Talk:Aktion T4

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)

Modification of the T4/Euthanasia section

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 reverting 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.

----------

(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)

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 Wikipedia: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) [1]. 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)[2]: '"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 [3] ----->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)

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)

----------

• 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)

----------

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)

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 [4]. 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 [5] 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)

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 ...

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 ...

((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)

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

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. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines covers basic etiquette, Wikipedia: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:

Action T4 (German: Aktion T4) was a program, also called Euthanasia Program, in Nazi Germany spanning October 1939 until August 1941, during which physicians killed 70,273 people[1] specified in Hitler's secret memo of September 1, 1939 as suffering patients "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination,"[2] but described in a denunciation of the program by Cardinal Galen as long-term inmates of mental asylums "who may appear incurable."[3] The Nuremberg Trials found evidence that German physicians continued the extermination of patients after October 1941 and evidence that about 275,000 people were killed under T4[4].

"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)