Talk:Hartheim killing centre

Training for genocide?

I have seen it stated that Hartheim was used to train SS men for their work at the death camps, and that experiments were carried out there as to the best way to kill the victims. There is an account in ch. 23 of Wiesenthal's 1967 book "The Murderers Among Us". This means the euthanasia program was merged into something bigger. If this can be properly sourced, it should be put in the article. 2.31.38.227 (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131006190917/http://en.mauthausen-memorial.at/db/admin/de/get_document.php?id=60 to http://en.mauthausen-memorial.at/db/admin/de/get_document.php?id=60

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Compromise wording re. "euthanasia"

I'd like to suggest some compromise wording as a follow-up to my recent attempts to edit which were reverted by Bermicourt. I understand that the term "euthanasia" is often used by historians when discussing the Aktion T4 program despite the fact that this program was only ostensibly related to the desire to ameliorate suffering (cf. WP's definition at Euthanasia: the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering). But it's worth emphasizing that many reliable sources put the term in scare quotes when referring to the Nazi program for just this reason. On this last point, see [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]] and, if you happen to read German, Peter Sandner's article in [[5]]. What I think is essential is that we avoid wikilinking to the article Euthanasia without providing proper context, which gives the reader the impression that WP endorses the Nazi spin on their killing of disabled individuals as somehow motivated by benevolence. So I'll suggest compromise wording. Replace:

The Hartheim Euthanasia Centre (German: NS-Tötungsanstalt Hartheim) was a killing facility involved in the Nazi euthanasia programme known as Action T4...

with

The Hartheim Euthanasia Centre (German: NS-Tötungsanstalt Hartheim) was a killing facility involved in the Nazi programme known as Aktion T4...

and then add the following as a second sentence in the lead:

The Nazis referred to this programme as a euthanasia campaign.

Thoughts? Generalrelative (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The Wiki definition appears to rest on two sources that are pro-euthanasia, one being the World Federation of Right to Die Societies; the other talking about voluntary euthanasia and, perhaps because of the public debate, that is the popular conception of euthanasia, but it's not the only one. When I pulled my Oxford Dictionary of English, however, it simply said that it is "the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma." The Nazi argument was that these patients were incurable and costing the state money to keep alive and so they should be painlessly killed. That was an appalling disregard of human life and dignity and of the wishes of victims and their families. And, of course, in reality they went much further and just used it as an excuse for executing anyone they objected to. There was also a legal transition from lawful involuntary euthanasia to murder because the original law allowing this practice was revoked, but they carried on. Perhaps we might say something like: "...known as Action T4. This was initially a programme of involuntary euthanasia permitted under the law ostensibly to enable the lawful and painless killing of incurably ill patients; these killings continued even after the law was rescinded in 1942 and extended to include Jews, Communists and others considered undesirable by the state."

The word "ostensibly" conveys the sense that this programme was not conceived out of a genuine compassion for the victims, but was part of Nazi ideology about "lives unworthy of life". I'd like to include the word "murder" for the illegal 2nd phase of the programme but couldn't see how to fit this in neatly. What do you think?Bermicourt (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Thanks for the thoughtful engagement. Generalrelative (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The verb "murder"

Hi @Bermicourt:, thanks for reviewing my changes and the invitation to discussion on talk. I disagree with your revert because I strongly believe the verb "murder" should appear in the lead sentence (and throughout the article). There are other linguistic changes that I made that I want to defend as well. I think the article, even with my changes, still doesn't go far enough. I am not a native German speaker but have been studying it for over twenty years, including eight years (and counting) living here.

• These were prima facie murders. People were deliberately killed in a systematic, planned way, with malice aforethought. (I have an essay on my user page to this effect.)
• The term "murder" is used in the article Aktion T4, both in English and German.
• My draft is still substantially softer than the language used throughout the German article. The German wiki is substantially longer and more in-depth. For context, its lead paragraph reads:

Die Tötungsanstalt Hartheim im Schloss Hartheim in der Gemeinde Alkoven bei Linz war von 1940 bis 1944 Ort von Massenmorden in einer Gaskammer. Hier erfolgten zunächst Morde, die als „Euthanasie“ in dieser Anstalt der Aktion T4, einer Kurzbezeichnung der Krankenmorde in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, gerechtfertigt und verharmlost wurden. Nachdem das Euthanasie-Programm für Psychiatriepatienten und Behinderte, dem allein in Hartheim mehr als 18.000 Menschen zum Opfer fielen, 1941 abgebrochen wurde, folgte bis 1944 in Schloss Hartheim im Rahmen der NS-Aktion 14f13 die Ermordung von 12.000 KZ-Häftlingen.

My personal translation (sacrificing artfulness to more closely follow the underlying text):

The Hartheim Killing Facility, in Hartheim Castle in the town of Alkoven near Linz was, from 1940 until 1944, the site of mass murders in a gas chamber. Initially, the murders that took place here were justified and trivialized as "euthanasia", in this institution of Action T4, a short-hand name for the sick-person-murders during the era of National Socialism. The year 1941 saw the end of the euthanasia program for psychiatric patients and handicapped persons, to which more than 18,000 people fell victim; this was followed until 1944 by the murder of 12,000 concentration camp prisoners in Hartheim Castle as part of the Nazi program Action 14f13.

• The word "euthanasia" in this article is a WP:EUPHEMISM directly employed by the Nazis to trivialize their mass-murder. It absolutely must not be repeated uncritically. Describing these murders as "euthanasia" (without context) violates WP:BALANCE because it disregards the overwhelming historical and legal consensus that these murders were indeed murders.
• There were attempts, some successful, to hold the involved parties responsible, both at Hartheim and T4 in general. Many of the personell that developed processes during T4 went on to build out and operate the Operation Reinhard extermination camps, and some were convicted and executed for those later actions without examining their time in Hartheim/T4. Others committed suicide before a court could rule on their guilt.
  • Georg Renno hid under an assumed name for a decade post-war until he was arrested in Germany in 1961 and put on trial for murder. The justice system moved slowly; German Wikipedia describes him as abusing the legal process to draw out the trial. He malingered until he received a diagnosis that he was unfit for trial due to health reasons. He was neither convicted nor exonerated, but the evidence for his guilt is strong.
  • Hans-Joachim Becker was Leiter der Zentralverrechnungsstelle (≈Director of the Central Clearing House) of T4 and Büroleiter (≈Office Manager) at Hartheim. He was convicted of accessory to the murder of 24,540 psychiatric patients and 3,228 concentration camp prisoners. He was sentenced to ten years in prison.
  • Friedrich Lorent was Hauptwirtschaftsleiter (≈Chief Administrative Director) within the "Central Services Division" of T4. He was convicted of accessory to 4,300 murders and sentenced to seven years.
  • In Linz, Austria, on 26 November 1947, two Pfleger (≈nurse, attendant) were convicted of "participation in murder and mistreatment", and sentenced to 2+1⁄2 and 3+1⁄2 years.
  • In 1948, cases were prepared against 61 people, but only 3 were put on trial, of whom two were convicted: Karl Harrer, 66 months; Leopold Lang, 36 months. The other cases were closed (13), transferred into other cases (13), the perpetrators could not be located (22), or the perpetrators were confirmed dead (7). For three others, the outcome is unknown.
• The legal framework that permitted Action T4 was, even by the standards of the Nazi dictatorship that "legalized" Operation Reinhard, shaky. It was not permitted through the Reich Ministry of Justice, but it was based on a personal letter from Hitler – not even an official 'Führer decree' – and operated outside of every normal legal process.
• However, the question of whether these killings were legal at the time under Nazi law is both a red herring and also moot. Nazi Germany was a Verbrecherstaat: a criminal state. The entire state enterprise was seized and used to pursue criminal ends. We can dive into questions about international law, crimes against humanity, etc., but this is moot given that people were convicted of these murders post-war.

Avoiding strong words like "murder" may seem, at least on its face, to be a neutral and balanced application of Wikipedia guidelines, but these were murders. Calling them anything else is ignoring the consensus of reliable third party sources. I would also like to ping @Generalrelative: who has engaged in discussion on this talk page above. For all the above reasons, I think anything less than "murder" is a whitewash. Apologies for the length.-Ich (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ich: thank you for taking the trouble to explain that. We may have some common ground here; indeed I've already retrospectively added one of your reverted changes. I'd just make the following points:

• First, I think the whole programme - both legal and illegal aspects - was despicable and utterly inhumane, showing no respect for human life. I am not in any way sympathetic with what happened.
• It is a highly emotive and sensitive issue from almost any perspective.
• Wikipedia - English or German - is not a WP:RELIABLESOURCE - so carries no weight in determining usage, especially as you changed the wording Aktion T4 yourself; it originally said "killing".
• The word "murder" is defined in Merriam Webster as "the crime of deliberately killing a person" and in the Cambridge dictionary as "the crime of intentionally killing a person". Both leading dictionaries therefore define murder as a crime and a crime as "illegal activities" or "an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government". It's very clear that to be murder; an act has to be illegal.
• "Murder" is a highly emotive term that needs to be used accurately and proportionately. Excessive use may not be WP:NEUTRAL but seen as WP:POV pushing. My sense is that anyone reading the current article is likely to be pretty revolted at what happened without needing to hype it up.
• All the intentional deaths that took place can legitimately be called killings or executions - neither word is incorrect - the question is: were any of them "murders"?
• Those executions carried out while the national law of Germany, under T4, permitted it were by definition not murders.
• Those executions carried out after the T4 law was rescinded may well be classified as murders unless covered by some other legal provision - we'd have to verify that.
• The word "euthanasia" encompasses involuntary euthanasia as in the T4 programme as well as voluntary euthanasia. Many countries have legalised euthanasia, and several have legalised involuntary euthanasia. In neither case is it generally described as "murder".
• Despite all the foregoing, the article should reflect the consensus or balance of the sources.

So where might there be room for agreement? First, where there is a consensus in the sources for changing the text, taking account of what is already cited here. Second, if there is a consensus in the WP:RS about the legality or otherwise of Hitler's decree, we should ensure that is fully covered and cited; probably best to do that at Aktion T4 where the the coverage is poor to non-existent. Third, if there is an RS consensus that the second period constitutes "murder" we should reflect that, again citing what the sources actually say. This may not be easy as some sources are likely to be quite extreme in their views, especially where the the writers have a connexion or an agenda. But I'm sure it's doable. Bermicourt (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bermicourt: Thanks for your detailed and well-thought-out response. I agree that Wikipedia, German or English, is not a reliable source. Mentioning it was intended to be illustrative of how this change was not a large leap from current practice by our German colleagues, who have similar NPOV rules over there. Here's a sampling of sources (mostly German, sorry) that specifically say ermordet ("murdered") or Mord ("murder"). The snippets presented in German are accompanied by my own translatioins.

• The Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research publishes erinnern.at here: Zwischen 1940 und 1944 wurden im Schloss Hartheim rund 30.000 Menschen mit körperlicher und geistiger Behinderung sowie psychisch kranke Menschen in einer Gaskammer ermordet.
• The Schloß Hartheim memorial foundation (that operates Hartheim Castle today) has a website that is linked at the bottom of the article. Here is the blurb on the front page; the German and English main pages have the same content.

From 1940 - 1944 Hartheim Castle in was in use as a Nazi euthanasia institution. During this time, around 30.000 physically and mentally handicapped people, some residents of care homes, others imprisoned in Mauthausen, Gusen, Ravensbrück and Dachau concentration camps and deemed unfit to work and forced labourers were brought here and murdered. The rooms in which the crimes took place now form part of the Memorial. There is also a cemetery on the east side of the palace, where the remains of those who were murdered were buried in 2002.

• The Deutsches Historisches Museum here: Dem Rassenwahn der Nationalsozialisten fielen auch 20.000 Österreicher zum Opfer, die im Rahmen der "Euthanasie"-Aktion ermordet wurden, die meisten von ihnen in der Anstalt Schloss Hartheim in Oberösterreich. – "To the 'racial madness' of the Nazis, 20,000 Austrians also fell victim, who were murdered as part of the "Euthanasia"-Action, most of them in the Institution at Schloß Hartheim in Upper Austria."
• Jewish Museum Berlin here: Soon after the outbreak of World War II, the murder of persons regarded as "unproductive" began. Physicians, nurses, and other health professionals participated in the killing of 5,000 disabled or ill children and newborns and the murders of over 70,000 institutionalized psychiatric patients in gas chambers of specially equipped "euthanasia" centers. [...] Scientists used the opportunities to conduct research presented by the "euthanasia" murders and by the imprisonment in concentration camps of Jews, Roma and Sinti, and Polish and Soviet nationals.
• Der Spiegel makes plenty of passing or direct references to the murders at Schloß Hartheim, dating back over 60 years, using "murdered" without qualification, waffling, or even giving the impression they feel the need to defend the term. Here (1961), here (1967), here (1978), here (2005).
• Süddeutsche Zeitung: here Das Konzentrationslager Dachau war 1941 ebenfalls Teil dieser Tötungsaktion - auch in Dachau selektierten Ärzte Häftlinge, um sie als "Invalide" in der Anstalt Schloss Hartheim bei Linz durch Giftgas ermorden zu lassen. – "Dachau Concentration Camp was also part of this killing action - also in Dachau, doctors selected prisoners to have them murdered with poison gas as "invalids" in the Schloss Hartheim facility near Linz."
• Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung here (2009): Das war in Hadamar so, aber auch in den anderen fünf Tötungsanstalten Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hartheim und Pirna. Von Januar bis August 1941 trieben die Nationalsozialisten kranke Menschen wie Frau Stogniew als „lebensunwert“ unter ärztlicher Aufsicht in Gaskammern. Nach dem Mord wurden den Toten die Goldzähne aus dem Kiefer gebrochen... – "This was the case in Hadamar, but also in the five other killing facilities: Bernburg, Brandenburg, Grafeneck, Hartheim, and Pirna. From January through August 1941, the Nazis drove ill, "unworthy of life" people like Ms. Stogniew into gas chambers under supervision of doctors. After the murder, the gold teeth were broken out of the jaws of the dead..."
• Die Welt here (2011) in the headline "Die Euthanasie-Morde der Nazis endeten erst 1945" = "The Euthanasia Murders of the Nazis only ended in 1945".

Most of the newspaper links above were the first result on google when I searched for "site:welt.de hartheim t4" or similar. We have murder convictions (my first post), the memorial foundation at Hartheim, the Austrian government, major German museums, and newspapers, who all use the verb murder. Whether or not a criminal Unrechtsstaat may have given the appearance of legality to these murders when they took place is secondary, given that the consensus of RSs above have converged on "murder". I haven't gone out of my way to look for it, but I haven't seen any RSs that give a caveat of "well, these killings were legal at the time" or waffling of any sort. With these links above, I think the verb "murder" is robustly supported.-Ich (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Ich appears to have done their homework here. I fully support them re-adding the language they've suggested, along with additional sources where necessary, and I commend you both for your thoughtful engagement on this difficult topic. Generalrelative (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

CE

Did a drive-by ce of some syntactical and grammatical infelicities, speculation and unnecessarily long headers. The bibliography needs translations of German titles. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Nazi "euthanasia" centers

I note that we have a number of articles with titles like Hartheim Euthanasia Center (German: NS-Tötungsanstalt Hartheim). The German word Tötungsanstalt literally means "killing center" or "killing institution", without any euphemistic connotation of "euthanasia". Should these articles be moved to more literal titles such as Hartheim Killing Center or Hartheim Killing Facility? -- The Anome (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I support this both in this specific instance and generally; it may be worthwhile to proactively seek out a consensus for all the pages. (Edit: As an aside, I think "Facility" is a better translation for "Anstalt"; it also sidesteps the "Centre"/"Center" debate).-Ich (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree as well. See above where I raised this earlier: Talk:Hartheim_Euthanasia_Centre#Compromise_wording_re._"euthanasia", and then subsequently where Ich discussed the use of the word "murder" Talk:Hartheim_Euthanasia_Centre#The_verb_"murder". The current language in the article represents a compromise, but I would support a full renaming. Generalrelative (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This was also asked here [6] and here [7], to no objections. Additionally, I like "Facility" as a way to avoid Center/Centre. -- asilvering (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, no objections to "Killing" as a swap for "Euthanasia". -- asilvering (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I will post links to this conversation on the talk page of the other pages listed in Category:Aktion T4 euthanasia centres. I assume any local consensus here would also apply to the category name.-Ich (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

The most neutral way to resolve this is to do an independent search for the most common English name, probably Ngram viewer. This is not totally straightforward as many of the options don't seem to register. However, I've discovered that "Hartheim killing..." is more common than "Hartheim euthanasia..." by a factor of 3:2. That suggests that whatever the last part of the name, "Killing" is probably more common that "Euthanasia". At least it's a more justifiable way of reaching agreement that stating what we "feel" or "like". Bermicourt (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Having done that, it appears that, where data is available, "Killing" is more common than "Euthanasia", so I think there is a consensus building for changing that. There is no need to have a "Centre/Center" debate as that's covered by WP:ENGVAR and this is not a North American-related topic. I also agree that "Facility" is a good translation that is sometimes used in English sources. Bermicourt (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

PS Except that "Spiegelgrund Clinic" appears to be the most common term for that one, with the other options not even registering a hit. Bermicourt (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Great, it looks like we have at least a rough consensus on the matter. I will just remind Bermicourt to be careful not to imply that others have been basing their arguments on what we "feel" or "like" without presenting evidence. I will assume that wasn't their intention, but even if unintentional such implications can have a chilling effect on the consensus process. Generalrelative (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Fair comment. Bermicourt (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there is still a consensus to rename this article so I'll go ahead and do that. Generalrelative (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Hartheim killing centre. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Hartheim Killing Facility → Hartheim Euthanasia Centre – A quick look at Google confirms that "Hartheim Euthanasia Centre" is five times more used than "Hartheim Killing Facility". As the most common name, it shou;ld be the article title. WP:EUPHEMISM is no applicable here, as it was the official German choice for the program. That euthanasia was an official cloak for murder does not make is an euphemism in the normal sense of the word. Earlier discussions with minimal participation and without wide attention did not give a clear enough consensus for this controversial move, especially when used much wider. The Banner talk 17:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You state that "Euthanasia Center" was the official German choice for the program. I don't see any evidence for that. Do you have a source? The article states that the name was "NS-Tötungsanstalt Hartheim" which quite obviously does not refer to euthanasia. Generalrelative (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

See the article Aktion T4 and its talk page for prior discussions. The Banner talk 17:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

After a quick search, the answer seems to be: no, there is no support for the idea that the facility was referred to by the Nazis officially as a "euthanasia center". Rather its official title was "NS-Tötungsanstalt Hartheim," as I originally stated. Sure, the Nazis did sometimes describe the overall T4 program as "Euthanasie" but that term did not appear in the official name of the facility, which is what is relevant here. Have I missed something? Generalrelative (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing both the German and English wiki pages for T4 and Hartheim, I also see no support for "Euthanasia Center" being official. Given that T4 was a secret undertaking during its existence, the various sites would have been referred to under the innocuous pre-war names, like "Klinik", "Heilanstalt", "Irrenanstalt", et cetera. The standard German name in post-war use is Tötungsanstalt, which is used uniformly by the official memorial foundations. ("Aktion T4" is a post-war coinage as well.). There is an official German term, Tötungsanstalt, and the various sites translate this term as "killing facility" and "killing centre".-Ich (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Ich. Generalrelative (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support move per WP:COMMONNAME. What the Nazis called the programme is irrelevant; it's what English language sources call the institution. However, we should include alternative English language names in the article lede or under a "Name" section so that readers can match it to the sources they are reading.Bermicourt (talk) 09:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  Bermicourt: Didn't you find the opposite when searching Ngram viewer, as you stated in the discussion above, i.e. that "Hartheim killing..." is more common than "Hartheim euthanasia..." by a factor of 3:2? Generalrelative (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for all the reasons stated in the previous consensus above. Pinging The Anome and asilvering from that discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  In addition, let's examine the 5 naming criteria:

  Recognizability: Would someone be genuinely confused about "Hartheim Killing Facility" if they were redirected from "Hartheim Euthanasia Centre"? I have a hard time believing that. Note too that WP:COMMONNAME states that we should limit Google search tests to News and Books (and that even then the test has limitations). When searching Books for "Hartheim Killing Facility" I get 212, + "Hartheim Killing Center": 238, + "Hartheim Killing Centre": 78, equals 528 total. "Hartheim Euthanasia Centre" gets 525, and "Hartheim Euthanasia Center" gets 218, equals 743 total. 743 is greater than 528 but not by so much that COMMONNAME swamps other considerations. So let's look at those.

  Naturalness: The actions that were carried out at the Hartheim Killing Facility do not meet the definition of euthanasia by any stretch of the imagination. Yes they were sometimes referred to in this way by the Nazi regime, who also called such murders Gnadentod ("merciful death"). We don't call this article the Hartheim Merciful Death Centre either. Yes, some people will Google "Hartheim Euthanasia Center/Centre" but see above: no one will be confused when they're redirected to the more accurate translation "Hartheim Killing Facility". Which brings me to:

  Precision: There is no ambiguity about which choice is the more precise trannslation of the German term "Tötungsanstalt Hartheim", as discussed above. Adding the weasel word "euthanasia" to the title of the article is so profoundly imprecise that I believe it becomes the salient deciding feature –– the other four naming criteria being debatable. Which allows me to finish briefly with:

  Concision: Neither is significantly more concise.

  Consistency: Similar debates are going on at similarly titled articles, some of which have been changed to "Killing Facility" and some of which have not. Neither option can be rightfully called more consistent in such a case.

  Generalrelative (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Sources? The Banner talk 14:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

    I'm not sure what you're asking for sources for. None of these statements appear to me to be controversial. Do you want a source to tell you that neither title is more concise than the other? Do you want a source telling you that "Tötungsanstalt" does not translate to "Euthanasia Centre"? Generalrelative (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

    • Without sources for your claims it is a bit of a what we "feel" or "like"-argument. The Banner talk 15:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

      I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around your reasoning here. Seems more like WP:BLUESKY to me. I suppose we'll have to let others be the judge of that. Generalrelative (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Move to Hartheim killing centre instead (no caps). Here's the ngram viewer where "Hartheim killing" appears more frequently than "Hartheim euthanasia":[8]. Separately, when I search for Hartheim euthanasia in google books, some of the results turn up with "euthanasia" in scare quotes. "Killing centre" is the umbrella terminology for the T4 facilities and the extermination camps; pls see Killing centers: an overview from the USHMM. --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no reason to go against the previous consensus, especially with the additonal comments on this RM, eg K.e.coffman's. Thanks for the tag, Generalrelative. Nor do I find any reason to accept That euthanasia was an official cloak for murder does not make is an euphemism in the normal sense of the word - what on earth is a euphemism, if not "euthanasia" for "killing"? -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I should add, as one of the two editors who suggested "facility" earlier, Hartheim killing centre is perfectly acceptable. -- asilvering (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, per previous consensus. Either move to Hartheim killing centre, per K.e.coffman, or leave at current name. — The Anome (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, per reasons listed above. I also support K.e.coffman's suggestion of not using caps, cf. "Auschwitz concentration camp" and not "Auschwitz Concentration Camp". I'm also fine with centre or facility.-Ich (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with Ich, both about the lowercase and either "facility" or "centre" being reasonable choices. — The Anome (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted edit

I don't know Pipe058 why all sections apart from External links disappeared since the only sections I clicked to edit (using Open Link in New Tab) were External links and See also. After noticing that both links in External links were in German I changed the first site's URL to its English page on the article's subject and then searched for other pages in English. Each of those I added is directly relevant and has information not in the article. Separately I changed the first See also wikilink to the page the link actually leads to and added "(in German)" to other See also link.

Towards the end my browser's windows disappeared but after opening again the relevant tab still had my edits. Mcljlm (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Use of killed instead of executed; doctors section merge with staff section

I've just noticed @Ich:'s 2021 post and the discussion in The verb "murder" section. It's significant @Bermicourt: that Hartheim Castle's official site's English page https://www.schloss-hartheim.at/en/memorial-exhibition/historic-site/euthanasia-centre-1940-1944 uses the word murders (Morde on its German page https://www.schloss-hartheim.at/gedenkstaette-ausstellung/historischer-ort/toetungsanstalt-1940-1944). Following on from that I suggest that "executed" be replace with killed and that the section Execution doctors be integrated with Hartheim T4 staff, which could be renamed Hartheim T4 doctors and other staff. Any views @Generalrelative:? Mcljlm (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It's about how accurate we want to be. Murder, by definition, is illegal killing. So do we want to distinguish in these articles between those killings carried out when the relevant (German) law allowed it - they are accurately referred to as killings, executions or (legal but involuntary) euthanasia - and those killing carried out once the law had been rescinded, in which case they are clearly murders. And if we want to classify all these cases as murder, regardless of the law, do we then move on to call all deaths under Nazi rule "murder" because we, quite understandably, don't like the Nazis. In order words, if we don't want to use a legal criterion for murder, what are we going to use instead? Bermicourt (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello again. I would argue that the article should use the legal criterion for murder that was used at Nuremberg, where several perpetrators of Aktion T4 were convicted of murder and subsequently hanged. (See: Euthanasia trials and Doctors' Trial). The Nazi dictatorship was a criminal enterprise that seized the apparatus of state power and used it to commit crimes against humanity. Deciding "what crimes can a criminal state legalize" is a challenging exercise that the post-war German judiciary wrestled with too, and the Radbruch formula was developed to reconcile gross injustices supported by positive law. (This judicial theory was also used after reunification when prosecuting East German border guards who shot people fleeing the country.) Setting aside these academic discussions, the legal basis of Aktion T4 was a personal letter from Hitler to his physician that was not widely distributed. This was not a normal statute or Führer decree; even the Nazi Minister of Justice wasn't shown the letter for a full year. The fact that they tried hard to keep it secret strongly suggests they knew they were not acting within even the loose confines of Nazi-era law. This matter is discussed further on the Aktion T4 page. Ich (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. To me, the verb "execute" strongly implies "judicially sentenced capital punishment", but none of the victims received anything close to due process. I would suggest we consolidate the content under a simple "Staff" or "Personnel" heading, with perhaps a subsection "Physicians" or "Leadership".-Ich (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I started to write here after receiving the latest notification about changes to the article's page, looking at the whole article, being struck by the use of "executed" and "execution" and having the same reaction as you @Ich:. Whether killed or murdered should be used instead of executed @Generalrelative: it may be worth noting the German article uses both. Mcljlm (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks y'all for the notifications. I'd suggest going with killed / killing unless we have a good reason to use something more specific in any given instance. In this case it looks like simply going with the generic "killed" is the least problematic option.

I could certainly quibble with Bermicourt about the appropriateness of the term "murder" (even if these killings were legal under the Nazi regime they were prosecutable ex post facto as crimes against humanity e.g. at Nuremberg) but best to keep this talk page discussion on-topic. In this particular instance I think "killed" is the best option. Generalrelative (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)