Talk:Aktion T4

execute vs murder

OK, the article used to talk about execution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* burleigh 1995 refers to murder on p 125 and elswhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the archive of this talk page?

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

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

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

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

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

Use of the word "euthanasia"

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

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

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

But ClaudioSantos undid my change or changes with this comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Technology and personnel transfer to death camps "

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorialising

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

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

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

Controversial move

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

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

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

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

Albinos

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

Non-neutral, far too detailed

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

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

Sourcing issues

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Aktion T4. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060504015049/http://www.ushmm.org:80/research/doctors/three.htm to http://www.ushmm.org/research/doctors/three.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151029003413/http://www.belzec.eu:80/articles.php?acid=77 to http://www.belzec.eu/articles.php?acid=77

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

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

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

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

'Low Importance'

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