Talk:Aktion T4

"Murder"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Action T4 Cause the Holocaust?

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

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

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

Language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

involuntary vs. non-voluntary euthanasia

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

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

execute vs murder

OK, the article used to talk about execution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* burleigh 1995 refers to murder on p 125 and elswhere

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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