Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:40, 6 July 2011

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / German / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Archive box collapsible

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on August 18, 2005, August 18, 2006, and August 18, 2007.

"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 , 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?" 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." 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. ► 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". Misplaced Pages 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. ► 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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:

... 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 ... 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.

-- 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:

Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic.

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:

... If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation ...

-- 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':

An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition.

-- 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 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 16:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Low-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• C-Class Death articles
• Low-importance Death articles
• B-Class Germany articles
• Low-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• Selected anniversaries (August 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (August 2007)