Talk:Aktion T4

message: The entry for Fritz Cropp (under Aktion_T4#Other_perpetrators) seems incongrous with the other entries, which deal specifically with the punishment and fate of the perps, whereas Cropp's reads more like a general biography.
I would suggest something along the following lines (ref de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Cropp):
Fritz Cropp responsible for patient transfers (as the superior of Herbert Linden), interned in Neuengamme, deemed “politically unacceptable” by the state denazification committee in Oldenburg, banned from involvement in politics, died in 1984.
81.105.46.48 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Fritz Cropp

message: Under Gassing the statement "(random ashes, since the victims were cremated en masse)" needs "citation needed" as citation 86 does not support this statement. Whereas in Witold's report on page 58, it states, referring to the Birkenau new crematoriums:  "each  crematorium  had  eight  stands,  two  corpses  to  be  put  into  each  stand." If Birkenau's new crematoriums where a solution to create expedient cremations(with no ashes returned to loved ones)and they where cremating 2 corpses per stand. It makes the uncited claim that "random ashes, since victims were cremated en masse" dubious. Please either find a citation or remove that claim as I believe there is no citation and its a presumptive statement based on "common sense", rather than a citable fact. However a locked article with presumptive uncitable claims can be dangerous. As they can add fuel to the other side of the pendulum to add fuel to a claim of lack of credibility.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A0C6:1200:E87D:A37F:5FCA:AE81 (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Gassing

message: Killing is unambiguous but facility isn't. Keith-264 (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Killing facility"? 

message: Wikipedia defines genocide as "the intentional killing of a people in whole or in part." It would be inaccurate and inappropriate to refer to the Holocaust as the "mass murder of Jewish people", because that obscures the intent not just to harm, but to intentionally eradicate, a particular group of people on the basis of some shared characteristic or culture-- hence why the page on the Holocaust accurately describes it as "the genocide of European Jews during WWII."
Multiple academics have explored disabled people as a group targeted by genocide and several have explicitly looked at Aktion T4 in this way (link 1) (link 2) (link 3). If people with disabilities were explicitly mentioned under the Genocide Convention, Aktion T4 would be unequivocally considered an act of genocide. Therefore, the mention or lack thereof of a particular people in a diplomatic document-- rather than the type and intent of acts visited upon those people-- is serving as the deciding factor on how we label their mass murder. It would probably be too contentious to replace all uses of 'mass murder' in this document with 'genocide,' but I feel the discourse around this subject at least merits mention in the article. Rhi43 (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki is not a source and original research is not valid. The term genocide has been cheapened by politicisation, ideological bias and has become a cliche. Far better to use dispassionate and descriptive words from reliable sources. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mass murder" vs. "Genocide" 

message: One editor is changing the term "involuntary euthanasia" to mass murder. The effect of the involuntary euthanasia may have a lot of deaths, the Germans called it euphemistic euthanasia. I don't think it is correct to call it bluntly mass murder. There are enough sources to back up "involuntary euthanasia". The Banner talk 23:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article sufficiently convey that it was the German mass murderers who coined the term? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

text: In the early stages - killing of the handicapped - the use of the term was consistent with contemporay views in regard to euthanasia and eugenics. It was horrible, and by any reasonable standards completely wrong, but once you give the state the ability to determine what is a life worth living you can reach some awful conclusions. The fact that it was used in this way ended up greatly influencing the post-war euthanasia debate. I agree that it was a euphanism, but not at the start. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How influential were contemporary views on euthanasia? I doubt that Catholics took much notice (apart from a few individuals) and working-class institutions must have been quick to see the implications. Did the perpetrators use the term or has it been projected onto them by RS? Keith-264 (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As an aside, "...once you give the state the ability to determine what is a life worth living you can reach some awful conclusions.". I couldn't agree more, the nazi regime was a pioneer in this respect, it's a rare industrial state that hasn't emulated them. Keith-264 (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  involuntary euthanasia or mass murder