-T4 article? (see above my 3 points on this issue)PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is little difference between this programme in its early stages, and modern euthanasia. Consider Hitler's memo - "Patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment...of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death".  Beware that the modern euthanasia does not become like T4! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs) 03:07, 20 February 2011

Circularity
There is a problem with circular references here, to and from the lethal injection article. While it is obvious that the Nazis did not use the modern U.S. lethal injection protocol, WP does not say what drugs or methods they used. These facts are probably buried in the transcripts of the Doctors' Trial, but might also be in published books. I don't have access to a good research library, but some WP contributors do. Perhaps they could help. Donfbreed (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexander and Action T4
I removed the quote on Alexander's discussion of euthanasia and Action T4 as follows:


 * Here one sees what "euthanasia" means in actual practice. According to the records, 275,000 people were put to death in these killing centers. Ghastly as this seems, it should be realized that this program was merely the entering wedge for exterminations for far greater scope in the political program for genocide of conquered nations and the racially unwanted. The methods used and personnel trained in the killing centers for the chronically sick became the nucleus of the much larger centers on the East, where the plan was to kill all Jews and Poles and to cut down the Russian population by 30,000,000.

Similar, I've removed the reference to Alexander in:


 * For other authors, Aktion T4 clearly has a relationship with euthanasia. Not only is it claimed that euthanasia was an euphemism to cover and justify murders; but these authors, such as Leo Alexander, (who was an advisor during the Nuremberg Trials), even claim that Aktion T4 is precisely an example of what euthanasia really means in actual practice.

The source for the quote is Alexander Leo, Medical Science Under Dictatorship, The New England Journal of Medicine, 1949, No.241, pages 39-47.

I then realised that there have been heated debates on this topic, so my apologies upfront. However, in reading the Alexander paper, the quote being used above was used to describe the preceding paragraph in his work, which was a description of what was happening in Germany in regard to Action T4. Alexander was effectively saying "this quote shows what the actual practice was in Germany" rather than "Action T4 is an example of the actual practice of euthanasia". - Bilby (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong, Alexander clearly refers to euthanasia as such for example adverting that also there is an euthanasia movement with the same propaganda and basis, and also alexander refers to euthanasia in The Netherlands. And in fact the citation you are asking for is precisely that source: Alexander. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * However if you use Alexander as a statement about modern English term euthanasia, you may run into a problem of fringe or at least undue weight. If you restrict Alexander to T4 he is essentially saying what other scholar say on the subject as well, i.e. you quote Alexander as an exemplary voice of the general scholarly opinion on the subject. But if you read it as a statement about the modern English term it does not represent the general scholarly opinion anymore and might be even borderline fringe. If the latter rather than the former is true, then this might suggest that Alexander should not be quoted at all. Moreover that statement would be better suited for the article about Euthanasia rather than this one (see reminder below).--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a general reminder to all involved: This is an article about T4 and it is not about what does or does not constitute Euthanasia and what the term Euthanasia currently does or does not mean in the English speaking world.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Quoting Alexander: "The question that this fact prompts is whether there are any danger signs that American physicians have also been infected with Hegelian, cold-blooded, utilitarian philosophy and whether early traces of it can be detected in their medical thinking that may make them vulnerable to departures of the type that occurred in Germany ... From the attitude of easing patients with chronic diseases away from the doors of the best types of treatment facilities available to the actual dispatching of such patients to killing centers is a long but nevertheless logical step. ... Evidence of the existence of such an attitude stared at me from a report on the activities of a leading public hospital unit, which stated rather proudly that certain treatments were given only when they appeared promising ... To be sure, American physicians are still far from the point of thinking of killing centers, but they have arrived at a danger point in thinking, at which likelihood of full rehabilitation is considered a factor that should determine the amount of time, effort and cost to be devoted to a particular type of patient on the part of the social body upon which this decision rests. At this point Americans should remember that the enormity of a euthanasia movement is present in their own midst." PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's definitely not a quote for this article (see above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It will not be used in the article -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that Alexander made discussed euthanasia in general. My concern is only that Alexander's quote, as used above, was not about "euthanasia in actual practice", but about "Action T4 in actual practice". Which is fine, but means it can't be used to support a comparison with modern usage, as is currently being drawn in the article. - Bilby (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No Sir, Alexander says: "euthanasia movement" why are you assuming that the word euthanasia is not euthanasia but Aktion T4? And why are you assuming the section "Aktion T4 and euthanasia" must be restricted to "modern euthanasia"? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He does mention euthanasia movement elsewhere in the article (twice, in fact). That's fine. Nevertheless, the quote being used in regard to actual practice does not refer to the movement, but Action T4. Yet in this article it is being used to draw a comparison with the wider practice, and this does not appear to be Alexander's intent. I'm generally concerned, as per Kmhkmh, about relating Action T4 too strongly to the wider movement, as that does seem outside of the article's scope - however, that wasn't the point I was making. - Bilby (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1- I can read that Alexander makes a difference betweeen the allegedly "good" intentions and the real lethal effects. But where in the text Alexander makes a difference between euthanasia and Aktion T4? Instead of that, for example, Alexander actually refers to the decree of Hitler (which never uses the word euthanasia) as it was an order to commit euthanasia: "The first direct order for euthanasia was issued by Hitler on September 1, 1939, and an organization was set up to execute the program." So, you are right Bilby, in the quoted text Alexander is refering to Action T4, but you are wrong Bilby, because Alexander is refering also to euthanasia, as Alexander always refers to Aktion T4 as euthanasia, he never shows a difference between Aktion T4 and euthanasia.
 * 2- As I understood none of the quoted sources in the section (AktionT4 and euthanasia) refers to something called "wider euthanasia movement" but one of those authors compares AktionT4 with that he believes euthanasia actually means, the other author compares Aktion-T4 with an euthanasia definition taken from a dictionary and the third one (Alexander) compares it also with that he thinks euthanasia actually means. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm doing a good job of getting my point across, so I'll try leaving it to others to decide what I mean. However, just to be clear: I don't dispute that Alexander made references to general euthanasia. All I am saying is the quote in which he refers to "actual practice" is not related to euthanasia in general, but is directed to what was happening in Germany. Taken out of context, as it is here, it reads like a general comment, but in context it clearly relates to the events of Action T4 only. Thus having it out of context in the article is misleading, and using it to support "Aktion T4 is precisely an example of what euthanasia really means in actual practice" is a significant problem. At any rate, I've said enough, so I'll step aside. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the quote is not out of context and is not misleading because precisely the author (Alexander) never in that texts refers to Aktion T4 as something different than euthanasia. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

... Again ...
TickleMeister: one must refer to the context, to find what Alexander is meaning. When he says "Here one sees what 'euthanasia' means in actual practice" he is not quoting euthanasia to differentiate this "nazi" euthanasia from a "good" euthanasia. When he quotes euthanasia is not because it would be a "nazi" euthanasia instead of a "good" euthanasia. There is not any proof that Alexander make any distinction between a "nazi" euthanasia and another sort of euthanasia. Instead reading the text one find evidence that for this author euthanasia is alwways euthanasia and a danger thing. In this section it was already quoted another parts of Alexander's text which should be useful to see this point:

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But he refers here to a form of non-voluntary euthanasia in which the decision is made by "a social body" and not the patient himself. There is no such form of euthanasia on Earth at present, except for the Groningen Protocol. Therefore he is not referring to what is generally meant by euthanasia in the modern sense. I think the wording I inserted should ve replaced. What do others think? TickleMeister (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I stated above, I think the quote by Alexander is about Action T4, rather than euthanasia in general, especially given that it immediately follows from, and comments on, a long quote describing the Action T4 process, so I don't feel that it is correct to assume that he is discussing the general topic when it could be more easily assumed that he is discussing the specific case. More generally, I think you are correct, in that what he saw as euthanasia isn't necessarily what is meant by the term today. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, Bilby, and I agree with you. TickleMeister (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * TickleMeister: you say this author refers to a form of non-voluntary euthanasia and he is not referring to that concept which you think is generally meant by euthanasia in the modern sense. That is a distinction made by you TickleMeister not by the author. The author is not making any distinction between one euthanasia and other euthanasia. Even more, as I already noticed: the author is not ever making any distinction between "nazi euthanasia" and other euthanasia. The author in each part of the text is precisely warning against euthanasia, for example against euthanasia movement in NorthAmerica as a risk factor which could lead American phyisicians to commit the same crimes as physicians did during nazi regime. I see your point TickleMeister: you think that AktionT4-euthanasia couldn't be compared with certain modern sense concept of euthanasia, but precisely that section ("Aktion T4 and euthanasia") goes on different points of view from different authors about the relationship between AktionT4 and their own concept of euthanasia, it doesn't matter if you or me don't agree with their concept of euthanasia, and it also doesn't matter if you or me believe their concept of euthanasia is not well adjusted to the "modern sense" concept of euthanasia. More over: unless one of those authors pointed it, for this section of wikipedia article would be irrelevant that involuntary euthanasia is actually widely practiced on Earth at present, for example illegally, as statistics are enough large to claim this practice is not a rare exception instead what you think.
 * Bilby: I showed that context of Alexander's article is enough clear: author make not distinction between nazi euthanasia and other euthanasias . But I understood your argument: we should not assume what is the author actually thinkig, but we should only publish what he actually says. Well, precisely this author for sure quotes the word euthanasia, surely because he thinks it is an euphemism to cover murders. For sure you think that he is refering only to nazi-euthanasia, although for sure I think he is referring to every-euthanasia as he never makes a distinction between euthanasias. But what is also sure and clear is: author didn't write "nazi euthanasia" neither "euthanasia under nazi regime" as TickleMeister pretendes to edit. But author only wrote "euthanasia", so we should keep his words, we souldn't add anything else, precisely not any of our interpretations of that sentence . -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * CluadioSantos, wikipedia works by consensus. The consensus is now in favor of Bilby and me. Unless others support your view, the page will be changed. TickleMeister (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TickleMeister, you are talking about imposition or even about democracy instead of consensus, as it means all we agree instead of a mayority imposes over a minority, or am I wrong?.
 * Let me quote:


 * And wikipedia also claims for other policies like WP:NOR, but it seems you are trying to force to publish your own opinion and interpretation and to add your words to the author ones.
 * Let me quote again:

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing OR with the problem of understanding what was meant by an author - it is original research to interpret the data, but we're not trying to interpret, just to understand what the author was saying, which is something we have to do with all sources. Clearly there are two ways of reading the quote. The first is that it is related to euthanasia as a whole, which is what appears to be the case when viewed on its own and is what you seem to argue for. The second is that the quote, especially with the quotation marks around "euthanasia" and the preceding paragraph, is describing what went on with Action T4. There is no question that the author later speaks out against euthanasia in the paper, but I don't think he is saying that Action T4 is necessarily an example of what is meant by euthanasia. From my reading, what he seems to be arguing for is a slippery slope argument - the acceptance of the principles that underlie euthanasia may lead to situations like Action T4, and thus we should resist the emerging euthanasia movement and the Hegelian attitudes to medicine, and instead invest in the care of the chronically ill.
 * At any rate, per TickleMeister, even if Alexander is referring to euthanasia in general with that quote, such a reference is to euthanasia as viewed in the 1940s, which is unlikely to be as relevant given the progression of the ethical debate since then. The debate is quite different today, with a focus on voluntary euthanasia as an extension of someone's right to choose, which is not what Alexander is discussing. - Bilby (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Bilby puts it well. Once again, I am in agreement with him. TickleMeister (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Even the texts written by other authors who claim euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4 are outdated, for example written before euthanasia was legalized in The Netherlands, and before the Groening Protocol which legalized involuntary euthanasia for newborns. But this section is not a debate about euthanasia but a revision of different points of view some authors have written about the relation between euthanasia and Aktion T4. Bilby, the problem of understand what meant the author is a task and a right for the readers, the editors should " let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition." -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The other commentators we use for that section are all writing from the mid-1990's or later, so they are probably referring to the current understanding of euthanasia. At any rate, people can only understand the text if it is given in context - with Alexander's quote out of context, I don't think readers can properly evaluate it. - Bilby (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that is your opinion about euthanasia but section goes about authors opinions and texts. Whathever, let me quote again WP policies about your concern on 'readers couldn't evaluate properly the text':

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * it's ok - I'm pretty aware of the policy, but this isn't about OR. The thing is that you are also interpreting the text trying to understand what Alexander is saying, but that is the normal process, as we need to understand the sources in order to use them. I think, given the context of the quote, that it is a bigger stretch to interpret him as speaking about euthanasia in general as opposed to Action T4 specifically, in part because the quote is in regard to a description that is very much about Action T4. - 203.122.223.121 (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree in your interpretation of that sentence, based on the context and all the evidence taken from the text. That was already clearly noticed. But I'm not adding any word to the sentence written by the author. The author didn't write "euthanasia under nazi regime" but only "euthanasia", so let the author speaks by himself. Don't add words to him based on your own interpretation. Let the readers read the author and let them make a conclusion. That is the point and wikipedia policy about OR. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is where we hit last time - you just don't seem to see where I'm coming from, as this isn't about OR, but about properly reflecting what the author was saying. The full quote, (my apologies for the length, but we need the context), is:
 * What these activities meant to the population at large was well expressed by a few hardy souls who dared to protest. A member of the court of appeals at Frankfurt-am-Main wrote in December, 1939:
 * There is constant discussion of the question of the destruction of socially unfit life—in the places where there are mental institutions, in neighboring towns, sometimes over a large area, throughout the Rhineland, for example. The people have come to recognize the vehicles in which the patients are taken from their original institution to the intermediate institution and from there to the liquidation institution. I am told that when they see these buses even the children call out: "They're taking some more people to be gassed." From Limburg it is reported that every day from one to three buses which shades drawn pass through on the way from Weilmunster to Hadmar, delivering inmates to the liquidation institution there. According to the stories the arrivals are immediately stripped to the skin, dressed in paper shirts, and forthwith taken to a gas chamber, where they are liquidated with hydro-cyanic acid gas and an added anesthetic. The bodies are reported to be moved to a combustion chamber by means of a conveyor belt, six bodies to a furnace. The resulting ashes are then distributed into six urns which are shipped to the families. The heavy smoke from the crematory building is said to be visible over Hadamar every day. There is talk, furthermore, that in some cases heads and other portions of the body are removed for anatomical examination. The people working at this liquidation job in the institutions are said to be assigned from other areas and are shunned completely by the populace. This personnel is described as frequenting the bars at night and drinking heavily. Quite apart from these overt incidents that exercise the imagination of the people, the are disquieted by the question of whether old folk who have worked hard all their lives and may merely have come into their dotage are also being liquidated. There is talk that the homes for the aged are to be cleaned out too. The people are said to be waiting for legislative regulation providing some orderly method that will insure especially that the aged feeble-minded are not included in the program.
 * Here one sees what "euthanasia" means in actual practice. According to the records, 275,000 people were put to death in these killing centers. Ghastly as this seems, it should be realized that this program was merely the entering wedge for exterminations for far greater scope in the political program for genocide of conquered nations and the racially unwanted. The methods used and personnel trained in the killing centers for the chronically sick became the nucleus of the much larger centers on the East, where the plan was to kill all Jews and Poles and to cut down the Russian population by 30,000,000. (Alexander, 1949, p2)
 * Euthanasia in actual practice does not mean carting people off in buses, transporting them to gas chambers, killing them on mass with cyanide, and then cremating in an assembly line. The process called "euthanasia" under the Nazi regime did mean that, though. In his paper, Alexander spends the first seven pages describing various practices under the Nazis, and this is part of that discussion. He then spends two pages taking about how the same principles that led to these were apparent in the US at the time, and recommending that people don't take that path, but instead invest in the care of the chronically ill. This is a slippery slope argument. At one point later in the paper he states, speaking about all the practices he described in Germany:
 * Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitable sick. (Alexander, 1949, p7)
 * That is very much in support of the slipperly slope argument, which seems to argue that these practices come from the same principles as euthanasia, but not necessarily that they are the same thing as the euthanasia being described in the US at the time.
 * I'm concerned that you're moving from the specific, (a discussion about what happened in Germany), to the general (a claim about all euthanasia). That's not the impression I get from the above - I read it as being a claim about what the Nazis described as "euthanasia" was (hence the quotes), not what it is in a wider context.
 * At any rate, I don't think we're getting anywhere again, much like what happened last time. I think the addition of the extra qualifier, stating that Alexander was describing was was occurring under the Nazis, would help provide the reader with better context by which to judge the text. I also think the quote, taken out of context, provides undue weight, as you need to read that quote in the context of the paper to see what he is saying. But having, I think, expressed my stance as well as I can, I'm going to step back from this again, as arguing in circles doesn't get us anywhere. - Bilby (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So, would not you put quotes around the word "euthanasia" in order to remark that it is always a euphemism to cover murders? -- 186.28.47.34 (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the final sentence of that section, as the full quotation from Alexander is already given. The article is ultimately about Action T4, not about the significance of Action T4 to arguments about euthanasia, nor about the opinions of one commentator. Xanthoxyl &lt; 12:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, just let the quoted box. But that section is precisely about Action T4 and euthanasia, so I can't understand your argument. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * TickleMeister deleted the confusing quotation, so I have replaced it with one better encapsulating Alexander's slippery slope argument. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 16:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)