Talk:Eugenics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Eugenics was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 9, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
January 28, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Genetics (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History of Science (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Evolutionary biology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy). If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Autism (Rated Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Eugenics is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Eugenics:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Priority 1 (top)


New source for Eugenics/Dysgenics trends[edit]

PDF here.74.14.75.158 (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see source from Galton Institute on Eugenics concerning Sir James Barr who was elected Chair of the British Medical Association in 1912. http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0212/Liverpool_Branch.htm Sir James Barr wrote an essay on Eugenics in 1914 in King Alberts Book which was published by the national newspaper the Daily Telegraph. page 177 https://archive.org/stream/kingalbert00teleuoft#page/n225/mode/2up Isthisuseful (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket#2015012210014664[edit]

Hello editors,

We have an OTRS ticket which claims that we are misrepresenting Hugh LaFollette's views in this article. The information in the ticket says that Hugh LaFollette says that parents need a license to raise children, not that the child shouldn't be born (which is eugenics.) [Wired. It's time to consider restricting human breeding. Zoltan Istvan (August 2014) The Wired article barely mentions it in passing. So we are depending on Lynn quite a lot to support this content.

I found the original essay by LaFollette on Licensing Parents. [1] The piece doesn't clearly call for children to not be born, so I'm going to remove the content until we come up with either better wording or references that accurately support his views as stated in the article. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 06:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we should be relying so heavily on Lynn as a source here at all, since his work tends to be controversial. Guettarda (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Suppose that you are were editing an article about subject S and then you found a book that concentrates completely in the subject S. To use that book as a reference would be only natural. Do you agree? Now there is one book about eugenics written by Richard Lynn. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Now suppose that that one book on subject S was written by someone who has been demonstrated to routinely and tendentiously misrepresent and cherrypick data and sources...User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
That is not a big loss. Richard Lynn collected few examples of parental licencing, but he did not claim that those examples were originally meant to be used in eugenics. Lynn only analysed them as possible methods and criticised them from the eugenics viewpoint. He also proposed a way to make such a licencing program effective. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV? Don't make me laugh.[edit]

"While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics, culture, and psychology there is at this point no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable."

Who says? There is no source. In fact, there is no source for the whole paragraph this sentence comes from. Why? Because it's pretty obvious from the way this was written that it was added by someone who is strongly anti-eugenics. There are a lot of objective means of determining which "traits" might be ultimately desirable. Considering this is in a section dealing with diseases and mental illnesses, I'd say it's pretty objective to say that being born with, for example, Treacher Collins Syndrome is not a desirable genetic "trait". Wikipedia really seems to have lowered its standards on neutrality, factuality and logic, given what I've seen in the past year.89.176.209.84 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Add a {{Citation needed}} tag and move on. The talk page is not your WP:SOAPBOX. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Marian Van Court[edit]

Why was this (http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/07/against-good-breeding/) deleted? We need some pro-eugenics material. How does it violate WP:EL? 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sombe19 (talkcontribs)

Because it's crap? No, we don't need "pro-eugenics material". You're in the wrong place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it crap? Why? On Wikipedia neutrality is appreciated and expected. Did you mean to point at Treating editing as a battleground or Little or no interest in working collaboratively or perhaps Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia ? Thanks for your contributions. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Adding clearly biased agenda driven material with no scientific standing does not make an article more neutral.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it is not a reliable or useful source. Neither is MacDonald.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • MacDonald is not a reliable source? Ha ha ha, yeah right. Sombe19 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And I find it hard to see how you think this article is neutral when the references section only includes anti-eugenics sources. Sombe19 (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You clearly havent looked at the sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I see 1 pro-eugenics source, Lynn. And 1 neutral source (Ruth Engs). The rest are all anti-eugenics. Sombe19 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Most of the world is anti-eugenics, so that explains that. Neutrality is not equality.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Since when do sources have to be equal in proportion to the number of people who believe in them? Sombe19 (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Number of relevant scholars who believe in them. And the answer is since WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Still, the proportion of anti-eugenics sources is larger than the actual proportion of people who don't believe in eugenics. And given that the pro-eugenics viewpoint was historically in the majority, it needs more treatment than it is given in the current article. Sombe19 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I dont think so. Where, apart from Lynn are reputable mainstream scholars arguing in favor of eugenics today? You will have to show some very good sources to make this argument. Sure the history section can be expanded, and some of the past supporters can be represented there. But today it is a dead issue.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I know that the Mankind Quarterly and most of its contributors are pro-eugenics. Just off the top of my head, Kevin MacDonald and J. Philippe Rushton come to mind as some pro-eugenics scholars. Also Raymond Cattell. Not to mention Van Court herself. Sombe19 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but arguably except Cattell (who was not known for his eugenics views), none of those scholars are mainstream scholars , they belong to a small right-wing network of oseudoscientific racists centered around the Pioneer fund and the Mankind Quarterly was founded exactly to publish those fringe ideas since they are generally rejected in mainstream journals. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
They're not mainstream? Then what do you make of this: Mainstream Science on Intelligence. And the Mankind Quarterly is a fringe publication? How about a publication untainted by left-wing/Marxist politics? Sombe19 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Gottfredssons "mainstream" does not argue in favor of eugenics. And it is also not the actual mainstream, she just calls it that. And yes, Mankind Quarterly is a fringe publication, not only because of its political inclinations but primarily because of its (pseudo)scientific inclinations. And yes its supporters of course likes to see the mainstream as "polluted by Marxism", that of course does not mean that they ae objective or unpolluted by politics themselves even if they like to think so.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The Mankind Quarterly is pseudoscience? LOL! The real pseudoscientists are SJ Gould and the rest of the (Marxist) environmental determinists. Sombe19 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Uhuh...User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
What makes Van Court's opinion notable? Why do we care about what she publishes on a website that does not appear to meet our standards for reliable sources? Guettarda (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • For the record here is a link to the only mention[2] of Marian van Court in the Oxford Handbook of the history of Eugenics, it is in a footnote that clearly identifies her as part of a small fringe group of eugenics promoters with interesting political connections and agendas. Surely the Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics should be considered among the most reliable sources for this article - and probably should be cited a LOT more than Lynn 2001.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Source link: [3] by the aforementioned Kevin MacDonald. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

OK, so before we argue over whether pro-eugenics stuff should be in the article, we need to see if there's any reliable sources worth using. Obviously "Counter Currents" isn't a reliable source. So are there any secondary or tertiary sources that put this stuff in context? Guettarda (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead section needs references[edit]

Under Wikipedia editing rules, "controversial subjects may require many citations" in the lead. Eugenics is one of the most controversial bioethics movements in history, so the lead should include references. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations. 64.134.155.118 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)