Talk:Aktion T4/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Article needs work

It's my understanding that the T-4 program was halted by Hitler because it had become something of a scandal after being publicly denounced by Clemens von Galen. This is interesting for two reasons - firstly, because it's an insight into how even the Nazis were susceptible to the demands of public opinion; secondly, because it has been argued that this scandal is what led Hitler to avoid ever signing any documents specifically ordering the extermination of Jews. If someone could get some reliable sources for this info, it could be worth working into the article.

Very poor article. Needs to be rewritten with better sources.--User:80.133.105.176 22:49, 19 Mar 2004

Sources

Ernst Klee

I fully agree. Three and a half paragraphs are devoted more to (admirable) Ernst Klee than to T-4 Euthanasia program itself. Even the synopsis of Klee's standard work is poor indeed. He would never have written: "Most of the participants of the T-4 Euthanasia Program became part of the Holocaust as well, ... even helping to build death camps as Belzec, Treblinka or Sobibor in Operation Reinhard, as Klee notes", because Klee knows better than most that it was the T-4 personnell that was transfered to the "Reinhardt" camps and that they not only helped to build these camps but r a n them indeed. They were not any "helpers", they were the real k i l l e r s! I hope it has not been the intention of the author(s) to make killers appear as harmless looking helpers. P. Witte 17:54, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Eugenics vs. Racial cleansing

There's been some controversy about people pushing the nazi eugenics program to be ""racial"" without providing any kind of additional information or verifiable sources. Perhaps the eugenics program was racist by only being applied to germans? I don't think that's what people think when reading the reference though.

I asume the link to be either POV pushing, someone being too eager to promote an article they worked on, or a mistake. I'll remove the statement/link, and asume it's reasonable to leave it out untill solid information is provided in the article to support such a claim. If people find this unreasonable and revert the article without needing to back up their claims I'll dispute the neutrality of the article. The same dispute is going on on the eugenics article partially about this topic, but I asume different/more expertised people might be watching this article.

Since this question seems asked or hinted at a lot I'll answer it right away, no, I'm not a neo-nazi, white supremacist, white nationalist, or racist. Nor am I a member of a secret terrorist organization whose goal is the total destruction of wikipedia.org. G'day Scandum 16:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The entire "controversy" is the fact that you seem to have a problem with it, cannot cite any sources to back up your opinion, and then when you have sources cited for you claim that you can't read them, or that they are "random sources". I'm reverting all of your changes until you can cite at least one source for your own opinions, it is clear you haven't read any of the sources cited in the article. --Fastfission 15:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't turn things around. You have so far failed to provide a valid source for your claims. I would provide a source, but your claims lack any factual sources either FOR or AGAINST it. The holocaust wasn't an eugenic program, but a racial extermination program. It's goal was to take political advantage of hate, not improve the gene pool. The nazis had clearly seperated eugenic and racial programs. Stop poluting articles with far stretched claims.

Fastfission, the version you insist upon contains errors, one of which is mine.--AI 01:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eugenics and racial hygiene are not the same thing, although they are partly related in the case with the history of Nazi Germany.
The nazi's had numerous programs that apparently used the same resources. This article is about the T-4 Euthanasia Program, not the holocaust. They are related, but they are not the same thing.--AI 01:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

T-4 and the Shoah

I reverted the following edit, as it is a gross oversimplification:

T-4 Euthanasia Program was the official name of Nazi Germany's Eugenic euthanasia program which killed some 200,000 people as the first stage of what would come to be called the Holocaust (which killed some 11 million people).

What follows the "which" is incautious. If the Holocaust had "stages", one needs to be careful in asserting that anything that happened before the invasion of the Soviet Union necessarily led to what happened thereafter. Elements of T-4 may have been essential to the Holocaust, particularly Operation Reinhardt, but there is no evidence indicating that there was a larger plan, of which T-4 was a first step. If one follows the accounts synthesised by Browning, it was only the difficulties created by the extreme violence used by the Einsatzgruppen on somewhat independent initiative and the consonance of its purpose with the senior leadership of the RSHA that caused the SS to cast about for more efficient means of mass murder and thus to redeploy technology used by T-4. It seems far more important to introduce these distinctions as closely as possible with any statements linking this to the Holocaust than to cite statistics. Buffyg 00:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The statement is not false, only oversimplified and I think it should be reworded then restored into the article because it brings the introduction/definition of T-4 into context with common knowledge of history.--AI 02:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a good thing to stuff everything under the holocaust. What sets the holocaust apart is it's racial motives, Stalin made more victims. The racial laws and the propaganda would have been the first stage anyways. It's probably better leaving a clear intro, and deal with this elsewhere in the article. --Scandum 10:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see my additions reg. T-4 program in occupied Poland elaborated in World_War_II_atrocities_in_Poland#Extermination_of_the_psychiatric_patients. --Ttyre 16:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It might be better if you add a link to the extermination of patients in Poland instead. Only German citizens fell under the euthanesia laws and hence the T-4 program. Using the word atrocities isn't entirely right nor NPOV btw. --Scandum 17:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Usage of the word euthanasia

I feel very uncomfortable about the use of the word euthanasia to describe the T-4 programme. Even if this is a fair translation of the original German phrase used by the nazis, its repeated use during the article seems to justify the murders rather than pointing out that murder in the name of eugenics and euthanasia are not mutually interchangeable descriptions.

Not only does this clumsy use of language diminish the sadism of the crime described, but it also degenerates the concept of euthanasia - the practice of helping someone bring a dignified end to their life at their own request.

Whether or not the reader is pro-euthanasia, I think most people will agree that there is a strong difference between the two concepts on a linguistic and academic level. Mention should be made of the fact that euthanasia was used as a euphemism by the nazis, but I do not think its usage should recur later in the article.

Would it be sufficient to keep the word "euthanasia" in quotes? I don't think these would be scare-quotes so much as an indication that one is acknowledging a usage without having to accept it. Unless there is some recognised alternative language to be found in scholarship, I think quotation is what one would have to settle for. Buffyg 12:53, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I think its the modern usage of euthanasia which is in fact the problem. Today, it is synonymous with suicide when applied to humans. Most of the people executed under the T-4 program were biologically inferior, and the criteria applied to them was the same applied to the execution of a lame horse. The only issue here is does eugenics require the religious respect for all human life? The answer is clearly "no". While we can have a eugenics program that simply sterilizes the inferior, the result is the same: defective genes are prevented from reproducing.

I don't see anyone using this same fervor over Spartan infanticide. The fact is while today, we may hold to the belief that all human life must be preserved, that is a modern value system and one that is grossly dependent upon our technological sophistication. Surely, it is not the value system of nature. So, why apply it to Wikipedia?

• I support using the term in quotes the first few times, or at least adding a line about how the Nazis considers it "euthanasia" but calling it such could be very problematic (the Nazis also called killing "disinfection", of course). --Fastfission 00:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• • As a disabled person I have to ask, why is the extermination of people for racial reasons termed "holocaust", while the extermination of people based on disability called "euthanasia"? "Euthanasia" means, "dying well," and is a term meant to signify terminally ill patients seeking some dignity in their deaths. The children who were mercilessly starved to death by the Nazi regime and then had their brains extracted and put in pickle jars did not "die well." This was a holocaust. Serendipodous 11:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The word 'extermination' probably fits better, and associating euthanasia with an extermination program given the way euthanasia is practiced nowadays is possibly POV. Scare quotes isn't a good way to write a neutral article either imo. Possibly best is clearly describing what the nazis meant with euthanasia? --Scandum 18:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, for once, we might agree. --Fastfission 02:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Mengele involved in T4?

In the 'history of the program' section, Mengele is mentioned: 'Most of the key figures responsible for conducting the program, such as Josef Mengele, were also actively involved in developing gas chamber technology' I don't have a detailed biography of him, but I have never seen him mentioned anywhere else in connection with T4 or the Reinhard camps. Involvement with T4 is not mentioned in the main Josef Mengele article either. Can anyone provide a reference? --Squiddy 16:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't, and couldn't find a death camp / gas chamber reference for the other key figures either.

It looks like a biased edit, so I removed the reference. --Scandum 14:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the mention of Mengele with Franz Stangl and Christian Wirth, who were definitely among the T4 personnel, and certainly went on to Operation Reinhard. Stangl helped build Sobibor, and was later commandant at Treblinka. Wirth was involved in the development of large scale gassing, first at Chelmno, and was later Inspector of all the Reinhard camps, reporting (directly I think) to Globocnik. There is an interview with Stangl in Gitta Sereny's 'The German Trauma' (and I think the same material is covered in her 'Into That Darkness). --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the guys we were looking for, excellent edit. --Scandum 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

New subcategory?

I haven't done any work on adding categories, so I'm not sure if this is an appropriate situation or not... but would it be worthwhile to add a subcategory for the T-4 program under Category:Holocaust? It seems like there are a lot of articles that could fall under it: all the hospitals involved, people involved, etc. Alternatively, perhaps a subcategory under Category:Holocaust for mental hospitals associated with the Holocaust? This could include both hospitals that were part of the T-4 program (and the associated people) AND the hospitals that resisted the program (such as the Bethel Institution). Any thoughts? --JerryOrr 12:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The category would basicly be a link summary of 1 article, so I think you shouldn't do that. It would also better fit into Category:Eugenics since inclusion of the T-4 program as part or cause of the holocaust is disputable. --Scandum 14:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point about it basically being a link summary for 1 article. My initial motivation for establishing a new subcategory was that the hospital articles linked to by the T-4 article (such as Grafeneck and Schloss Hartheim) are currently uncategorized (except for their stub category). I was planning on doing some work to expand those articles, and my first task was going to be to categorize them. Do you have any suggestions?

Also, you said that "inclusion of the T-4 program as part or cause of the holocaust is disputable." Out of curiosity, what is your basis for that statement? I haven't seen this dispute anywhere, and I'm not sure what it would be based on. Is it a matter of defining when the Holocust started? Or am I missing something? --JerryOrr 15:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Okay, I found the debate (whether the Holocaust includes eugenics/euthanasia, or just racial cleansing). Still, the Holocaust article specifically references the T-4 program, and while the 1st intro paragraph doesn't mention disabled persons, the 3rd intro paragraph specifically does. So while T-4 being part of the Holocaust is disputable (or at least has been disputed), its inclusion in the Holocaust article would imply that the current Wikipedia consensus is to include it. --JerryOrr 16:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The T-4 reference is in the holocaust article because nobody bothered to remove it. It mainly proves that nobody felt like getting into an editing conflict over it, especially calling the Kristallnacht an early element of the holocaust is somewhat rediculous.

The T-4 project is certainly a display of the nazi's lack of regard for human life. Wikipedia has a rather lose definition of the holocaust, but I think it should be associated with eugenics before anything else. --Scandum 18:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Before digging to much further into that debate, I'd still like your (or anyone's) opinion on how to categorize, for example, Schloss Hartheim. Any input would be appreciated.

Now back to what the Holocaust encompasses... where do you get a definition of the Holocaust that is narrower than Wikipedia's "loose" definition? I'm not trying to be combative; I'm honestly just curious as to where the official scope of the holocaust is defined (and who came up with that definition). For example, Dictionary.com defines it as "The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II". Now, if you went by that definition, it would exclude the T-4 project (as genocide is generally understood to be based on race/ethnicity), but would include Kristallnacht (since it was targeted at the Jews).

Now I'm by no means saying Dictionary.com should be the authoritative source on the matter; my point is that it offers another variation in the scope of the Holocaust. I'd be interested to see where the scope you have defined comes from. --JerryOrr 21:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it, maybe a nazi eugenics/T-4 Program subcategory of eugenics isn't that bad an idea. Regarding Kristallnacht, it wasn't genocidal in nature, and there have been bigger (race) riots in human history that did not result in genocide.

I make 3 classifications myself: genetic, racial, political. I'd say the racial exterminations are what is generally considered to be the holocaust. Much of the blur comes from the holocaust being a big cake many victimized groups want a piece from. While 100.000-200.000 deaths could be seen as a tiny portion of the holocaust, T-4 is the biggest eugenics program in human history. --Scandum 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I can go with Category:Nazi Eugenics, under Category:Eugenics. I'll go ahead and create that.

Sterilizations and euthanasia?

I am pretty sure that the main Nazi compulsory sterilization program was carried out under different official auspices than the euthanasia program. Is the intro to this article implying otherwise, or is it saying that they also did sterilizations under T-4 as well? I know less about T-4 than I do the sterilization programs so I don't have an answer off-hand myself. --Fastfission 18:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Establishment and purpose - Phrasing

The purpose of the program was to both lower expenses by systematically killing the institutionalized as well as preserving the genetic quality of the German population by sterilizing people with physical deformities etc.

I enjoyed this article, though this section stuck out to me - wouldn't it be more dissasociative with the subject matter to say furthering the Nazi [cause or ideal] of preserving the genetic quality etc.? Cheers. (Sergelapelle 22:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Opposition

This article needs something about the successful opposition to the program. Adam 14:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for this

"Germany's practice of euthanasia did not end in 1941. Doctors and nurses continued the practice at hospitals around Germany and Austria. Killings and intentional neglect were conducted in such a way as to minimize the suspicion of the German population; however, no such precautions were taken when exterminating people of the occupied territories. Acts of cruelty and violence there were reported and recorded." What is the evidence that it continued in 1941?!

Small Detail in History of the program

I just wanted to add that the line stating "...Hartheim to suffocate mostly adult victims with carbon monoxide even..." is incorrect. When you kill people with carbon monoxide you aren't suffocating them. You are in fact poisoning them and they will continue to breath in oxygen until the stop inhaling. I didn't feel confident enought to change it myself. I will come back to this article to see the change and perhaps just change the next one myself next time I see a small error.

Minshullj 06:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No one seemed to care so I've gone ahead and changed it myself

Minshullj 21:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Volksgenosse

The German word "Volksgenosse" means "racial comrade." The word "volk" can be used in several ways. In the well-known phase on the Reichstag, "Dem Deutschen Volk," it means all the German people. In the DDR, the Volkspolizei were the "people's police", meaning the working people in a class sense. But the Nazis used it to refer to the German race, as opposed to non-German races such as Jews. The expression "Volksgenosse" meant a "racial comrade" not a "people's comrade" in the sense socialists would have used it. See the German Wikipedia on this. Adam 11:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis didn't talk about a "German Race", that would have been the Aryan race. But the poster doesn't adress all "Aryans", it's focus are the German people (or here: taxpayers) (compare with "Volkswagen", the car for the "(German) people"). That the Nazis had their own, racistic definition of "German" or "German people" is true, but still "race comrade" is the translation of "Rassengenosse" (a term also used by Hitler) and not the correct translation of "Volksgenosse". - 195.49.2.166 11:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

When you become a registered Wikipedian I will be happy to debate this matter with you. Adam 12:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Adam, no edit wars

Adam, please stop this edit war, I am asking you nicely.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caltrop (talk • contribs) .

Tiergartenstrasse

• The derivation of "T-4" is already in the next paragraph and doesn't need to be explained twice.
• The derivation of Tiergartenstrasse is not relevant to this article
• The Tiergarten was in any case a game park, not a zoo.
• Wikipedia does not use in-text references like [Burleigh]. Please find out how Wikipedia does references. Adam 13:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything in any paragraph that the explanation "Tiergartenstrasse 4" was duplicating. Also, Regarding in-text reference, you are wrong. According to Wikipedia:Harvard referencing, the Harvard referencing style or parenthetical system "is one of three citation styles recommended by Wikipedia." You were out of line to revert Caltrop's edits several times without discussion (one post on the talk page does not constitute discussion) and to accuse Caltrop of "Ad Hominem" attacks for this edit to your talk page and escalated the dispute needlessly. The block was only for 1 hour and was probably justified, if Caltrop had properly taken the report to WP:AN/3RR, especially considering your block history. -- Renesis13 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• This was the second para when the dispute started. "The program was established by Adolf Hitler, operated under the authority of Chief of the Führer's Chancellery Philip Bouhler and SS-Doctor Karl Brandt, and was headed by Werner Heyde and Paul Nitsche. The name T-4 derived from the address of the program's offices in Berlin at No 4 Tiergartenstrasse. According to some sources Hitler ordered the establishment of the program after receiving a letter from a member of the public seeking permission to murder his disabled son."
• I have never seen Harvard referencing at any of the (hundreds) of articles I have worked on. It was reasonable on the basis of that for me to form the view that it is not Wikipedia style. If it is allowed, which it shouldn't be, it is certainly not much used.
• You have not addressed my other objections to Caltrop's edits, namely

The derivation of the name Tiergartenstrasse is not relevant to this article

The Tiergarten was in any case a game park, not a zoo.

• Nor have you mentioned that he failed to respond to my stated objections to his edits, but resorted first to a revert war and then to blocking me. His considered response to my points was "I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmic primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. I can't help it." At an article on a topic such as this, I considered this stupid and offensive (and still do). It takes two to have a discussion.

Adam 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

pushing 3RR

Adam, do it again without discussion while I am in the middle of an edit and we shall see what we shall see.

Remember,

I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmic primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. I can't help it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caltrop (talk • contribs) .

• I have explained my reversion above. Kindly respond.
• I will continue to revert sloppy edits. Adam 13:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

'Murder' vs. 'Killing'

I've changed two words in the introductory paragraph relating to the use of the word 'kill' (killings and killed). Common usage of these words has depersonalized an extreme criminal program (eligible for prosecution as a "Crime Against Humanity"), albeit one that was institutionalized by the highest levels of the then-current German regime.

When a tree falls in a park and crushes a child playing underneath it, it would be fair (in most people's views) to describe the child's death with the verb 'killed'.

When a government institutionalizes mass murder for its ulterior motives, please call a spade a spade and avoid being polite by use of the word 'kill'. What they did, whether or not they issued an edict, was 'murder'. If this is less digestable to the casual reader, so be it. Mass murder should be demonized by all societies at every opportunity if we want to avoid repeating it continuously, forever. 64.231.37.251 16:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)Zoomeri

"Depersonalization" is not something that Wikipedia is concerned with, and the point is not to be "digestable to the casual reader", either. Personalization or POV is disallowed by Wikipedia. See WP:NPOV. While the programs were horrendous, the term "Murder" is not NPOV and Wikipedia has no place "demonizing" any topic. -- Renesis13 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Murder" is a legal term. The T-4 killings were legal under German law at the time and were thus not murders, although they were retrospectively held to be crimes against humanity after the war. The standard Anglo-Saxon word for depriving a human being of life is "kill." It is not a euphemism and should be used here. Adam 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Later: I retract the above comment. Further research shows that the T4 killings were illegal under German law at the time, and were known to be so. Adam 05:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Apology to Adam

Adam, I was completely wrong, and in the wrong, to abusively 3RR-block you -- you are a major contributor and all-around good guy and WP resource. Forgive me, I was in the midst of my usual DAFT minor edit fog.

Please accept my sincere apologies. Caltrop 22:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. Adam 01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

General note: I won't bother with further edits wars, since this is a very poor article and needs to be rewritten in toto. I will make this my project for the weekend [Carr 2006]. Adam 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I also intend giving the article a new name, since T4 was not in fact a euthanasia program, either in intent or practice. The involuntary mass killing of people with disabilities is not euthanasia. Adam 07:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Killing of people with disabilities in Nazi Germany is a little unwieldy, IMHO. Ifnord 16:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am no longer participating in debate at this page. I am available for debate at the Talk page of the new article. Adam 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

There is now two articles on this topic. T-4 Euthanasia Program and Killing of people with disabilities in Nazi Germany. The latter is a rewrite by User talk:Adam Carr who insists that the title (which I find unwieldy and think no one would ever type in as a search) is the only title that fits. I have no strong feelings on the topic, nor the two versions of the page. I would like comment from the community though, especially on the title. Ifnord 17:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support merge, obvious POV fork, "no longer participating in debate at this page"? "T-4 Euthanasia Program" does seem to be the most likely to be used in the search field, though possibly not quite accurate or appropriate for the article scope. Collecting more opinions about the title is the way to go, not forking the content.EricR 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I did not say that Killing of people with disabilities in Nazi Germany was the only title I would accept. I said (at Ifnord's Talk page, qv) that the article's title needs to reflect accurately the contents of the article, which is not about euthanasia, but about killing people with disabilities in Nazi Germany. I am happy to hear suggestions for better titles, provided they do not contain the word euthanasia, which I will revert. Adam 05:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Later: I have now found out what "fork" means in this context. It was not my intention to create a "fork" - it was my intention to rewrite an inferior article and to give it a more accurate name. The fact that there are now two articles on this topic is because Ifnord chose to undo my redirect. If he had left it alone we would have one article, a better article and a correctly titled article. Adam 07:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If one leaves everything alone, nothing would get done. That is the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I have a problem with the new title. I understand Adam does not like the word euthanasia being used in this context, but that's his opinion. What if someone rewrites Abortion into Killing unborn babies then deletes the redirects the original article into the rewrite? How about Capitalism into Ruling class supresses the masses by monetary policy? Let us agree on a NPOV title that accurately reflects what the article is about. Ifnord 15:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A poor analogy: no-one disputes that abortion is abortion. I dispute that T4 was a euthanasia program. See further comments below. Adam 02:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I notice that the merge direction has been changed, the tags now suggest a merge of this article into Action T4 nee 'Killing of people with disabilities in Nazi Germany'. While i think we all see the advantages of the newer text, that content should be merged to this location. For one, it keeps the article history and talk page in a single location, and to merge in the other direction seems like hijacking the topic, ignoring all the work of previous editors. Unless there is some objection, i will revese the tags again: merge from Action T4 to this location.EricR 13:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Article title and scope

via RFC: I question the first sentence of the article: T-4 Euthanasia Program was the official name of the Nazi Germany eugenics program. Was there an official name for the program beyond the code name 'Aktion T-4'? T-4 was also not the full extent of Nazi eugenics programs. I hesitate to make any changes without knowing what the proper scope should be.EricR 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the program didn't have an official name, since it was both illegal and clandestine. "T4" was a code name. "Euthanasia" is someone's opinion, and a false one. Adam 05:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had a look at the references, and six of them (including two German-language ones) use the word euthanasia (or euthanasie). It isn't just the opinion of some anonymous IP. The use of the word euthanasia shouldn't be seen as an endorsement by wikipedia of the Nazis' program, or even of their terminology, any more than, for example, Final Solution. You argue that "The involuntary mass killing of people with disabilities is not euthanasia.", but while it may not fit some people's definition of euthanasia, "involuntary euthanasia" gets 47.6K ghits, including sources such as the BBC, Australian Parliament House and wikipedia. Andjam 11:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that the T4 program is widely refered to in both German and English as a euthanasia program, and that it was sometimes called that by the Nazis themselves, but that is false, and such a falsehood can't go in the heading of an article, although it should be refered to in the text. Euthanasia, properly defined, requires the consent either of the person themselves, or, if they are incapable of giving consent, of their next-of-kin or legal guardian. It is motivated by a desire to relieve a person of their suffering. Emptying out asylums and gassing or shooting the inmates for economic or eugenicist reasons, regardless of their actual condition, while deceiving the families about what is happening, is not euthanasia but murder. The Nazis themselves knew this, which is why there was never a law or even a formal Fuhrer-decree legalising it, and why elaborate deception was used. One of the reasons that T4 is frequently described as a euthanasia program is that anti-euthanasia forces hope thereby to discredit euthanasia by associating it with Nazi mass murder. This is understandable propaganda (I am incidentally myself opposed to euthanasia in most circumstances), but we cannot allow it to influence how we title articles. We should call things by their real names. "Final solution" is not a good analogy because although it is a euphemism it is not a falsehood in the same sense that calling T4 euthanasia is. Adam 12:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If people really object to my new title on the grounds that it is too long, my only other suggestion is to call the article T4 or T4 program, and have everything else redirect to it. Adam 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think T4 program is a suitably neutral name, it is also used by Britannica. Or Operation T4 which apprently was the code name of the project accoring to some online sources.--Peta 04:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I will move my new text to T4 program (lower-case P because it was not a formal name), and redirect this article to it. Is everyone happy with that? Adam 05:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone who didn't know about the program wouldn't be able to tell what it means from the title. That's a bit less than ideal. Maybe Nazi Germany T4 program? Andjam 09:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I provided a heading that explained exactly what the article was about and was told it was too long. Now I am told the replacement is too short. I can't please everyone. Usually at Wikipedia I find I can't please anyone, so I have given up trying. I don't think there was any other T4 program so I don't think it needs disambiguating in the title. What it needs is lots of redirects and referals from the places people are likely to look for the article. Adam 12:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

From RfC:It seems silly to have such a long name. The Germans had a name for it, "Operation T4." That should be the name of the article. Anything else is superflous. As long as it is linked to from the proper articles there should be no ambiguity as to its subject matter. George 17:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the current title based on a vague impresssion that it would be more recognizable to readers. Under any name the article would still have to explain the Nazi euphemism, and doing so would probably make for good intro text. Has any version been tried with a complete explanation in the lead? Otherwise Operation T4 or Nazi "Operation T4" or similar.EricR 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• George: what German word is being translated here as "operation"? The most common German name was "Aktion-T4". I would render that as Action T4 or T4 Action, or else leave it in German.
• Eric: I will not accept any title with the word "euthanasia" in it, for reasons explained above.
• People can't have it both ways. We either have a long title which correctly describes the content of the article, such as Killing of people with disabilities in Nazi Germany, or we have a short title which does not, such as T4 program. Which do we want? Adam 09:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Simple is always best. Action T-4 or whatever the accepted translation is would be the most appropriate name. "Euthanasia" does seem inappropriate as soft-pedaling. I was following the discussion Adam and didn't notice any information about the translation operation being inappropriate. George 12:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think T4 Action is the best English rendering. Unless anyone has objections, I will take that as the current proposal. Adam 13:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Aktion T-4. Operation T-4. Code name for the Nazi euthanasia program. Name taken from the Reich Chancellery’s address at Tiergartenstraße 4. The program first murdered German incurables utilizing carbon monoxide in mobile vans to kill more than 100,000 adults and children; later, closed gas chambers were used. The staff of T-4 subsequently provided the trained force of killers at the Operation Reinhard camps in Poland: Belzec, Chelmno, Sobibor, and Treblinka. See also Aktion Reinhard; Aktion 14 f 13 KZ-Häftlinge; Euthanasie.

Doerr, Karin (2002). Nazi-Deutsch/Nazi-German: An English Lexicon of the Language of the Third Reich. Westport: Greenwood Press. pp. p. 60. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I think Operation T4 would be the better choice.EricR 13:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Edelheit, Abraham J. (1994). History of the Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary. Boulder: Westview Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) only calls Aktion T4 a code name, but similar names are rendered as 'Operation': Aktion Silbertanne–"Operation Silver Fir"; Aktion Sumpffieber–"Operation Swamp Fever".EricR 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

An "action" was not an "operation." "Operation" is usually a translation of "fall" (Fall Gelb) or "unternehmen" (Unternehmen Barbarossa). If we want to use "Aktion T4" as the standard German name, then it should be translated as Action T4 or T4 Action. I think the latter is better because "action" is a noun and in this sense "T4" is being used adjectively. But I will settle for the former. Adam 14:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems like such a minor issue, but we do need to get on the same page concerning verifiability and reliable sources. (Doerr 2002) so far seems to be definitive, what better source than "An English Lexicon of the Language of the Third Reich" could we ask for?EricR 16:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, before finally deciding on a title we need to make sure everyone agrees on the article scope. Killing of people with disabilities in Nazi Germany (as you make clear in the newer text) and "the Nazi Germany eugenics program" (from the intro) are both wider scopes than 'Aktion T-4'.EricR 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I should apologize for not noticing that action was the word being used. I must have inferred operation from the context. I tend to think in ideas and pictures so I sometimes lose precision. George 17:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

With due respect to Herr Doerr, they are not synonyms. An "operation" was usually a large-scale military operation, like Barbarossa. An "action" was a party-police-SS action against a political target, such as Action Reinhard against the Jews. Aktion Silbertanne refered to above was an action against the Dutch resistance. Aktion Sumpffieber was an anti-partisan action in Byelorussia. T4, which was both illegal and clandestine, was clearly an action in this sense. Adam 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you thinking in German? If your intention is to preserve a non-military suggestion in the name, those of us blessed with ignorance of other languages might see 'Action T4' as doing the opposite. An action is an engagement or skirmish, even 'police action' has a more military feel than 'operation' to these ears. Anyway 'Aktion T4' seems to be translated nearly so equally to both 'action' and 'operation' as to make little difference.EricR 14:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Could we make a decision about the title? I am continuing to work on my version of the article, and it is absurd to have two articles. The most acceptable proposal seems to be to call the article T4 Action, and to redirect this article to it. I intend doing this tomorrow my time (in about 12 hours), so those who have comments should make them. Adam 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Per EricR, I would endorse Operation T4 for a title. Now the issue of scope remains. Ifnord 17:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not come here for the RFC, but I oppose remove "T4 or "T-4" moving from the title. The title of the Wiki article in German language is de:Aktion T4. Andries 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Ifnord: "Operation" is not the correct translation of "Aktion", as discussed above.
• Andries: the current proposal is to call the article Action T4, and I am about to move the other version of the article to that title, and create a series of redirects which will lead readers to that title. Adam 03:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now done this. I am now proposing to redirect this article to Action T4. I will wait a while for comments, but obviously we can't have two articles, and my view (naturally) is that my article is superior to this one. Adam 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See my note above in the "Merge?" section.EricR 13:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand what a "merge" is, but so long as the end result is that my new text replaces this old text, and my new title replaces this old title, I don't care how it is done. Adam 14:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's make sure everyone agrees on the new title (there's no big hurry here) then get a quick admin opinion on the move and merge. We want to make sure we get all the content attributed to the correct accounts for GDFL purposes. I think we could do it all w/o the sysop bit, but there is one content edit by an IP in the Action T4 history.EricR 15:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of that means, but as I say, I don't really care so long as the end result is correct. I am going to bed now so I will see where have got to in 12 hours or so. Adam 16:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have waited nearly 24 hours and nothing has happened. If the "merge" has not happened by tomorrow morning my time I will redirect this article to Action T4. Adam 13:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better if the history is kept. See my request here [1]. Andries 14:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What for? It is the history of a text which will no longer be part of the article. It will be there in the archive if anyone really wants it. Adam 14:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to wait much longer. Adam 05:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. On second thought the move (i.e. copying of the history of this title and its talk page to the new title) can be done after this title has been redirected to the new title. We do not have to wait for the move, I think. Andries 18:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Aktion 14f13

DE has an article on and their T4 page a mention of this program. I've got a source calling this a "joint T4-SS operation", i think on the basis that T4 killing centers and doctors were used and paperwork went back to Tiergartenstraße. Any thoughts on how to include this information?EricR 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I do mention that KZ inmates were killed under the aegis of T4, but I don't actually mention 14f13 by name. I can expand that section. Adam 16:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)