Talk:Eugenics

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcloughe (article contribs).

Not grammatical

@SMcCandlish: Would you like to explain this edit?

I don't see it as a matter of grammar. The question is whether Eugenics aims to improve the entire population of the earth, or whether is is more usually a population with that.

FYI, until this edit by a (since suspended) sock account, the lead said "a human population".

Yaris678 (talk) 09:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Just read it: "Eugenics ... is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality a human population." Obvious missing preposition.

If all you're aiming to do is change "the" to "a" before "human population", that appears to be supported by the two sources cited (though one needed to be repaired). I've done that, but others may object that this isn't actually the definition provided by all such sources, nor does it accurately reflect all approaches to eugenics, which were (even still are) often not race- or population-based but intended to improve the "stock" of humanity more broadly. This is certainly true of many neo-eugenics ideas, e.g. total eradication of various genetic diseases. These different "a race/population" versus "the human race/population" approaches should probably be addressed in separate sentences with separate sources in the lead, though, to keep the material readable. Too many of our leads have clumsy run-on sentences.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  23:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I see. I missed the lack of "of". Thanks for catching that.

If some sources use/imply "a" and some use/imply "the", I think it is best to go for "a" here - after all, the population of the entire world is still a population. That said, perhaps we could do more elsewhere to draw out these distinctions.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Neo-eugenics a.k.a. liberal eugenics

Liberal eugenics has to be covered in short here, per WP:SUMMARY. Unless someone reads the "See also" stuff, they have no idea we even have an article on this. Meanwhile, the current main Eugenics article overall implies that eugenics is some dead idea from Hitler on back, without giving a clear indication that neo-eugenics ideas are still continuing. We used to have a version of this material in here [1] and something like it needs to return, though presumably based on summarizing Liberal eugenics rather than based on that old 2010 text.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  03:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added a couple of mentions. I agree that there could be more on it in this article. Yaris678 (talk) 17:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Good start.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  09:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Since Liberal has multiple meanings including many political varieties, particularly in the US there it's used to refer to Democratic Party supporters, I've added "also known as new eugenics, neo-eugenics, and consumer eugenics" to show the range of names for this. . dave souza, talk 13:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep; I'd meant to do that myself. There's a high likelihood that even outside the US, many readers would assume "liberal eugenics" referred to one Liberal Party or another.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  04:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Integration

Disregard

 – Off-topic.

the English liberal J. Bentham, his suggestion about the low class children in England:

"An inspection-house, to which a set of children had been consigned from their birth, might afford experiments enough. What say you to a foundling-hospital upon this principle?" Bentham, Works, vol. 4, p. 64.

[You] "may even clap them up in an inspection-house, and then you make of them what you please. You need never grudge the parents a peep behind the curtain in the master's lodge . . . you might keep up a sixteen or eighteen years separation between the male and female part of your young subjects" Bentham, Works, vol. 4, pp. 64-5.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.102.169 (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2017‎ (UTC)

This is not a forum for the general discussion of this subject matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Even as potential material to add in some form, I don't see how it relates. A proposal to victimize institutionalized minors as experimental subjects with no recourse isn't a eugenics program; no breeding, sterilization, or offspring-culling is involved. The closest thing in it is keeping the boys and girls apart until young adulthood, which would just be a socialization handicap and probably really frustrating (and probably an inducement to frequent same-sex rape, after puberty, as in any prison). Flagging this as off-topic.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  01:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Lead too long" tag

An editor added a "lead too long" clean up tage to the article, which I reverted. Cleanup tags represent the opinion of a single editor, and if they are disputed, they are not immune from the necessity of discussion, just like any other disputed edit.

I do not believe that the lead to this article is too long. Eugenics is a complex subject, and summarizing the complexities in a way that the reader can easily understand requires some length. I invite the editor to explain here why they think the lead is too long as specifically as possible. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep. It could be text-compressed a little here and there, but breadth-wise, it seems fine.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The manual of style says “a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs”. Obviously six is greater than four. And well composed these are not. Being there are three major sections in this article, there should be three takeaways in the lead. That man from Nantucket (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And, also obviously, the MOS is an editing guideline and is not mandatory. As the very top of the MOS page says, it is to be dealt with with common sense. Every article has its own needs, and if a subject is complex, and needs more than four paragraphs to summarize, then it should have more than four paragraphs in its lede. The idea that "one size fits all", and that the lede for Eugenics must be the same size as the lede for, say, Thomas Fairfax, 13th Lord Fairfax of Cameron is simply silly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

We do have plenty of FAs that use 5+. It's not a policy, and shouldn't even be interpreted as a "rule", since "paragraph" has no particular size definition. Some paragraphs are one short sentence, others are ten medium sentences, others two very long ones. It should be interpreted as meaning "should contain no more material than four average-sized, well-composed paragraphs". But the "could be text-compressed a little here and there" point would likely result in getting it under the general limit anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Alternative medicine sidebar

{{Alternative medicine sidebar|fringe}} was put near the top of this article, then moved to near the bottom with the rest of the nav stuff, then removed. The issue I have is that this article is in the navbox, and it's standard operating procedure to thus put it on this page somewhere. Multiple people (self included) object to having it near the top. So, absent some compelling WP:IAR rationale, it either needs to be put back near the page bottom, or this article needs to be removed from the navbox. I lean toward the latter, since it's a poor fit, topically. Alternative medicine refers to medical beliefs and practices, not to politicized "improving the race" (or "improving our race in particular") stuff just because it sometime incidentally involves something medical, like force sterilization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Eugenics has nothing to do with Alternative medicine, so I'm going to cut the Gordonian knot by removing this article from the sidebar. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The sidebar is an alternative and pseudomedicine sidebar. It has been on this article for years. That people get grumpy and that proponents of bunk science take offence and move it around is frankly not relevant. Medical make-belief doesn't categorize between "harmless" and "vile" nonsense, they're all bunk and the fact that one has unsavory political implications does not mean it shouldn't be included. Carl Fredrik ^talk 08:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The question isn't whether eugenics is "pesudo" or not - as it most certainly is pseudoscience - the question is does it have anything whatsoever to do with "alternative medicine' as that phrase is understood today, and the quick and easy (and accurate) answer is , no, it does not. It is not an alternative to normal medicine - no one went to a eugenicist to get cured of their lumbago -- it's a pseudoscience. Therefore the alternative medicine sidebar is inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, because it is a pseudomedicine sidebar. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

And eugenics is not a "pseudomedicine". It never claimed to cure or treat anything. Please stop blurring the distinct difference between medicine and science, or between "pseudoscience" and "pseudomedicine", they are not the same thing at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The proponents of the historical eugenics movement had definitely-pseudoscientific ideas of race, class etc. superiority, and no actual understanding of the relevant genetics. (It works to allow us to breed faster horses, so we can use the same techniques to breed more "intelligent" and generally "superior" humans.) That pseudoscience was used to underpin behaviour ranging from useless to grossly-criminal. I suggest that labelling the entire eugenic movement "pseudoscience" is at least arguable. But I wouldn't call it medicine. And the "alternative medicine" sidebar isn't really helpful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge — Which is why this is not an only-alternative medicine sidebar. It includes alternative medicine, pseudomedicine and medical conspiracy theories. Pseudomedicine is simply pseudoscience in medicine. You're reraising a month old discussion to make an unrelated point. If we're fine that eugenics is pseudoscience there should be no issue to include the medical conspiracy theory and pseudomedicine sidebar which also includes scientific racism. There is no better sidebar, and these are all excellent examples of pseudoscience in medicine. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Why do you think that "we're fine" while it is obvious that we are not fine? Francis Galton coined the word eugenics and gave a strict definition that eugenics is a science. Such a definition is wise, because it excludes all unscientific methods. Some other after him misused the word in some unscientific practice, but that is not a fault of Galton or eugenics. It is only a fault of those who misused the word. Analogously a quack who pretends a medical professional does not convert medical science into pseudoscience. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please do not respond tangentially. See WP:FRINGE. Carl Fredrik ^talk 21:36, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

You called it fringe, like you didn't know the difference between a definition of a word and a theory, although you should. "A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols)." Calling eugenics as a pseudoscience is a lie right against the definition. Francis Galton is certainly the reliable source for the definition of the word he coined. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, he is not. Words change their meaning. We get our definitions from contemporary reliable sources. Produce some of those (both for and against the pseudoscience label), or this discussion is simply a waste of time. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Words do not change their meanings, although people may attempt to do that. I remember someone redefining words, yes that was in Nineteen Eighty-Four as redefining words was a politically correct way to control thoughts. Redefining words that were already well and strictly defined means destruction of words. I am fully aware of the fact that there are plenty of words that have existed long time without good definitions, either because such definitions were not originally created, or because mankind forgot them. For example racism is one ill-defined word, and only approximations of its meaning exist. And that was just one example. But, eugenics is not one of them. It was strictly defined by the same gentleman who coined the word. The required literature has survived and may be used as a reference. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

That is utter ignorant nonsense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

lol… no… Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• As for the sidebar, I do agree that eugenics is an odd inclusion in the series on "alternative medicíne, pseudomedicine and conspiracy theories" - as is scientific racism. I don't really see how either of those fall under that label, there are other more series of articles where these topics would fit better. In so far as eugenics is related to medicine it is not really pseudo (for example selective birth control, forced sterilization, screening for birth defects etc. are all actual medicine, not pseudo-medicine - even if one may find their use objectionable). The problem with eugenics is not that it is scientifically dubious (though it has sometimes been that, for example in Galton's definition since the idea of "improvement" cannot be scientifically defined, but not always) but that it is ethically dubious.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Point taken – Had it only been an ethical philosophy, it would only be dubious — but the reason eugenics is pseudoscientific is specifically because it purports to be scientific. Any attempt to decrease disease and improve health among the population — based upon a pseudoscientific perception of "good genes" — is pseudoscience & pseudomedicine. I.e... Carl Fredrik ^talk 09:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that not all practices that can be considered eugenics operate with such a pseudo-scientific concept of "good genes". There isn't really any consensus about what "eugenics" actually is, but I would say that for example screening for Downs syndrome and offering abortions to those who are pregnant with a foetus that has Downs is clearly a form of eugenics - but it is not pseudoscientific or relies on pseudoscientific reasoning, it merely lets parents decide what they find to be a "desirable" child. There are forms of eugenics that purport to provide scientific basis for determinng who is and isn't desirable, and those are clearly pseudscientific, but that is not a necessary part of eugenics, which is simply the practice of politically managing fertility and mortality of a population. It is a political practice, not a scientific discipline.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about good genes? Not Galton. In 1905, Wilhelm Johannsen introduced the term 'gene'. That was one after Galton defined eugenics. Are you whacking a strawman? Please don't do it here. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If such concepts as "improvement", "advantage" or "disadvantage" sound too cranky to you, then the whole medical science becomes pointless and pseudoscience for you, because how could you say what is illness if you cannot even use the concept that illness and health are based on. Someone is sick and about to die, but how do you know that death is a disadvantage? Is curing the illness an improvement? Ok then back to reality. I know and probably you know too, that it is better to be healthy than sick, vigorous than weak. That is the basis of medical science. That is also the basis of eugenics. Without that basis both medical science and eugenics would be pointless. If you don't know what improvement means, perhaps you should search for it. That is your problem – not a problem of anyone else. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In terms of evolution "improvement" is what works, and what works is determined by success in the environment, not by a guess made by people. Case in point: sickle cell anemia, not a desirable trait by most guesses, except it protects against malaria and therefore confers evolutionary success. That is why the idea that improvement of a populations collective genome is possible by concerted efforts is inherently pseudoscientific.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No true scotsman

Francis Galton who coined the word eugenics, also carefully stated in his definition that eugenics is science. This means that any pseudo- or bunk science advertised under the label "eugenics" is still not real science and thus cannot be real eugenics either. You may think that this resembles No true Scotsman fallacy, but no, quite the opposite. I am defending the original definition of eugenics, not trying to invent a new definition. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and the fact that Galton believed his pseudoscience to be scientific does not make it so.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

You cannot make eugenics become pseudoscience simply by calling it pseudoscience. What is science depends on accepted scientific standards, such as the scientific method, falsifiability of claims, and Mertonian norms. If you have seen some obvious pseudoscience under the label of "eugenics", you could talk about pseudoeugenics as well. According to the original definition, anything non-scientific or pseudoscience cannot be eugenics. If you build a car and claim that it is Mercedes-Benz, then what should that car be called: Mercedes-Benz or something else? If someone does something and calls that something eugenics, it may or may not be eugenics, depending how that something fits the definition of eugenics. I did not slip to the No true Scotsman fallacy because I stick to the original definition unlike ·maunus. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

For those interested here is Galton's definition: "EUGENICS is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage." Given that the idea that biologically distinct races exist with different inborn qualities is pseudoscientific, I don't see how his definition can escape the same problem. Especially given that the idea of "improvement" of biological traits is also pseudoscientific as it is not based on any objective standard of what constitutes an improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:DENYRECOGNITION, WP:FRINGE. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Francis Galton used the word race in the definition of eugenics. Regardless did Galton mean "the human race" or "some particular race" or "any race" that is not important. Important is that he did not mean an individual. You may interpret the word "race" quite much the way you wish and the definition of eugenics is still fine. About the improvement then: Galton did not leave it there. He said "to the utmost advantage" and advantage is a keyword here. You may think what could be an utmost disadvantage; perhaps a serious genetic illness. Towards an advantage means less illness and better health. Or, as Galton continued after the short definition: "All creatures would agree that it was better to be healthy than sick, vigorous than weak, well-fitted than ill-fitted for their part in life; in short, that it was better to be good rather than bad specimens of their kind, whatever that kind might be. So with men." I don't see any problem in Galton's definition. If medical science knows how to distinguish a disease and a trait, and that is not pseudoscience, then I see that it works same way in eugenics. To detect an illness is one task, and to find its origin is another. Sometimes it may be genetic. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop it, we are not having this discussion.

See WP:FRINGE – and be minded that WP:DISRUPTIVE editing can lead to a ban or block.

Ignoring and advocating WP:FRINGE constitutes disruption. Carl Fredrik ^talk 06:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I was not editing an article recklessly. This is a talk page of the article. I wanted to discuss and you prefer to suppress. Were my lines unconvenient? ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Although I am loath to wade into this, I would like to see any academic support for the claim that eugenics is considered pseudoscience. For instance, the Annals of Human Genetics, a high impact factor good journal in the fields of genetics, use to be entitled the Annals of Eugenics and was renamed for political reasons. R. A. Fisher, one of the founders of modern evolutionary biology, was a prominent eugenicist. It would be quite odd to regard him as a Fringe or pseudoscientific voice. There is some room for nuanced debate here, but I am unaware of any consensus opinion in the field of human genetics condemning eugenics as pseudoscience. So could you provide any academic support for your opinions? LarryBoy79 (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Do the Annals of Human Genetics still publish Eugenics studies? Does it advocate eugenics? Are any prominent contemporary geneticists doing so?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes obviously. Screening for Down's for example. Richard Lynn 8 (talk) 11:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Struck Mikemikev sock's edit. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Sometimes, Yes.

What would a eugenic study be, in your opinion? There are many studies on the heritability of quantitative traits in human populations and the differences thereof, and it is listed as one of the chief aims of the journal. However, the focus on the practice of eugenics, that is attempting to decrease the prevalence of genetic diseases through prevention of birth rather than treatment, is no longer a focus of the journal, so it may be appropriate to say that it is no longer a eugenics journal as such.

However, there is some question as to what is appropriate to label eugenics. Earlier in this thread, you claimed that the idea “that biologically distinct races exist with different inborn qualities is pseudoscientific”. Taking inborn here to mean “genetic”, then I believe you would be fairly comfortable labeling Charles Murry views as pseudoscientific since he claims that there exists a genetic basis for racial differences in IQ test performance. But he certainly doesn't seem to have trouble getting his work published in scientific journals, such as Intelligence. Additionally, a respectably sized group of academics have defended him against charges like yours, stating that his views are actually pretty main-stream.

So if you want to argue that the opinion that eugenics “isn't true” or “doesn't work” is so widespread among human geneticist/genomicist that it is disruptive to question whether or not it is appropriate to label eugenics as pseudomedicine then surely there should be at least a handful of scholarly statements to that effect, right? Unfortunately I think you will there is no paper trail showing that the scholarly community ever abandoned eugenics, and that to this day if you really forced scholars to choose between The Bell Curve and The Mismeasure of Man I'm not really sure which one would come up on top (though I vote for the Mismeasure of Man myself). So if a scholar within the main body of scholarly work can claim that there are genetic differences between races which result in measurable differences in IQ, is it perhaps a little too early to declare eugenics dead?

Some contemporary discussions of Eugenics. I did not note a general tenor dismissing the idea as pseudoscientific, though some sources identified eugenics with the proposition that many diseases that eugenicists sought to eliminate were oligogenic, which is false. I think this claim to be historically unlikely, as I believe the consensus has long been that most quantitative traits are highly polygenic, but I rarely read sources from before about 1970, so I could be mistaken.

• Article discussing dysgenic effects.
• Discussion of historic and contemporary eugenics in the Annals of Human Genetics
• Discussion of 'private' eugenics in India
• Discussion of 'private' eugenics in the US
• Discussion of possibility and application of 'in vitro' eugenics

LarryBoy79 (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

So, is anybody still trying to provide citations supporting the idea that geneticists consider eugenics psudoe-medicine? If some citation cannot be provided in the next week I'm inclined to just remove the side bar. LarryBoy79 (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, citations abound, look at the article. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:03, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I see a citation to a journalist who clearly makes the claim, but are there any medical doctors or geneticists who make the claim? I'm sure the answere is yes, some do, but in order to be labled a pseudo science shouldn't it be the case that the relevent scientific community generaly considers it pseudo science? And, do you have anything stronger than the claim of a single journalist? LarryBoy79 (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

So, could you provide a more detailed argument that "I say so." LarryBoy79 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Carl Fredrik: You seem to be the most vocal opposition to the idea of removing the side bar. I've explained to you that I feel that the genetics community, by and large, does not view eugenics as pseudo-medicine, and provided a list of citations to modern discussions of eugenics within medical and genetic literature. I still do not understand why you feel so certain that geneticists consider eugenics pseudo-medicine. Will you please engage me in constructive discussion by articulating your position? LarryBoy79 (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2018

No. I am outright stating that I will not discuss this with you, at all. That is because there is no possibility of "constructive" discussion. There are numerous talk page threads resulting in this long standing consensus, a wealth of sources in the article and on talk pages, and with only one of your sources even vaguely supporting your position, most of your own sources opposing it, this is text-book WP:FRINGE. The very idea of discussing the issue validates it beyond what can be valid scientific discourse. I stated the relevant support before: WP:DENYRECOGNITION. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Eugenics is sound science

Eugenics is an applied science based on genetics, similar to how engineering is an applied science based on physics. The fact that many past ideas in physics were wrong does not mean physics or engineering is pseudoscience. Similarly, the fact that many past ideas in genetics were wrong does not make genetics or eugenics pseudoscience.

The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice. - Richard Dawkins[2]

Dawkins, one of the 21st century's most famous evolutionary biologist, says eugenics is valid science. This link is in the article, and there are more links in the article that state eugenics is valid science than say it is a pseudoscience. I think some who say eugenics was and always will be pseudoscience, are confusing eugenics for Aryan race ideology. In the early twentieth century, the two ideologies overlapped in some ways, but they are just as distinguishable as the overlap between the Progressive Era and eugenics. Waters.Justin (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the question then, is how to proceed? It is clear that some editors are simply not willing to discuss or re-consider their opinions, but I Wikipedia is built on consensus. How can you arrive at a consensus without discussing or re-consider opinions? I am at a loss. LarryBoy79 (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't. That quote which is taken without context and and does not even mention eugenics, yet is still WP:FRINGE. There is no support, no serious sources have been presented — and you're just creating a time-sink. I'm closing this discussion now. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The quote is about eugenics. You've gone into PC overload and you're completely irrational. 146.255.14.121 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2018 (UTC)