Jump to content

Talk:Eugenics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Agre22 (talk | contribs) at 00:57, 31 January 2010 (→‎Position of the Church). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives


Again?

Here, I guess I'll just copy and paste: "The facts:

Abortion and forced Sterilization were actually things that Sanger wrote AGAINST! She did not endorse abortion. She only advocated birth control and education. If she endorsed abortion at any time, she would have been arrested, because abortion, was illegal until 1972, and advocacy of it was illegal until the 1950s.

The above quote sounds like Sanger is advocating the cleansing of "the race" of "defectives" and "mentally ill", and advocating a nazi-version of racial supremacy. When you put the paragraph in context, with it's surrounding paragraphs, Sanger is actually saying the opposite -- the paragraph is part of an intro where she CRITICIZES various remedies offered by government.

When The Pivot Of Civilization was written, in 1922, the USA, indeed the world, was getting over the ravages of the worst Influenza epidemic in history! Millions of Americans died -- we lost a whole generation of people between 1918 and 1920. The idea of "racial regenration" was not used in the context of "white racial regenration". It literally meant "human" regenration.

But that's just a sidenote. Let's see what the whole page says, and what the liars for Christ always leave out. 

   "At the present moment, we are offered three distinct and more or less mutually exclusive policies by which civilization may hope to protect itself and the generations of the future from the allied dangers of imbecility, defect and delinquency. No one can understand the necessity for Birth control education without a complete comprehension of the dangers, the inadequacies, or the limitations of the present attempts at control, or the proposed programs for social reconstruction and racial regeneration. It is, therefore, necessary to interpret and criticize the three programs offered to meet our emergency. These may be briefly summarized as follows:

   * Philanthropy and Charity: This is the present and traditional method of meeting the problems of human defect and dependence, of poverty and delinquency. It is emotional, altruistic, at best ameliorative, aiming to meet the individual situation as it arises and presents itself. Its effect in practise is seldom, if ever, truly preventive. Concerned with symptoms, with the allaying of acute and catastrophic miseries, it cannot, if it would, strike at the radical causes of social misery. At its worst, it is sentimental and paternalistic.

   * Marxian Socialism: This may be considered typical of many widely varying schemes of more or less revolutionary social reconstruction, emphasizing the primary importance of environment, education, equal opportunity, and health, in the elimination of the conditions (i. e. capitalistic control of industry) which have resulted in biological chaos and human waste. I shall attempt to show that the Marxian doctrine is both too limited, too superficial and too fragmentary in its basic analysis of human nature and in its program of revolutionary reconstruction.

   * Eugenics: Eugenics seems to me to be valuable in its critical and diagnostic aspects, in emphasizing the danger of irresponsible and uncontrolled fertility of the ``unfit and the feeble-minded establishing a progressive unbalance in human society and lowering the birth-rate among the ``fit. But in its so-called ``constructive aspect, in seeking to reestablish the dominance of healthy strain over the unhealthy, by urging an increased birth-rate among the fit, the Eugenists really offer nothing more farsighted than a ``cradle competition between the fit and the unfit. They suggest in very truth, that all intelligent and respectable parents should take as their example in this grave matter of child-bearing the most irresponsible elements in the community.

   FOOTNOTES:



   1. United States Public Health Service: Psychiatric Studies of Delinquents. Reprint No. 598: pp. 64-65.
   2. The Problem of the Feeble-Minded: An Abstract of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Cure and Control of the Feeble-Minded, London: P. S. King & Son.
   3. Cf. Feeble-Minded in Ontario: Fourteenth Report for the year ending October 31st, 1919.
   4. Eugenics Review, Vol. XIII, p. 339 et seq.
   5. Dwellers in the Vale of Siddem: A True Story of the Social Aspect of Feeble-mindedness. By A. C. Rogers and Maud A. Merrill; Boston (1919). "


If Sanger was in favor of the kind of Eugenics that Christian liars claim she was, why on earth would she explain "The flaws of the Eugenics movement" (along with "the flaws of Marxist Socialism") are "the Eugenists really offer nothing more farsighted than a ``cradle competition between the fit and the unfit."

She is here, quite obviously, only EXPLAINING what the 3 mutually exclusive social programs (for dealing with poverty, birth defects, and insanity) governments were proposing at the time, and CRITISIZING THEM! If she was in favor of Marxist Socialism and Eugenics (which she says are mutually exclusive in many ways), why would she criticize them? Again, the Christian tactic is to cut Sanger off in mid-sentence and make her writing appear to say the opposite of what she actually wrote." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sanger was not a eugenicist

The only source the article has listed is someone saying she was a eugenicist. In fact, I've provided sources from her own works that state otherwise. She stated many times she was not a Eugenicist, and her views were quite the contrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/religious_criticism.htm#Margaret%20Sanger http://fundamentalistdeceit.blogspot.com/2008/01/demonizing-of-margaret-sanger.html

Two pages using her own writing and quotes to debunk the accusation.

Yes, she was an eugenist

This site: [Eads] has Margaret Sanger's quotes. If you want to read one Margaret Sanger's book about her opinion about eugenics, this site: [Open] has all the text of the Sanger's book Woman and the new race. Agre22 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22[reply]

goodegenes.com dating agency

The popularity of eugenics may be gauged with the prosperity of http:/goodgenes.com a dating agency that requires its members be advanced degree persons from highly regarded universities With that kind of support around the idea Eugenics remains fashionable as well as effective among people

This is not an advertisement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.215.179 (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


GA problems

I'm not sure why this article passed GA, but it has some striking problems. For one thing, citations are too sparse and scattere around; at least every paragraph should have one citation. This article has an {{ActiveDiscuss}} and a {{unreferenced}} tag, as well as several {{fact}} tags, which indicates that it's going through active changes (fails 5, stability) and everything isn't verified (2c). Hbdragon88 00:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article sent to WP:GA/R. Hbdragon88 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm eyeballs deep in literature on the history of eugenics right now, so if you point out some paragraphs/statements that appear to require citations, highlight them somewhere on the discussion page. I'll probably be able to find sources to back them up. It might take some time though. Carpe Carpio (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Holocaust Science?

Does anyone know of a good Wikipedia article that deals generally with the impact of the Holocaust on scientific norms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superabo (talk • contribs) 02:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nuremberg Code is a good start. --Fastfission 15:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason why Article was Delisted as GA

Eugenics

result:Delist 4-0

Article has some striking problems. For one thing, citations are too sparse and scattere around; at least every paragraph should have one citation. This article has an {{ActiveDiscuss}} and a {{unreferenced}} tag, as well as several {{fact}} tags, which indicates that it's going through active changes (fails #5) and everything isn't verified (#2c). Issues not fixed after six days. Hbdragon88 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the consensus to delist. Diez2 17:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Matthew-eugenic selection of trees

Factoid: If you think the history of "eugenics" only applied to Humans, (and I assume the idea means to apply to any 'Selective Genetics'), then why does a nice article on a Timely, Forerunner to Darwin, Russell et al, talk of:

"..Matthew noted the long-term deleterious effect of dysgenic artificial selection—the culling of only the trees of highest timber quality from forests—on the quality of timber. In an appendix to the book, he elaborated on how eugenic artificial selection—the elimination of trees of poor timber quality—could be used...."

eugenically selectiing organisms? I am not advocating the adjectival usage of the word. But my goodness, it took a year to get the concept of Saltation into Wikipedia, and still is relevant to Punctuated equilibrium. All human beings before of us have noticed certain things, and wrote about them, or at least acted upon them. If this "Eugenics" Article is just the "History of 20th century World", then it should be labelled as such, and the concept of "Selective breeding", Eugenics, and whatever else should be explained in the first paragraph. If the Eugenics intends to only talk about the history of the 20th C. it should state that in the first Paragraph.

Mr Patrick Matthew was talking about a eugenic problem in England about 40 years before Darwin did his thing. (from the ArizonaSonora deserts.. -Mmcannis 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if "clear-cutters" of tree stands refuse to leave abundant "seed-tree groups" of the best trees, then they are.. S t u p i d. That is why there is a term: selective genetics. Matthew observed this "Humanoid-Action-Greed-Stupidity-Problem"... Mmcannis 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a further note, "selective genetics"/Eugenics in unintended ways occurs: (as people migrate, or emigrate From, or immigrate To).. Mmcannis 21:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics is artificial selection applied to humans. What you are talking about is artificial selection. You have put the cart before the horse. --24.147.86.187 21:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well a related point is that human selective breeding (also known as eugenics) was informed by pre-20th century thinking on the selective breeding of farmed animals (and no doubt plants). I agree that it is arbitrary to be anthropocentric here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.89.25 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics in Latin America

I have removed a text about "Eugenics in Latin America" that put great emphasis in "state policies" in Brazil without providing any data or reference for such. There never were any laws related to eugenics in Brazil at all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.72.218.8 (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

See Nancy Stepan's The Hour of eugenics and article work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.7.97 (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Brazil, such as in all Latin America, eugenics was a left's monopoly.Leonel Brizola, D. Hélder Câmara, Luís Carlos Prestes, Miguel Reale,etc. were all eugenicists in 1930 decade; all died as left's leaders.In Chile, Salvador Allende was an eugenicist.Salvador Allende's thesis for his graduation, in medicine, was exactly about his support to eugenics sterilization.Agre22 (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

John Linder

Will Beback, what specifically is your objection to the use of Congressman Linder's op-ed as a source? The Washington Times is not some tabloid paper. --Don't lose that number 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His opinion in this matter isn't notable. It's just an opinion by a mid-level politician with no expertise in the topic. He's making a political point which doesn't add any information to the article, and which appears based on a lack of actual research. -Will Beback · † · 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huxley

They claim, for example, that Planned Parenthood was funded and cultivated by the Eugenics Society for these reasons. Former Eugenics Society president Julian Huxley became the first Director-General of UNESCO and a founder of the World Wildlife Fund. [35]

While I appreciate the above is referenced, I'm somewhat concerned about it as it appears misleading. I've removed the word former to try and improve it. The issue here is it appears to be suggesting Huxley was involved in the Eugenics Society and then abandoned it to join UNESCO and WWF. But in reality, UNESCO was formed a long time before Huxley became Eugenics Society president and the WWF was formed while he was president. Huxley appears to have maintaned links to the eugenics society throughout his life.[1] Whether or whether not Huxley's involvment in WWF and UNESCO has anything to do with his eugenics ideas, it's quite clear he didn't suddenly abandone the eugenics movement and so we have to be careful that this is clear Nil Einne 00:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved it some more [2]. It seems decent to me now since it makes it clear these were simulataneous interests Nil Einne 01:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a tricky road to hoe, wanting to keep the language NPOV on both sides of the fence. That said, I concurr with your general want to stay accurate, & I think your most recent version supports NPOV. Hooray! --mordicai. 01:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacies, scientific inaccuracies, genetic diversity

This article is a very poorly done effort that is far too supportive of the ¨science¨ and barely touches upon basic scientific principals which are contradictiory to it. Why is it that after the critisism area of the article that counter-arguements are allowed to be presented against the critisisms? How objective is this, really? After the counter-arguements are we going to have counter-counter-arguements to even things out? And after that, counter-counter-counter arguements? Isn´t that what the talk page is for? This really would become old quickly, although I would agree that all sides of the issues ought be able to address claims made by the other that they view as unsubstantiated, I believe that the cases for and against should be laid out WITHIN the main text of the article and that the critisism ought to be incorporated directly into the article itself at every point of contention.

Second, the subject of dysgenics, that society is losing an average of x IQ points every generation, makes absolutely no sense given the Flynn effect.

http://cranepsych.com/Psych/Rising_Scores_on_IQ_tests.pdf

Either those in support of eugenics for the support of enhancing human intellect must accept that dysgenics is not occurring due to the fact that global IQ scores are rising, or they must argue that a methodological flaw is occurring. Either one of these concessions negates the arguement in favor of dysgenics, thereby making it illogical. If supporters of dysgenics do argue that methodological flaws are occurring presently in IQ tests, then they do so fully accepting that the very concept of the IQ, with which they base their arguement and themselves establish as an indicator of human intellect, is empirically unsound and therefore, by it´s nature, unscientific.

Furthermore, dysgenics or eugenics, for that matter, can not be considered a science or scientific in any way because it makes a value statement about certain innate characterisitics and describes some as more or less desireable than others. So the basis of eugenics is that less intelligent people outbreed more intelligent people in this society and that somehow having less intelligence is a less desireable evolutionary characteristic? How does that even fit into a scientific or Darwininan framework?

Third, the case made by the gentleman who claimed that the arguement against eugenics which stated that it would limit genetic diversity is incorrect in stating that genetic diversity could be attained by scientific methods such as gene splicing failed to make his point. He also stated something to the effect of ¨loss in genetic diversity not always being a bad thing,¨ which is absolutely false. The scientific marker of the health of a species is the diversity within that species´ gene pool. Nothing is more essential than genetic diversity from an evolutionary perspective. And the simple fact is that eugenics limits this genetic diversity by the artificial selection of so-called ¨desirable characterists,¨ many of which with dubious methodological testing. (as is the case with IQ testing) Theoretical artificial changes to the genomes of certain individuals that he claims could potentialy, ¨increase genetic diversity,¨ would certainly not, due to the simple fact that the entire point behind them is to weed out certain other naturally occurring allele frequencies because we find them undesirable and to replace them with ones that we do find desirable. The entire point of the practice would be to define a paradigm of acceptable and unacceptable frequencies out of those naturally occurring in our genome, that´s the reason it´s done in the first place--to slim down the ¨undesirable characteristics¨ and to boost the ¨desireable¨ ones!

This article is a sloppy embarrassment to wikipedia that really ought to be seriously revised, particularly by integrating the critisisms and responses throughout the article.

PaulDMessiah 05:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be familiar with the field. Please "be bold" and fix what needs fixing. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better variable to track genetic health of a population might be rates for early onset Cancer or Immune Disorders such as Asthma and MS. Levels of education, teaching methodologies, and the way education is delivered (eg. TV, and Computers) all change with time and this could muddy the waters.
The very idea of using IQ scores to prove/disprove arguments in eugenics is terribly flawed. So I agree with you, it is dubious. Flynn, who you make use of, actually says that "The hypothesis that best fits the results is that IQ tests do not measure intelligence but rather a correlate with a weak causal link to intelligence" -- http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1987-17534-001&CFID=5810707&CFTOKEN=32399367
Consider the 'Practice Effect' or 'Coaching'. It is nothing new, in the following quote 'Coaching' was observed in IQ tests in the 1920's : "To determine the possible effects of "coaching," a college class of 44 men were tested four times on the Army "Alpha," approximately three weeks elapsing between each test. The results are recorded in graphs and tables. The investigators found that there was a definite general improvement from first to second, and from second to third (every case in the third round showing superiority to the first), with a general drop in the fourth. Reports from the testees stated that taking the first, second and third test was interesting, but that the fourth was a bore. " -- http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/3/5/396/
You said "He also stated something to the effect of ¨loss in genetic diversity not always being a bad thing,¨ which is absolutely false". But what if the gene is clearly deleterious, such as causing the loss of ones immune system? Would losing that small piece of 'genetic diversity' still be harmful? It appears as if you are saying it is harmful to our evolution remove clearly undesirable traits? Ie. those that would cause conditions such as: Cancer, and Immune Disorders. Perhaps a new kind of 'religion' or 'idealism' has entered the debate? One that harms reason and common sense. Kastelz (talk)

Nice article...for the most part

I was just browsing along and stopped on this article. It's surprisingly well written for such a contentious subject. Good work. However, the entire criticisms section reads like a bunch of POV tack-ons. The significant historical and modern-day criticisms of eugenics are well accounted for in the pre-Criticisms sections. They don't need to be repeated in bloody detail. In fact, the earlier sections of this article are a rather nice example of the inclusion of *relevant* pro and con views within the flow of the article's narrative. I'm not bold enough to remove an entire section of an article with which I'm only mildly familiar, but someone really should just ax the criticism section. --Jeffakolb 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to second this view above, most of the criticks content could have easily been replaced/removed to the discussion page. --און 06:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Comment from an indefinitely blocked editor (2 years of spamming, edit-warring, vandalism, personal attacks, tendentious editing and sockpuppetry).[3] Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Link --Eugenics - A Psychiatric Responsibility

Is this a Scientology website? It seems to advocate the Scientology idea that psychiatrists are evil.

Good catch. I've removed it as an unsuitable external link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for supporting evidence for "Combating Autism Act" assertion.

Currently the section on United States says:

In more recent times the Combating Autism Act, ratified unanimously by the United States Senate and signed by president George W. Bush, is an example of modern eugenic legislation. The bill contains provisions to support the development of a prenatal diagnosis of autism, which could lead to a reduction in the birth rate of autistic children.

Scanning the text of the S.843 act I can't see anything to substantiate that, though not being an American I might be missing some terminology or legal background to be able to identify it.

I've flagged it as needing a citation to clarify the situation.

--Csamuel 07:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that the increase in autism in the general population is much faster than can be explained in terms of genetic inheritance it suggests that, while the predisposition may be widespread, unknown environmental factors are currently to blame. John D. Croft 08:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call for archiving old talk page threads

Greetings, Could an editor more familiar with this article please archive outdated talk threads to make this page more usable (currently over 50 threads). Thank you! Benjiboi 10:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While judiciously selected references to eugenics in popular culture can shed light on both eugenics and culture, the section as it stands it too long, and contains many items of dubious interest or relevance. It is the "Pokemon effect", the influence of fandom, not scholarship. It dilutes the usefulness of Wikipedia and sullies its integrity as an encylopedia. "Popular culture" in this article is represented by American and British science fiction, American sci-fi movies and anime. No connections or conclusions are drawn -- it is not too far from trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.197.14 (talk) 03:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins and eugenics

Because Dawkins is one of the most famous evolutionary biologists in the world his views of eugenics are certainly relevant. Now some people are edit warring and removing them:

"Richard Dawkins has written:

Dawkins asks what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoritzB (talk • contribs) 16:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Way to cherry pick, and completely misrepresent his position. The fact is he doesn't advocate eugenics, and picking out a short paragraph from a foreword he wrote for some ones book, that was plastered around the internet by a Disco institute knuckle-dragger —in a vain attempt to stir up an artificial controversy— is just going to end up making you look stupid. ornis (t) 16:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he doesn't "advocate eugenics" but he certainly has an open mind about it. This is certainly relevant.
MoritzB 17:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meanings and types of eugenics

"intrinsic eugenics, which seeks to exclusively improve a person's genetic traits that are intrinsically beneficial or detrimental to them, such as physical health, mental health, attractiveness, reproductive ability, physical aptitude, intelligence, and self-control racial eugenics, which emphasizes selectively breeding a specific race or races extrinsic social eugenics, which selectively breeds people that have high social status and the genetic traits thereof, such as wealth, attendance at popular colleges, college degrees, popularity, extroversion, personality, and humour"

I really doubt this categorization is valid. It is unsourced and a Google search "extrinsic social eugenics" reveals that the phrase is only used on the Wikipedia article, not in any reliable sources.

MoritzB 21:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The footnote (5) looks like OR, and the categories proposed are not sensible - 1 & 2 are practically the same thing (certainly in the period I know most about, Britain 1900-1920) and 3 makes no sense at all. I've removed it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge trivia section

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge. – ornis⚙ 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest merging the trivia section to Genetic engineering in fiction, since at a cursory glance it appears a lot of the material there is duplicated here anyway. In any event, a serious article like this isn't helped any by listcruft like that. ornis (t) 13:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. MoritzB 14:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The "Discrimination" template

I find the inclusion of this template POV-ish. It`s presence implies that Eugenics is a discriminatory social policy. I propose deletion or the creation of a separate article called "Eugenics and discrimination" (the article should start something like this: "The social philosophy of Eugenics was used in the past as a justification for discrimination.... ") where the template could be present. Raborg 20:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be more suitble in dysgenics, which directly deals with discriminating against "bad" genes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Still kind of POV-ish, but it`s better there than here. Raborg 21:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Or it could remain here, but only under the Eugenics#Criticism chapter. Raborg 21:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's remove it.MoritzB 01:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Dysgenics into Eugenics

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The lead of Dysgenics identifies it as the antonym of Eugenics. Duplication and inconsistency may be avoided by treating it in the Eugenics article. Dysgenics receives little attention and a small number of WP:SPAs have edited its content to reflect their extreme point of view in apparent violation of the undue weight section of WP:NPOV.

Copied the following five comments from Talk:Dysgenics#Move_article_to_a_new_section_within_the_article_Eugenics?
That may be the case, but the current Dysgenics article is written from the eugenicist POV. The two articles are closely related. IMO, the only rationale for keeping the two separate is the length issue.Verklempt 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.

I see a strong consensus for the merge considering that of those opposing above, MoritzB (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked for disruption, POV-pushing, etc., and Rsheridan6 (talk · contribs) and Raborg (talk · contribs) are inactive. I make the tally 8 to 2. I include the support by the anonymous editor in the tally since s/he seems to be an active, constructive and long-term editor, but a consensus exists without his/her support. If others agree with my judgement, I think we can proceed with the merge. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I`m not inactive. I`m not dead yet. Still twitching. But even with my oppose, there are still not enough to stop this merger. Raborg 13:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do people ever have their accounts blocked due to having an undesirable POV? And who is really being the most POV pushy? It *might* appear to a casual observer that those who are pro-eugenics (the minority?) are being silenced as much as is possible within the wiki framework. Kastelz (talk)

Paragraph "Reductio ad Hitlerum" removed

The three sources appear to be unsuitable:

  • The website "website on logic" fallacyfiles.org is no academic source, at least on eugenics. The alleged quote "Eugenics must be wrong ...." can't be found on the website. The website gives no explicit source about who made the fallacious statements. The website doesn't call it Reductio ad Hitlerum.
  • theoccidentalquaterly.com seems to be a racist page.
  • the Glad 2008 book is yet to appear.

--Schwalker 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support removing this. Just because some website mentioned eugenics in passing does not make that a properly sourced addition to the article. The rest of that section is simply offtopic or irrelevant--the Itzkoff quote that User:EliasAlucard wants to insert has little or no connection to the idea that eugenics has been unfairly tainted because of its association with Hitler.--Proper tea is theft 18:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be ridiculous; Eugenics HAS been tainted by the Nazis. Also, even if it is a racist page, that's no reason to remove it. Has the thought ever occurred to you that basically only racists are into Eugenics? I mean, what's your point? This is not at all "off topic". This is not a forum. This is a very relevant perception of how Eugenics is regarded today. It stays in the article. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:01 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the decision of whether it stays or not is not just yours to make; whether it stays is subject to discussion and requires a consensus, which apparently doesn't exist at the moment.--Proper tea is theft 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to remove it, you will have to give valid reasons, and Schwalker did not make one single valid point. Schwalker isn't WP:NPOV about this. — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:20 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Have you considered that your Itzkoff quote might work better elsewhere in the article? Why the insistence on placing it in this particular section?--Proper tea is theft 19:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Schwalker appears to have laid out some valid reasons to remove it. What are the valid reasons to include it? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His reasons are NOT valid. We are not citing the reductio ad hitlerum as if it were an academic source. The alleged quote was phrased somewhat differently in this article; I've fixed it. The website gives no explicit source about who made the fallacious statements. — It's not supposed to either. The website is giving examples of logical fallacies. Someone, God knows who, has probably argued that eugenics is wrong because Hitler put it into practise (I mean, how impossible could that be?). theoccidentalquaterly.com seems to be a racist page. — And your point is? This is a racist topic. Also, I've provided ref for the Glad quote (Glad is an author). — EliasAlucard|Talk 21:35 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
I intend to remove the Reductio ad Hitlerum section. Before I do, may I suggest that your additions would work well in the Nazi Germany section of the eugenics article, where they would be perfectly relevant. Or is there a specific reason that you prefer not to place your edits there?--Proper tea is theft 20:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi eugenics article is beside the point. There is a difference between Eugenics and Nazi eugenics. This fallacy, belongs here, not in the Nazi eugenics article. It belongs here, because people condescend Eugenics, because of Nazi eugenics, not the other way around. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:16 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Oh wait, I misread that. No, it should be under the counterargument section. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:19 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

(back left)Okay, why?--Proper tea is theft 20:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because of context. The Nazi Germany section focuses on the actual eugenics policy of the Third Reich, not on arguments to criticize or justify eugenics through logical fallacies. — EliasAlucard|Talk 22:30 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
But neither do your additions "focus on arguments to criticize or justify eugenics through logical fallacies"--they simply describe claims that the Nazis did not practice eugenics, which is not the same thing. Additionally, fallacyfiles.org is not a reliable source. --Proper tea is theft 20:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that eugenics is wrong because Nazis practised it, is both criticism and a fallacy. Additinally, fallacyfiles.org is not a reliable source. — Yeah? On what grounds? — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:01 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
WP:RS says:
A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Evaluation of reliability will depend on the credibility of the author and the publication, along with consideration of the context. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight.
...
Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.
...
In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
Are you saying that fallacyfiles.org meets these requirements? While the author appears to have a PhD in philosophy, this source isn't reliable in the sense that it cannot establish whether Reductio ad Hitlerum is a common counterargument to the idea that eugenics is bad. --Proper tea is theft 21:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it's just an example of a logical fallacy, all right? You don't need a source from the CIA for this. It's a reliable source for what is being cited. And since the author has a PhD, it doesn't make it less reliable. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:23 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
If it's being presented as an example of a logical fallacy then it belings in the article on logical fallacy, not here. This article is not about logic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to add it in the logical fallacy article, but it also belongs here because it's part of the article's topic. This is like I said, a very relevant perception of eugenics. It is most certainly notable. Let's face it, uneducated people think that Hitler invented Eugenics. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:01 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
There's no source to show that uneducated people think that Hitler invented eugenics. The source for this is expert on logic, not on eugenics. He's not trying to make a point about eugenics, but rather a point about logic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you don't have to be a genius to figure out that his point about logic (which is about eugenics) is a valid point. Whether eugenics is right or wrong is not decided by Hitler's use of Eugenics because Hitler did not have a patent/copyright/monopoly on Eugenics. I thought that was super obvious. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:09 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a Citecheck tag on this section so that some appropriate sources may be located, as only one editor seems to feel that this one works. I would be most appreciative, User:EliasAlucard, if you would stop removing that tag. --Proper tea is theft 17:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about editors in numbers. This isn't about ad populum. The section is NOT misinterpreted. Is that so difficult to understand? — EliasAlucard|Talk 20:50 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia operates by consensus. If only one editor is advocating for the inclusion of some text, and several others oppose it, then there's no consensus for including the material. If anyone thinks that more input would change the dynamic then a request for comment should be made. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've again removed the paragraph titled Counterarguments, Reductio ad Hitlerum, since:

a) The web-site cited is a private page.

b) This article is not about association fallacies, but about eugenics. Thus the web-site is irrelevant as a source for this article.

--Schwalker 12:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schwalker, for your sake, because I like you so much, I've decided to add this section into the Reductio ad Hitlerum article. I hope you respect this decision of me and refrain yourself from censoring it. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:32 08 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed that you people removed the 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' paragraph. It definitely fit into this article. It was only removed because it was, as I remember it, a strange explanation for peoples' anti-eugenics opinions. Kind of like removing proof that you did something wrong, to hide it. XcepticZP 17:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EliasAlucard says that "Has the thought ever occurred to you that basically only racists are into Eugenics?". Do any of you really believe that? It is absurd. Hitler was a vegetarian and a genocidal maniac. Does it therefore stand to reason that all vegetarians are genocidal maniacs? Hitler also used guns and prisons for genocide, shall we also ban these too? I do not deny that there are racists out there who are pro-eugenics. However there are also those who are pro eugenics as they believe it is necessary for the long term viability of all humans, regardless of race. I believe that natural selection in our species is no longer fully functional (as medicine allows people such as myself to live, who would in natural circumstances die) and that therefore some form of selective breeding may one day be required. There is nothing racist about that. Kastelz (talk)

Sparta and Hitler

This quote has been repeatedly added by User:EliasAlucard, who, to his credit, is improving each time its formulation, although the main idea is the same:

  1. one fact: Hitler praised Sparta.
  2. free interpretation of Hitler: Sparta was practicing a policy of eugenics.

First, there is the problem of WP:UNDUE (EliasAlucard having included his finding in several Wikipedia articles, and, after some unsuccessfull talk with him, I moved his add to Nazi eugenics where it belongs — this interpretation of Hitler is, at most, anecdotical, compared to compulsive sterilization & racial policies of Nazi Germany). More importantly, Sparta was not, in any way, practicing eugenics, which is an anachronism for which no reliable source (by this, I mean a historian of Antiquity, as by Sparta we refer to a city of Ancient Greece) have been provided (with reason). Practicing infanticide is different from following a policy of eugenism, which, by definition, can only exist in the frame of scientific racism and of the theory that a "race" can be improved by some kind of public health policies — these disciplines (scientific racism, public health, etc.) having been created in the 19th century, Sparta did not practice eugenics. This is simple original research. Tazmaniacs 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was practised in Sparta, was, in hindsight, eugenics. The concept of eugenics lacked a name at the time, but it was nonetheless eugenics. It belongs here more than in Nazi eugenics, because what was practised in Sparta was not related to Nazism. It was pure and simple, eugenics. The fact that Hitler praised Sparta's eugenics program, does not grant Nazism a patent on Sparta's eugenics. This academic source calls it eugenic, and like it or not, this academic source knows better than you do about this. Also, I believe the Sparta section should be improved and expanded and cover some more points about Sparta's eugenics program. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:39 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
I find it quite funny to search Google Books to make academic claims. Maybe reading a bit on Sparta and eugenics would be more advisable? In any case, the link you give is — like it or not — not accessible to me (I presume because of Internet laws concerning negationism and hate speech). Tazmaniacs 23:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, check up more about the book here (here's a hint: By Mike Hawkins Published 1997 Cambridge University Press) Hate speech? Internet laws? What the heck are you talking about? — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:09 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
See Internet censorship and review European Union legislation concerning these matters. My Google browser prohibits me access to this page. Tazmaniacs 23:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion isn't relevant anyway; other users can confirm the content of that link, and the fact, that an academic scholar calls it eugenics. Sorry, but eugenics was practised in Sparta, whether you like it or not :) — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:14 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Let's continue this discussion on Talk:Nazi eugenics#This article must not rely on primary nazi sources in order to avoid debating in five pages at the same time on the same subject. Thanks, Tazmaniacs 12:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Sparta-was-eugenics trope predates Hitler by a long time; it was often cited by early American and British eugenicists, for example. I of course agree that saying it "was eugenics" is a bit of an anachronism, to say the least, but to say it was embraced by eugenicists as a historical antecedent would be entirely true and acceptable. --24.147.86.187 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics was concerned with making sure that the strongest of any given tribe/group/race survive and that the weak are rooted out. The logic being that removing the weaker individuals would be beneficial to the group as a whole. So no, eugenics need not exist only in an environment of sicentific racism. Technically the first cave man who slew his sickly child for the benefit of his tribe or family was a "eugenicist", although they wouldn't have called it that. See the (old) book Ancient Eugenics by Allen G. Roper. It has a kind of pro-Eugenic outlook, but on the whole it is accurate (at least in regards to the history of eugenics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.80.89 (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Darwin influence to Galton's eugenics

During the 1860s and 1870s, Sir Francis Galton systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin.

Well, I don't really know much about Galton, but I'm suspecting of a bit of those historical mistakes of "common sense" here, similar to contrasting Darwin and Lamarck as if Darwin already accepted mendelian genetics alone, as if Darwin himself was a Weismaninan neo-darwinist. Breeding animals and plants for certain features existed long before Darwin ever sketching his ideas on evolution, so I think that it's possible, if not likely, that Galton's idea owe nothing to Darwin's. Not that they don't share a certain common ground, they're obviously related in mechanisms; what I am skeptical about is this picture of Galton only thinking something like "...what if my cousin's ideas of 'artificial selection', as he put it, could be applied to improving human populations? Humm... seems interesting..." after knowing Darwin's ideas, which is somewhat of the mental image this passage can create, I think. But this is just something I suspect, and perhaps Darwin did have significant influence on Galton's concepts; I'm pointing to this just in case it catches the attention of someone who happens to already know more about or would like to research on that.--Extremophile 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galton was indeed influenced by Social Darwinism ideas, which (mis)interpreted Darwin's theories (who himself distanced himself with Galton's theories in The Descent of Man). Tazmaniacs 17:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult point. For early hereditary and its potential impact see Waller, John C. "Ideas of Heredity, Reproduction and Eugenics in Britain, 1800-1875." Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32, no. 3 (2001): 457-89.. This argues that Galton and Darwin etc. have been overpersonalized and that they need to be de-centred. The proposed method is to look at early hereditary. Galton's publications and theories before the Origin of Species also point towards the development of eugenics. Peter Weingart argues eugenics wa influenced by two theories: these early hereditary theories and evolutionary theory. (Weingart, Peter. "German Eugenics between Science and Politics." Osiris 5 (1999): 260-82. By evolutionary theory I predomiantly mean Spencer and Darwin. There was a void thanks to Lyell's critique of Lamarck in evolutionary theory. The onset of religious controversies (essays and reviews, Huxley etc) in conjunction with Brixam caves etc, meant that religion was seriously challenged to the point that the authority of science could step in to propose a form of evolutionary theory. For, William Farr had advocated similar ideas to Galton in the 1830s, and of course, the vertiges of creation earlier had purported evolutionary theories comparable to Darwin's (not in the same league though). With such a social and intellectual context, Robert bannister argued that Galton's eugenics was a logical deduction to make from the origin.

In respect to the other comment, perhaps some knowledge of more recent studies not based on Richard Hofstadter's 'social darwinism', which is an invention, a myth and untrue might shed some more light. Contemporaries never described themselves as social darwinists. Darwin's so called distancing and rejection of 'social darwinism' or its equivalent theories (evolutionary theory as advocated by Spencer here and Ernst haeckel later) is complicated and cannot be deduced from the descent alone. Indeed, Darwin thought the term 'survival of the fittest' was an adequate description of his theory. The difference was that in light of Malthus' population theory and Compte's positivism, and john Stuart Mill's philosophies, and the important contemporary issue of the antiquity of man, meant that this idea was to seen by some to be a prescription for society. This led to the descent, which was reactionary and Darwin was never entirely sure about the application of it as a prescription to mankind. The descent should not be conceived entirely as a rejection, for those familiar with Darwin's papers will know that Darwin's agreement/ disagreement with these types of ideas was not clear cut, and complicated.

The main problem I see with the definition and ideas presented is that it is contested territory. In such a case, it would be better to elicit multiple conceptions and definitions of eugenics, for there were and still are many different definitions. I think 'conceptions of eugenics' would be best and they can be placed in their historical contexts. From these historical origins, to present day definitions, which as Dianne Paul (I think already cited in the article) has argued are to a large extent based on political, social, or personal perspectives. Its not good enough to cite a definition and a point and give one authority. There is far too much literature, and I believe while there is a lot in the article, what is not there and the way it is put is misleading. However, credit should be given to those editors dealing with a contentious and difficult topic to summarize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.7.97 (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galton was certainly influenced by Darwin's theories to come up with eugenics, at least by his own accounts. And Darwin was less resistent to Galton's logic than is often let on: as far as I can tell he basically agreed with Galton's logic of eugenics, but distanced himself a bit in regards to the morality of it (even then, Descent of Man is ambiguous; his position in the middle of the book and the end of the book are quite different; in the conclusion he comes off as a raging eugenicist, while earlier on he is a bit more back-and-forth, in his typical non-commital style. From what I can tell he thought the best part of Galton's argument was that Galton established that genius and talent might be inherited, which Darwin saw as vital to his argument about human evolution). Neither, of course, were advocates of the sorts of state-based eugenics as formed in the 20th century. --24.147.86.187 21:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I got to read all this. Anyway, I was reading a book a few time ago, and it mentioned somewhat clearly that Galton was indeed influenced by Darwin's ideas. The book is "the creative moment", by the physicist Joseph Schwartz. There's also some stuff about the origin of the "IQ movement", basically, despite of the connection with Darwin, he puts that the major influence was actually the need for a new sort of "wealth" in a changing society. The upper classes were somewhat "menaced", their position in the social strata was not so stable as it always had been, so the earlier iluministic ideals of equality of potential of John Locke and others had to be abandoned. --Extremophile 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance on Demographic-economic paradox

A discussion is in progress regarding the relationship of eugenics and dysgenics to the Demographic-economic paradox. This page has few editors, and I do not believe we have enough expertise on eugenics to properly resolve the question. Could some of you take a look at it? Thanks.--Yannick 06:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese reproductive rate

I've heard that one of the arguments for eugenics in the US was that the chinese people procreate too fast, and there were estimates that in a certain number of generations, there would be more sino-americans than euro-americans in the US, if irrestrict immigration were allowed. I'm going to search about it eventually, but I'm already mentioning, just in case someone wants to search about that. --Extremophile 06:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leprosy

Sterilisation to prevent the transfer of an infectious, rather than an inherited, disease to offspring isn't eugenics. I propose the removal of this sentence, once again. Old Moonraker 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by another editor. --Old Moonraker 21:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of Flying-Tyger

Flying-Tyger is an editor who likes to add the war crime of Japan. However, Flying-Tyger gives priority to his feelings more than facts. (The Japanese is cruel. )　He added the section of Showa Japan in October, 2007. [4]

Therefore, when the fact that contradicts his opinion is written in the source, he falsifies the source. I explain his falsification act one by one.

Flying-Tyger wrote. [5] <- First Version　

Eugenics in Shōwa Japan were supported by politically motivated movements that sought to increase the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool.(#1"The National Eugenic Law)(#2[6])

The source#1 is being written like this.

"The purposes of this law are to prevent the birth of inferior descendants from the eugenic point of view, and to protect the life and health of the mother as well."

He concealed "and to protect the life and health of the mother as well". and emphasized inferior.

"while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions..." is also wrong. 　
Source #1 is written, Only "hereditary disorder (遺伝性疾患)".
Source #2 is written, "or hereditary malformation, or the spouse suffers from mental disease or mental disability". However, this is an explanation of The Eugenic Protection Law approved in 1948.　

There is still his malignant falsification. (It explains it at the end of October. ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azukimonaka (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2007 November 3

Position of the Church

There is no reference to the (Christian) church's position on Eugenics. I don't know where this could be added- new section, added into existing parts? but should definitly be there. Here is one reference that could be used for its position in the 1930s- but maybe going to the primary sources would be better.

REF: DESMOND KING AND RANDALL HANSEN; Experts at Work: State Autonomy, Social Learning and Eugenic Sterilization in 1930s Britain. B.J.Pol.S. 29, 77–107 [7] QUote: The Church opposed further enquiries about the treatment of the mentally ill with sterilization at the time of the Wood Report.135 Its opposition to the Brock recommendations was consolidated with the 1930 papal encyclical Casti Conubii, which argued that too little was known about the mechanisms of inheritance for eugenics to have predictive power and that sterilization itself violated a God-given right to reproduce.136
D666D 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Church"? Which Church? There are many denominations, and Catholocism should not be referred to as 'The Church' nor as an authority for all Christians, as it clearly is not an authority for Protestant Christians. My religious rant aside.. I otherwise agree, the position of the vast majority of Christians would probably reflect your quote - ie. they would be against eugenics. Kastelz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Roman Catholic Church was against eugenics from its first day. Eugenics was supported by all big Protestant churches in the United States and also by famous Jews. This same thing is happening with abortion today. Such as eugenics in its time, abortion is today a Jewish, Protestant and Feminist business. Eugenics was imposed by Pagans, in places such as Nazi Germany and Japan. Eugenics was imposed by Protestants and Jews in Canada, United Sattes and some countries of Europe. Eugenics was also imposed by Communists in then Soviet Union.Agre22 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Copyvio

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tagged the article as a copyvio on 17 January, but failed to post to this page.[8] "Sir Francis Galton systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin." appears in both the article and thebioreview. It isn't obvious to me whether Wikipedia or thebioreview is the violator here. Perhaps an active editor of this article might have a look. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The putative Plato quotation was added by an IP registered to the State Library of Victoria in Melbourne on 2005 September 29.[9]

Benjamin Jowett's translation of The Republic supports the other content, but I was not able to verify the quotation that appears in the article.[10]

Had we not better appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together

the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State

from becoming either too large or too small.

We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy

may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will

accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.

And I think that our braver and better youth, besides their other honours

and rewards, might have greater facilities of intercourse with women given them; their bravery will be a reason, and such fathers ought to have as

many sons as possible.

Other content of thebioreview.com has apparently been copied from Wikipedia. Compare the first ordered list of Abiogenesis#Current_models to similar or identical list of thebioreview article "ORIGIN OF LIFE". Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I attempted to ask thebioreview about the content source, I could find no contact or publisher information. Interchangez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alleges that the site was created as a class project and the content was copied from Wikipedia.[11] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EliasAlucard also failed to post the notation of copyvio to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2008_January_17 as is required - it was done by a bot. it seems like it was a rather hasty copyvio flag - thebioreview.com reads to me immediately as a source likely to have borrowed content from wikipedia and not the reverse, and no authors are cited - can we just remove the flag without an admin? 128.59.153.141 (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not paying enough attention to this discussion. It seems now that this bioreview has copied some content from the Wikipedia article, or vice versa. Not really sure, but if you look at for instance the counter argument section in the bioreview link, that's a section that was included in the wiki article in an earlier state (the part about an association fallacy). At first I thought it was just some website that had copied content from Wikipedia, but when I noticed the © thebioreview.com. All Rights Reserved at the end, I didn't know what to make out of it, so I added the copyvio template. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 07:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Web is rife with spurious claims of copyright. It was reasonable to tag the article, but the comments and links above provide the basis for an administrator to remove the tag and close this discussion, in my opinion. It seems that a backlog exists that has delayed closure more than the normal 7 day period. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Walter Siegmund. I've looked at the BioReview website some more, and it's filled with text that all comes directly from Wikipedia, and not the other way around. While we should always be on the lookout for copyvios, and as such tagging is good and if done in good faith it should always be investigated, I think we can safely consider this discussion closed. Kind regards, JoanneB 20:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Gendercide

"genders gendercide perceived as inferior" was added as a form of genocide on 14 January. The addition wasn't explained and was reverted, giving as the reason "gender is not an hereditary trait". It was then reinstated, again without explanation, and subsequently has been deleted and replaced at regular intervals. It seems now to have settled in the article, albeit with a {{fact}} tag, but still without an explanation. Can any of the editors who have replaced the article provide a basis for its inclusion? Given the definition in the lead of this article, "improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention", it doesn't seem to have a place here. I can't see how killing women (or men) can improve hereditary traits. I propose its removal, once again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed. Thanks User:128.59.153.141 --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maintained?

Who, if anyone, is maintaining this article? I requested the talk page be archived perhaps 6 months ago, so I imagine that if it does have a maintainer or maintainers they either like long talk pages or are pretty lethargic. I was going to take a shot at it myself as I passed by, but there are some threads at the top that are clearly out of order (people posting at the top instead of the bottom, and nobody fixing it), and some aren't even signed... Richard001 (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Tumbleweed blows across talk page*
Sigh... Good to know the system is working, as always. Richard001 (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union eugenics programs

This is an interesting topic and covers many aspects but there is no mention of any Soviet eugenics programme.. I assume the soviets were also deploying similar actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.160.162.222 (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The initial Bolshevik revolutionaries did embrace eugenics to a degree, starting up a Russian Eugenics Society, and supporting research on eugenics. There were even some plans for a genetic Five Year Plan based on artificial insemination. But by 1930 eugenics had been categorized as a "bourgeois" science; the RES was disbanded, eugenics research was abolished. By the late 1930s Stalin himself had personally rejected the idea of socialist eugenics and by then Lysenkoism had taken one of its many criticisms of Mendelian genetics the coincidence between fascism and eugenics in Germany.[2] So there the USSR program is not especially interesting, except as an example of a state that in the end did not support eugenics, but for equally ideological reasons. The more ya know. If someone wants to add the above paragraph in edited form into the article somewhere, they are welcome to. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8dWn3ip-YY there's a video, about soviet eugenics.In late 1930 decade, former Soviet Union had its own eugenics- the lysenkoism. Agre22 (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

The Soviet Union were 100% AGAINST genetic science. It is said that that Russia is 70 years behind on research and advancement. Now I can see why.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.112.253 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former Soviet Union, nazi Germany was the first country in the world that, put eugenics into the center of its rule, under a government organization.Lenin created this organization on january, 1918.Trotsky was the first president of this eugenics' organization.

Please, eugenics never had nothing, with human genetic.Eugenics never even tried to be a science, but it was ever a political movement.Eugenics wasn't created to study nothing in nature, but only to satisfy political and even religious wills.Eugenics is politics, racism,prejudices and frauds. Agre22 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Redundant section?

The section about Eugenics in other countries than those listed refers just to the previously cited countries, thus it don't add anything to the article. I believe it would be better to remove the section. What do you think? --Brandizzi (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.There was an eugenics for every place.I think sites must be created:

Why so many sites?Because, every country make its own eugenics.An eugenics knowledge in Japan, could be absurd in United States and vice-versa.Agre22 (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge Dysgenics into this article

For previous discussions see: Nov. 2006 Eugenics talk; Nov. 2006 Dysgenics talk; Sept.-Oct. 2007 Eugenics talk

  • Support: Useful content that is unrelated to this article can be merged with other existing articles. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dysgenics has long been largely a WP:POVFORK of this article. An early April version of the Dysgenics article, largely the work of Harkenbane and Zero g,[12] advocated an extreme point of view, in defiance of mainstream scientific thought, and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. They have contributed to this article, Race and intelligence and Heritability of IQ, also. An earlier advocate of similar material, MoritzB, was indefinitely blocked last fall for "Edit warring on White people, numerous other pages".[13] Discussions at Talk:Dysgenics are extensive, have been tendentious, and sometimes uncivil. In late April, Dysgenics was protected because of edit warring.[14] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think we need to have a discussion about what 'subarticles' there should be on this topic. It's a very broad one and I don't think we can do justice to it in one article. I don't know that eugenics/dysgenics is the best way to go, although I'm somewhat ambivalent on that one. I have suggested some other ways of splitting it in the to-do list, though nobody seems to be active here (for instance my request for someone who is actually involved in the article to archive this page has long gone unnoticed; one or more people actually volunteering to maintain the article (remove vandalism, carry housekeeping work like archiving etc) would be a nice). We also need more 'eugenics in [country]' articles. I have found there is enough literature out there to write one for my country (New Zealand) even though eugenics seems to have little impact here. For this we need to work more with country WikiProjects. I doubt think that a by country division is enough though, and think a broader discussion about how the article should be split into 'child' articles would be more useful than another discussion about the dysgenics article.--Richard001 (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Dysgenics is a phenomenon occurring in human populations, never a proposed policy. Eugenics is a proposed policy. They are not the same thing. In addition, I agree with the sentiment expressed above, that the current Eugenics article is too long and that sub-articles need to contain most of the detail on specific topics. Dysgenics can be briefly mentioned in the Eugenics article, but for a full discussion it needs its own article.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, scientifically speaking dysgenic trending -while claimed- hasn't been shown to happen in human populations. Real dysgenics is the study of deleterious mutations in animals, mostly fruit flies and mice at this point. The claim of a dysgenic effect on human populations is a WP:FRINGE concept.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My point was simply that dysgenics is a phenomenon, while eugenics is a policy. Whether "dysgenic trending" actually occurs would be an appropriate topic to discuss in an article on Dysgenics (though there wouldn't be space enough in the Eugenics article). Additionally, I'm not sure why you want to lump this together with Nazi UFOs and reptoids as a WP:FRINGE topic--differential fertility (such that fertility is inversely related to socio-economic status) is not a controversial topic in demography.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't eugenics also be a phenomenon if the genetic quality of populations was increasing? In any case I don't think 'policy' is a very good description. It has been considered everything from a science to a moral philosophy, and the word basically encompasses all of these things. Regarding being fringe, I would think the burden of proof would be on those who wanted to say dysgenics wasn't happening, as it seems basically inevitable given current patterns of reproduction and selective pressures in developed countries. Natural selection is mainly about preventing deterioration (rather than 'creating new information'), and is to a large extent relaxed in such environments. Natural selection also requires something to work with, and when people only have a couple of kids there isn't really anything to 'choose' from, so deterioration is the only possibility. I'm also skeptical about calling something fringe science when very little research seems to be done on the subject. Do any governments actually fund research to see if dysgenics is occurring? It seems to be a taboo topic that nobody will go near. Richard001 (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree, eugenics could be a phenomenon; dysgenics, though, would never be a policy. For your other point: from the perspective of natural selection, all changes increase fitness: the "fit", by definition, outproduce others. So one cannot speak of a natural population moving in a "dysgenic" direction. The terms eugenic and dysgenic apply only to changes in human populations or their domesticates when human value systems dictate what is a good change and what is a bad change. Perhaps the most value-neutral and succinct approach is that of Ronald Fisher who observed (in the final chapters of The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection) that the most socially fit people of his time were the least biologically fit (i.e., those with highest SES had the lowest fertility). Fisher's formulation appears to be what most people have in mind when they talk about dysgenic changes in human populations. The empirical evidence supports Fisher: there is nothing "fringe" about the fact of differential fertility. So I'm puzzled by some of the discussion on these pages: Why do some assert that "dysgenic trending" occurs only in non-human populations? Why do some assert that dysgenics is a "fringe" concept?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' I'll answer that one: the one conclusion one can draw about the differential fertility of the more highly educated would be that, in theory, generation after generation the average IQ of the population should decrease. However, this differential fertility has been going on for some time (remember that in medieval times, the more intelligent elements of the population were routinely sent to monasteries and abbeys for purposes of higher learning -- and usually ended up being monks or nuns? Nobles also had traditionnally fewer children than commoners.), and documented IQ averages of populations worlwide have been shown to increase rather than decrease since we started measuring IQs. The "expected" dysgenic effect of differential fertility isn't happening. There's even a mathematical model which explains why it's not happening. However, many deleterious mutations have been found in mice and flies, and for research purposes, scientists for some years have been deliberately breeding individuals with these mutations, among other goals for the purposes of building models of physiological processes. So, you're right on this one point: dysgenic trending doesn't seem to be happening at all under normal biological conditions; however, empirical evidence says that dysgenic trending on the trait of IQ in humans isn't happening either. Hope this answers some of your questions.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks, Ramdrake, for responding, and so quickly. I do, however, disagree with you on a few points. First, on medieval Europe: you should take a look at the work of Laura Betzig (lots of cites on Google Scholar); she has established pretty conclusively that the biological fitness of the nobility (in most cultural regions, not just Europe) was extremely high, relative to commoners (partly through the institution of wet-nursing, but mostly through extramarital copulations by noblemen). Second, I don't understand why children assigned to the priesthood or to orders would be any more intelligent than other children. Third, the medieval evidence is not really relevant to contemporary conditions anyway: dysgenic population changes (in the Fisher sense) first appear with the demographic transition; before then, those with higher SES actually had higher fertility (as Laura Betzig shows). Finally, IQ. To focus on IQ, rather than SES, is a deviation from Fisher. Why this deviation? Richard Lynn (and he is indeed a reputable academic, respected even by people who disagree with him, like James R. Flynn) may be partly to blame, since as an intelligence researcher he has focused on IQ. But there are obviously other reasons, and some of these (with proper sources) could surely be mentioned in an article on dysgenics. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Eugenics is a system where one hopes to engineer a "better" population by not allowing certain people to have children (by forced sterilization, etc). Dysgenics is a system where one hopes to engineer a "better" population by making sure that everyone can have children (by subsidy, entitlement, etc); unlike eugenics, the goal of the program, but not its mechanism, is recognized by its proponents - the goal here is population equality. I understand the desire of certain individuals (with an idealogical axe to grind) in conflating the two concepts, but they are distinct. 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.41.143 (talk) This template must be substituted.
  • Comment you don't have a correct definition of either eugenics or dysgenics. You're confusing negative eugenics (or coercive eugenics) with eugenics, and you're confusing dysgenics with welfare state.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tending towards merge/rename. I think we should have an article called scientific aspects of eugenics or something like that. Dysgenics seems to mix fact and value without recognizing it is doing so. For example, it begins with 'in population genetics...', as if it were a purely scientific matter. Whether or not something counts as 'deterioration' is clearly a matter of values though, as I've outlined at talk:dysgenics; it could just as well begin with 'in population ethics'. Further complicating things, the page has now been split into dysgenics (people) and dysgenics (biology), while still seeming to contain much of the same content in each article. I don't know enough about this but I don't think the term 'dysgenics' is actually used in the biological literature about non-humans; perhaps 'genetic deterioration' or 'dysgenesis'. Richard001 (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dysgenics should have its own article. Just because solution to the idea of Dysgenics is Eugenics doesn't mean they should not have separate articles.Sean0987 (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Sean0987[reply]
    • I think we should have an article about the scientific aspects (and I don't think of eugenics is the best name either, but I'm not sure exactly what to call it), but I also don't think dysgenics is a good name. Something more neutral like 'recent, current and future evolution of human beings' would be better, but again it's an horridly clumsy title. Richard001 (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is like the 4th time a merge has been suggested by the same group of individuals. --Zero g (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Comment Please comment on content, not on the editors. I would appreciate if you could refactor your comment accordingly.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with the result no consensus (2,3,1). Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Notability of a book by Richard Lynn

I have created an article Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. One editor felt it didn't meet the notability guidelines, and has since decided to let it go, but I would like to know if any others feel it should be deleted (I don't want to work on something that's just going to be deleted later on). Richard001 (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral"

Saying something is 'immoral' isn't an good reason to believe we we shouldn't do it because something that is immoral is, by definition, something that the speaker thinks should not be done; the "argument" begs the question. Even if this is what opponents of eugenics say, I think we should give them some charity and replace this sentence in the lead section with the reasons why they think it is immoral (opponents of eugenics think it is immoral by definition, while proponents think not having eugenics is immoral, by definition; surely this is obvious to everybody). Richard001 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. It is possible to believe that something is objectively immoral while not objecting to that "something". It is also possible to object to something that you do not believe is immoral. Pokeraddict (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquote page

Have created a page at quote here. Please help build it up. Richard001 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myths about eugenics

I think that a page about myths surrounding eugenics, must be created. Myths about eugenics can be a good choice, for the name of this article.201.9.137.72 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Australia section

A couple of things don't make sense in the Australia section. It says that it was a "white supremacist" policy to encourage the mixture and assimilation of native Australians. Wow, does this not make sense or what? If they believed they were inferior why would they purposefully seek to assimilate and intermix with them? Quite the contrary, the policy seems to have been parallel to modern liberal views that genes mean nothing and that exclusively how someone is raised separates him between savage/civilized, and that the mixed natives could be "civilized" by being taken away from their tribal upbringing. They were trying to raise "civilized" native Australian children by their own standards, so this was indeed a very strange policy, but one that would make zero sense to actual white supremacists,. In fact, it would make sense more to their arch enemies, cultural Marxists. White supremacists would have obviously been against the idea of bringing "half-castes" into their culture/race by the very nature of that ideology wanting "purity". There are also a couple of incomplete sentences in the section. It almost seems like a lazy drive-by smearing attempt of the entire article or subject, than an accurate critique of Australia's policy. The article can/needs to be there, but desperately needs less biased and assumptive writing or at least some more sensible logic as to how those seeking to assimilate mixed children were comically ironic, self-defeating "white supremacists". Why would 'white supremacists' have created a program to racially preserve aborigines in the FIRST PLACE? Crude bit of legislation, yes. White supremacy? No.

thanks for reading... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.212.149 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2008 July 29

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
Content should be based on reliable sources and should be verifiable. Material that is not adequately sourced and disputed may be removed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal eugenics

I've expanded and improved the Liberal eugenics article. Feel free to comment on Talk:Liberal eugenics page. --Loremaster (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoscience category?

I don't understand how eugenics can be considered pseudoscience — it's immoral certainly, but it's not a science in and of itself, nor does it claim to be. It's simply a (mis-)application of other, well-founded sciences, with a (questionable) goal in mind. However, since the category tag has been added and removed several times, I wanted to discuss it here before proceeding further. --Sapphic (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Category_talk:Eugenics, Talk:Eugenics/Archive_2#Pseudoscience_II, Talk:Eugenics/Archive_2#Pseudoscience_.22hogwash.22, etc., before reopening this discussion, please. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was based on genetics, even though nobody knew what a gene was back then. Its theories never had any empirical evidence. They presented themselves as science. It was not science. Pseudoscience is a set of ideas that present themselves as science but are not. Therefore Eugenics is pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed those archived discussions (thanks for the references) and I think the issue needs to be revisited. My understanding — confirmed by the opening sentence of the article itself — is that eugenics is a social philosophy and is thus neither science nor pseudoscience. Calling it pseudoscience would be akin to calling communism or Christianity a pseudoscience; it's a category error. Some of the archived discussions claim that eugenics has been considered a science by some in the past, and if those claims could be backed up with reliable sources and mentioned more prominently in the article, I think it would be fine to keep the pseudoscience category tag. Otherwise, I really don't see how it applies. --Sapphic (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No response here in over two weeks, so I'm removing the category tag. Please discuss it here before re-adding it. --Sapphic (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this thread. I don't really care about the category, but it is a mistake to say that eugenics hasn't been promoted as a science. During the period that it was most prominent in the U.S., from about 1890 to about 1940, it was indeed promoted as a science. The Eugenics Record Office presented itself as a research center as received funding from the Carnegie Foundation on that basis for decades. In 1939 the foundation reviewed the ERO's research and they found that it was useless. They decided that the ERO was mostly involved in promoting eugenics rather than researching it and they cut the funding. So it meets the definition of pseudoscience: a field that claims or claimed to be a real science without adhering to scientific principles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for the research. I've added the tag back, though somebody should probably rewrite the intro to clarify things. Something along the lines of "Eugenics is a social philosophy that ... blah blah ... and has in the past been presented as a legitimate science by supporters." I'll leave that task to the next person who finds the categorization confusing, unless I get to it first. :) --Sapphic (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prejucised genetical determinism?

Did the eugenics proponents before World War II have any real means to tell if a trait was heritary or not? Or did they just assume them to be heritary unless they had evidence to the contuary? I wounder because many traits they claimed to be heritary has turned out to not be so.

They didn't even know what a gene was. That wasn't established until 1953 with Watson's discoveries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009-03-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Now I have heard that the early proponents intentionally ignored the possibility that traits where not hereditary because they wanted to believe that they were hereditary. If so they may not even have attempted to find out if traits where hereditary or not. Anyone who can verify this?

2009-05-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.144.67 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions nothing of modern eugenics

Eugenics is not just sterilizing the poor and nonwhite. Why doesn't this article mention genetic engineering or any of the like? YVNP (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible problems with the opening paragraph

I've a couple of criticisms - seeing as this is a 'Controversial Topic' I'll wait 5 days for feedback before acting on anything.

1. Self-contradiction
"Eugenics was a ... movement which was ... largely abandoned"
If it was only largely - and not completely - abandoned, then it still is a movement.

2. Racism
"Eugenics was a racist ideology"
Although I am well aware that the major eugenics programs - American, Swedish, German - did advocate racial discrimination, I don't think race is a necessary component of eugenics. If one were only (!) in favour of sterilizing the disabled, then one would be an advocate of eugenics, but not a racist. I suggest we change it to "Eugenics was an international scientific, political, moral and frequently racist ideology and movement" or similar.

3. The 'Logical Conclusion'
I dispute that the logical conclusion of eugenics was the Holocaust. I realise that in the early 20th century many advocates, both sides of the pond, suggested killing as a method of eugenics; but forcible sterilization, however abhorrent it may be, is not (IMO at least) quite as bad as killing, and they are two quite distinct acts. Sweden's eugenics program, which practised only the former, is evidence that the two are not necessarily linked. It could be changed to "largely abandoned after the Nazi regime took the idea to an extreme length in the Holocaust". If we are going to keep the current claim, then I think we need more than one source to back it up, given how substantial a claim it is.
Hadrian89 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I suggest ""Eugenics was a ... movement which ... is now in wide disrepute"
This allows for the present re-emergence of similar ideas under different names, such as Human genetic engineering.

2. I further suggest not using the adjective "moral" which is POV. So: "Eugenics was an international scientific, political, and ultimately racist ideology and movement".

3."largely abandoned after Nazi regime politics adapted the idea to committing extreme racial persecution in the Holocaust". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been a bit more than 5 days I realise...sorry I didn't follow through with the promised edits. Several people have now edited the paragraph in different little ways and I think it might be better for a rewrite. I suggest the following paragraph or a variation thereof:
Eugenics is a scientific and political movement aiming to improve the genetic health of the human race by controlling the procreation of individuals. Eugenics was popular in the first half of the 20th century, when it was also often associated with scientific racism, and several countries passed laws supporting eugenic policies; however, after Nazi Germany took the practice of eugenics to extreme lengths in The Holocaust, the movement lost much support and is currently widely in disrepute. Hadrian89 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

Could user 189.27.231.22 please explain the rationale behind his/her edit of two hours ago? The information removed seemed like it could be useful. Hadrian89 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It had been tagged {{fact}} for a long time. Now restored, with source.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The correlation between the fall of morals, ethics and social values appears to coincide with the rise of crime and also the demise of societally sanctioned eugenics. I question if the public at large grew lax once a consequence was removed. Eugenics was a world wide belief for generations, to believe that social mores were not affected/effected seems a difficult idea to wrap an informed mind around. Given that premise, I question the premise that the article is too long. I would contend that the article is missing a great deal of authorities, (which will be added to this premise), but is actually not nearly as comprehensive as should be when the far reaching practice of eugenics is considered.I found nothing to be removed or summarized any further, and actually find a need to add more material. Of course, this premise could arguably be one for a related article and discussion. Ideas?Jentingh1 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial assertions seem like speculation and personal theories ('the correlation appears to coincide', 'I question'). Are there are any significant sources which have argued the same line as you? Anyway, even if eugenics is massively important, we want to keep it readable and that means keeping the level of detail down and putting that information into dedicated articles instead. Hadrian89 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional eugenics -- the incest taboo

On reading this article, I was struck by the absence of any reference to incest taboos, which would seem to me to be germane. Every major religion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Religious_views_on_incest) and the vast majority of legal codes restrict inter-family breeding, with the majority of the legal restrictions using homozygote incidence as their justification. Does this not constitute an "accepted" form of eugenics? West Coast Gordo (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dubious of its relevance, but if you have WP:RS(s) to that effect, please proceed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point Gordo, there are clearly eugenic benefits resulting from our common revulsion towards incest, but I would imagine that the origin of the incest taboo predates our understanding of genetics by thousands of years. Wherever or whenever it comes from, therefore, its existence is not a result of eugenic philosophy so doesn't belong in this article. There are probably many other social and biological mechanisms which help us to select suitable breeding partners, like arranged marriages in some religions or biological sexual attraction towards healthy specimens, but like incest taboos, these are not part of the science of eugenics. I agree with Wsiegmund: not relevent. Traveller palm (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Edit

I reverted the latest edit intro because it seemed to me to say that eugenics still exists as a subject. My own impression is that the subject is quite dead as an academic "discipline" for all the reasons stated further on in the article. Indeed, journals and departments have been renamed as a result. Peterlewis (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics may well be dead as a subject, but it still exists as a social philosophy (the links to pro-eugenics websites are evidence of advocates). I realise that my wording of 'scientific movement' did suggest the former, so I'm happy to abandon the phrase and stick simply to 'social philosophy' (which is how it is referred to elsewhere in the article anyway). Were there any other qualms? I'm keen to change the opening paragraph/sentence as it's a real mouthful and still doesn't actually tell the reader what eugenics is. Hadrian89 (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Markacohen, I reverted your last edit as the grammar was wrong and as you removed the idea of discouraging/preventing reproduction. Btw, seeing as you were editing the opening paragraph too, you might be interested in my suggestions for it in the above section. Hadrian89 (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marginalization after World War II

This section states: "A few nations, notably, Canada and Sweden, maintained large-scale eugenics programs, including forced sterilization of mentally handicapped individuals, as well as other practices, until the 1970s." In fact in Canada only Alberta had a sterlization program, which the Progressive Conservative government ended after it came to power in 1971, and I have changed the sentence to reflect this. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section and "racist"

This edit reinstated a sentence which suggests that eugenics is about racism. As the lead is supposed to summarise what follows, giving this much prominence to "[it] pursued a racist vision of "Nordic" or "Aryan" racial supremacy" is misleading because it ignores such motives, described in the article, as elimination of hereditary illnesses and "improvement to the gene pool", to name just two. The reinstatement should be reverted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks User:Hadrian89. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. As a note to udhr28, the section also had to be altered because it only described American/European eugenics - I don't think Japanese eugenic policies had much to do with Nordic supremacy! Hadrian89 (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether 'racist eugenics' (I made it up) should even be called eugenics. Killing a race does not benefit the human race at all. It is just the twisted logic of twisted people (like Hitler). Sad that the simple idea of improving our species is tarnished by a maniac. Kastelz (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Eugenics

Hinduism (Manusmriti) specifies that one should not marry in the same "gotras" (64 or so families) and within 7 steps of blood relations on either side of parents for better progeny. Though Manu gave a lot of thought to better progeny (that is Eugenics), ironically "marry only within the caste" sociology has killed the purpose of Manu! So Hindu arranged marriages (that form >95% Hindu marriages) observe all the three rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.194.130 (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The movement...

  • The movement, led by race scientists, financed by private philanthropies such as the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation and implemented by governments was practised in North America, Europe (particularly Nazi Germany), and Australia (among others).[citation needed]

This sentence was tagged and then deleted for lack of a source. However it makes several different assertions and I beleive that most of them are sourced in the article. Which assertions are being questioned?   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence I fact tagged on 15 January, and deleted on 16 February, was the fifth sentence in the article. This sentence made a number of significant claims, as follows:
The movement [was] led by race scientists
[The movement was] financed by private philanthropies such as the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation
[The movement] was practised in North America, Europe and Australia (among others).

1. This sentence was not supported by any in-line citation to point to the source of its information. Most importantly, the information in the preceding four sentences is different to the information in the sentence in question, so the citations provided in the first four sentences cannot be assumed to be relevant. In an encyclopedia, and particularly in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient to take the view that 'there are relevant citations and you will find them if you go looking for them elsewhere in the article.' WP:Verifiability says The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

2. If the movement was financed by private philanthropies other than Carnegie and Rockefeller, those other philanthropies may be named in the article if they can be adequately sourced. In an encyclopedia it is not acceptable to include other entities by implication by using the words such as. This implies there were philanthropies in addition to Carnegie and Rockefeller, while attempting to avoid the responsibility to provide a citation to verify the involvement of others.

3. The sentence said The movement ... was practised in ... It is unclear what this was intended to mean. The verb to practise is not appropriate to the noun the movement. A movement is a body of people. One does not practise a movement. Perhaps what was intended was to say eugenics was practised on these continents, or the ideology was present on these continents, or the movement had members on these continents. Without a citation of the source of the information it is impossible for any reader or editor to determine what the original author intended.

4. The sentence said North America, Europe and Australia (among others). Again, it is not acceptable to include other entities by implication by using the words among others. This implies there were continents in addition to North America, Europe and Australia where eugenics were practised but without attempting to say what continents they were. If Wikipedia is not willing to explicitly nominate what continents they were, Wikipedia should not imply that there were others. Implication avoids the responsibility for citing sources to ensure verifiability.

The responsibility for providing sufficient in-line citations to ensure verifiability rests with the original author, and other like-minded editors. This responsibility does not rest with those who review Wikipedia, or who are inclined to challenge statements or delete them. WP:Verifiability says Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

The sentence in question was conspicuous, both for the boldness of its claims and its lack of citation. I placed a fact tag (citation needed) against this sentence on 15 January. I waited a month (which was probably very generous). By 15 February no attempt had been made to ensure verifiability of this sentence so I deleted it. If others are able to find suitable references they are welcome to restore as many of the claims as are supported by those references. (For claims as bold and potentially controversial as these, citations should include chapter and verse, not simply the title and author of a work.) By matching information to sources through in-line citations this article will be improved. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's typical for the intros of article to have few or no citations because they should simply summarize what is already in the body of the article. Have you had a chance to read the whole article? I know it's quite long, but some of the points you've raised are addressed elsewhere.
1. This is a summary of the article that follows, not the preceding sentences.
2. Eugenics was promoted by numerous individuals, many prominent and event wealthy. Folks such as George Bernard Shaw, Alexander Graham Bell, and Mary Williamson Averell either made direct contributions or helped organize societies. The sources of support are too numerous mention in the intro - it's sufficient to indicate that mainstream charities were among them.
3. You're pobably eright about the grammatical problem of "the movement...was practiced..." It's more like "eugenics principles were practiced/promoted...." That can be fixed without deleting it.
4. As you can see from the article, it was also practiced in Japan.
While inline citations help readers (and editors) see that the article is based on verifiable sources, it isn't necessary for every single word to have a citation. I honestly don't see anything in that sentence that isn't sourced elsewhere in the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the fifth sentence said Eugenics were not confined to any one country or culture, but were widely practised around the world I would accept some of what you say about it summarising what appears later in the article, but the sentence was not in any way a summary. It was highly explicit, nominating philanthropic institutions by name, and implying there were others in addition. It was highly explicit about which continents were relevant, and implying there were others in addition.
Your view about claims in the introduction not requiring citation is your personal view. It appears to have no support elsewhere in Wikipedia.
You have written it isn't necessary for every single word to have a citation. I did not write that, or anything similar to that. I am only intending what is written in WP:Verifiability.
If valid citations exist later in the article, anyone is welcome to use those citations to restore some or all of what I deleted, and to post the citation against what they restore. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LEADCITE says, in part:
  • The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.
Since these assertions are throughly discussed in the article, and aren't especially contentious, I'm sure the editor who added them didn't see a need for inline cites. Let's unpack the sentence into two or more sentences that are clearer:
The movement was led by race scientists and financed by private philanthropies.
Eugenic practices were implemented by governments in North America, Europe (particularly Nazi Germany), Australia, and Asia.
How's that?   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quote from WP:LEADCITE. It expresses the principle very soundly and I am in agreement with all of it.
In the interests of moving progressively towards a replacement sentence or paragraph that will bring credit on Wikipedia as an authoritative and objective source of information, let me dissect your suggested text.
  • The movement was led by race scientists. What is a race scientist? This appears not to be an objective statement. It possibly fails WP:NPOV. In the article there are mentions of numerous people described as scientists, but I haven't seen any described as a race scientist. With any movement, particularly one as large and ubiquitous as the eugenics movement, I would expect to find many people exercising leadership; people from all walks of life. Why should Wikipedia make mention of one, and only one, vocation as the source of leadership?
  • The movement ... was financed by private philanthropies. Prior to my deletion of the fifth sentence, it mentioned the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation, and implied the involvement of others. Searching the article I found a sourced reference to Carnegie, but not to Rockefeller. Similarly, I found no citation for any other private philanthropy.
  • Eugenic practices were implemented by governments in ...' The examples given are all continents. Continents do not have governments; countries do. There are only seven continents and the examples cover all of them except South America, Africa and Antarctica. There is no government in Antarctica so that only leaves South America and Africa. I know this is pedantic but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. (Should Wikipedia imply that eugenics were unknown in South America and Africa? Not if Wikipedia wants to be credible.) It would be much better for the sentence in the Introduction to be truly a summary and say something like Eugenics were not confined to any one country or culture, but were widely practised around the world.
This article contains quite a number of fact tags (citation needed). It could do with more critical review of the kind we are doing right now.
I am happy to continue working with you on this topic. Regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be more helpful if we think of this as our text rather than my text. How would you suggest drafting it?   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the field of eugenics I see my role as critical reader and peer-reviewer rather than author or subject specialist. In the absence of additional citations, I think the best that could be restored as the fifth sentence of the introduction would be something like Eugenics were not confined to any one country or culture, but were widely practised around the world and were promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions. Anything more explicit than that would require additional citation. Most sentences in the introduction already have at least one citation. Dolphin51 (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. "Widely" might be a stretch, but the "around the world" is certainly accurate. Thanks for the help.   Will Beback  talk  11:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VHEMT

I was wondering if the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement would warrant inclusion. Although it is not eugenics, it operates on a similar broader principle, that the other inhabitants of the earth would be better off without us, so we should avoid procreation. In the same way eugenics aims to remove certain qualities, and races of humankind, VHEM aims to remove qualities and species of earthkind. It is a principle of making the world better, by eliminating a class of life. 72.12.72.122 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right thtat there are some similiarities. I've added Voluntary Human Extinction Movement to the "See also" list at the end. The article is quote long already, so unless someone has compared or contrasted them in a reliable source I'm not sure what else we should add.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Voluntary Human Extinction Movement exists. It could be discussed in this article, but you need to cite a WP:FN to a WP:RS that says that it is relevant to the article topic. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very long. The history section should be moved into its own article.24.7.55.22 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One To Zero?

"...it has reduced the ratio of children born with the hereditary blood disease from 1 out of every 158 births to almost zero."

How can a ratio be reduced from 1:158 to undefined? Asperger, he'll know. (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that could be rephrased. I expect it means that there the disease used to occur in 1 out of every 158 births, but now it accounts for far fewer. It'd be better to be more precise. Maybe saying it now occures in 1 out of every 1000 or 500,000, or whatver the actual incidence is would be clearer.   Will Beback  talk  05:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the original source, in case anyone has access to it.
  • Leung TN, Lau TK, Chung TKh (2005). "Thalassaemia screening in pregnancy". Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 17 (2): 129–34. PMID 15758603.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
It be useful to get a better number.   Will Beback  talk  05:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The lead seems a bit too long.--RossF18 (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Problem

At the end of the third paragraph of the section titled "Meanings and Types of Eugenics," there is what appears to be a piece of vandalism: the words, "Hannah is awesome!!!" The weird thing is that this sentence appears in the public face of the article, but when you go to edit it (as I did, to delete the sentence), the sentence is NOT THERE. I can't even begin to explain this, but that's what I see (or don't see).

I would sign my username, but I can't remember how to do it (sad face). I'm not on Wikipedia often enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathyedits (talk • contribs) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics and religion

Such as abortion today, Eugenics was a left, protestant, jewish and feminist movement .In USA, eugenics and racism were the same, even so, few (leftist) negros were eugenicists, such Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois,etc. The claim that eugenics was only among "liberal" protestants is senseless.Jeovah Witness were eugenicists; at least until 1940 decade.The same is correct about the adventist church and pentecostals.The founder of pentecotalism, the gay, freemason and racist pastor Charles Fox Parham(1873-1929) died as an eugenicist;he was an eugenicist from the its first day.The founder of Adventism, Mrs. Ellen G. White(1827-1915) was also an eugenicist, in all her last decades of life.Mormonists were supporters of eugenics in Utah and any other american state.Who will consider pentecostals, seventh-day adventists and mormonists as "liberal" protestants?And all of these sects/cults were eugenics' supporters;at least until the foundation of Third Reich, in 1933. About jewish eugenics,comparaed to its numbers, no other religious group gave so much support to eugenics as the jews.The biggest rate in religious afiliation, among American Eugenics associations were the jews.Eugenics' fall in USA came only, wyth the nazism from 1933 onwards.Eugenics was "correct and scientific" when used against sick, poor and colored, but "terrible" when used against jews. Catholic Church was against eugenics from its first day, because its clergy was of hight quality and there was faith and latin mass. The support of eugenics from jews and protestants clergy came from it was and remains a married clergy. There wasn't no single judaism or protestantism; there's thousands of protestantisms and dozens of judaisms.Eugenics emultaed these kinds of religions.Anyone could invent his/her Jesus or "race" at his/her image, simlarity and will. The second thing was the fact that Catholic Church was and remains, a global instituition.Eugenics was a racist movement, and to support it wasn't a problem for a sect/church in USA, but would be terrible for catholicism in Africa and Latin America.Eugenics was popular in United States and Canada. The third difference was the clergy itself.You are a priest or a nun; you don't have sons to support.If you are a rabin or a pastor, your human instint sends you to give the church/sinagogue's money to your sons, not to sick, poor and colored persons. About abortion, seventh day adventist hospitals do hundreds of thousands of abortions, in USA every year, against no abortions in catholic hospitals also in USA.The money, not God, does matter, to the protestants sects/churches. The article forgets the fact that eugenics never became popular, when the clergy was against it.Eugenics became law under jews (USA and former Soviet Union), under pagans(Germany, Japan and Italy) and protestants (USA, Iceland, Norway,etc.).In no place, atheists were strong enough to support eugenics movement.In Brazil,where eugenics was under the leadership of a freemason and atheist called Júlio Afrânio Peixoto , eugenics hadn't no power or popularity at all. No other thing in the last hundred years, had so bigger support as eugenics:jews, nazists, socialist, tycoons, japaneses, germans, americans, blacks , members of Ku Klux Klan,atheists, religious bigots,scientists, dictators and democrats gave support to eugenics.Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini,Stalin and american presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Taft,Woodrow Wilson,Warren G. Harding,Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman,etc were eugenicists.Hermann Göering, Dr. ´Morris Fishbein and Albert Einstein were eugenicists. Even so, eugenics fell and had to become "ecology" or "neo-malthusianism", because such as american cardinal Gibbon told, in 1913:"Eugenics is a fraud", and this fact, not the lack of support sent eugenics to the same destiny, as all other fakes, in human history.Agre22 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Discussions on talk pages should be focused on ways of improving the article, and are not provided as soapboxes for editors to air their views on the subject matter of the article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, the talk page IS a big soap box. People are pushing their POV left right and center. There are better things to critique here. What he wrote is so very lacking in references. Also he writes a rather amusing "Catholic Church was against eugenics from its first day, because its clergy was of hight quality and there was faith and latin mass". I can barely imagine how latin protects one from the doctrines of eugenicists. Kastelz (talk)

If a certain religion tells its' members to only marry and breed with other members of a) the same religion, or b) the same race.. then wouldn't they be practicing some kind of 'religious eugenics'? Seems to me it satisfies the description of eugenics as a "practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species". At the very least we can agree that this would be a form of selective breeding with the intent of benefiting a group of people. Kastelz (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics among the Jollofs tribe, perhaps some to include in the pre-Galtonian eugenics section

From Charles Darwin's "the descent of man and selection in relation to sex", pages 357 and 358:

The following case, though relating to savages, is well worth giving from its curiosity. Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the Jollofs, a tribe of negroes on the west coast of Africa, "are remarkable for their "uniformly fine appearance. A friend of his asked one of these men, "How is it that every one whom I meet is "so fine-looking, not only your men, but your women? The Jollof answered, It is very easily explained: it has always been our custom to pick out our worselooking slaves and to sell them." It need hardly be added that with all savages female slaves serve as concubines. That this negro should have attributed, whether rightly or wrongly, the fine appearance of his tribe, to the long-continued elimination of the ugly women, is not so surprising as it may at first appear; for I have elsewhere shewn3 that negroes fully appreciate the importance of selection in the breeding of their domestic animals, and I could give from Mr. Reade additional evidence on this head.

--Extremophile (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil hated eugenics

The article claims that Brazil had eugenics legislation.In fact, Brazil hated eugenics and never had eugenics law.In Latin America, only Mexico had eugenics into its laws.And this happened because of a masonic government.The opposition from Catholic Church, public opinion and militaries doomed eugenics in Brazil from the start.Agre22 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

New sections?

Perhaps some new sections for the third and fourth paragraphs might make this article easier to read, or perhaps some paragraph could be split. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction of disputable NPOV

While the article as a whole is surprisingly NPOV (considering both the topic and the high frequency of lapses even in uncontroversial WP articles), I am a bit troubled by the introduction. I prefer to bring my opinions up here (instead of editing directly), because there are many references involved, and because I want to avoid an edit war. To illustrate with two examples:

Example 1: 

though current trends in genetics have raised questions amongst critical
academics concerning parallels between pre-war attitudes about eugenics and
current "utilitarian" and social darwinistic theories[4].

Reading between the lines, this says: "Good" scientist are worried that eugenics is rearing its ugly head again.

A more informative and NPOV formulation would simply state the fact (if true) that the ideas are still present, and make a rough indication of their current form and popularity (or lack thereof).

Example 2: 

Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human
rights violations on millions of people.[7]

This statement may be technically true, in that it reflects a very common view. However, in context the impression is likely to arise that "Today, we now better than the fools of yesterday, and rightfully distance ourselves from eugenics.". A better formulation would either focus specifically on the excesses by, e.g., Hitler as a "brutal movement", or state that this excesses have had a corresponding negative effect on the popular opinion of eugenics. (Note that by use of the word "excess", I do not automatically imply that "unexcessive" eugenics would be acceptable: My own opinion on the matter is somewhat skeptical, mostly due to ethical considerations and the eternal "Who has the righ to decide?" question.)

I would prefer to see the introduction make a neutral statement about the principal ideas of eugenics, very briefly discuss its overall history, briefly point to the worst excesses, its fall from popularity to disgrace, and touch upon current pro- and anti-positions. The details, in appropriate proportions, should be (respectively, are) covered by the main text. I note that the introduction, as it currently stands, is much too long for my personal taste, and could stand to be cut to a quarter of its current size. 88.77.132.11 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV requires that major points of view be represented fairly and backed by reliable sources. "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'." If "it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people", then NPOV requires that it be so stated, as long as it is a significant point of view and supported by WP:reliable sources.
Your work is more likely to be accepted if you log in and edit some uncontroversial articles. Established editors are often suspicious of anonymous editors whose only contributions are to disputed topics, despite the guidance of WP:BITE. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical sequence of subsections

The sequence of subsections was confusing, implying that Nazi eugenics predated the earlier versions of eugenics in various countries, particularly Britain and the U.S. which was used as a precedent by the Nazis. I've therefore rearranged the subsections in approximate historical order, and have also rearranged paragraphs in the U.S. subsection in historical sequence, moving the dubious unsourced first paragraph near the end. . dave souza, talk 09:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore and SDU

'Singapore practiced a limited form of eugenics that involved discouraging marriage between university graduates and the rest through segregation in matchmaking agencies, in the hope that the former would produce better children, although this point is contestable.[101] Most notably its government introduced the "Graduate Mother Scheme" in the early 1980s to entice graduate women with incentives to get married, which was eventually scrapped due to public criticism and the implications it had on meritocracy.[102]'

Singapore STILL practices it. The Social Development Unit (SDU): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Development_Unit:_a_Social_Engineering_Initiative_by_the_Singapore_Government

Please amend the article and give links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.195 (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger was not a eugencist (2)

http://fundamentalistdeceit.blogspot.com/2008/01/demonizing-of-margaret-sanger.html

Theres much more pages debunking it, but that one is the best. Consider the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated, with ref. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reinstated again, adding a quote from Sanger herself. A blog declaring that this is one of "The lies of the Christian Right in America" doesn't have as much sway here on Wikipedia as print sources from the university presses.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she was very racist/eugenist. Please read the Sanger's book in this site: [Woman and the new Race].Agre22 (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

GAVI?

It is generally suspected that GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccine Immunization) is conducting a secret program of eugenics in over 70 third world contries by adding abortion causing and/or sterilization viri to their vaccines. Generally only women are targeted and in several contries, women run and hide in the jungles to escape their vaccine programs.

This content seems questionable at best but I'm a little hesitant to do anything because I know nothing about this subject... 99.231.36.219 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting this nonsense, a couple of IP editors have rightly deleted it from the two places it was inserted: no reliable source was given, and in accordance with verification policy such doubtful additions should be removed immediately. Thanks again, dave souza, talk 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Content -- Nixon

  • United States President Richard Nixon believed abortion was necessary as a form of eugenics to prevent interracial breeding, particularly between "a black and a white".[3]

My removal of the statement that President Nixon supported abortion for eugenical purposes was challenged. I defend it. I may agree that his quote about abortion and mixed-race persons was an unethical position. But the news article cited and quote contained no evidence whatsoever that he supported abortion because of eugenics. His quote did not logically imply that he said it with eugenics in mind. (four tildas, etc.)

Do not remove this discussion point, or I will be once again accused of making edits without explaining myself. This is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.137.134 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the deletion of this material. It is original research to say that Nixon's was supporting eugenics in his comment. This is a very obscure comment, made in private and with no apparent effort to influence public policy towards eugenics.   Will Beback  talk  22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. But if some notable source said that they thought Nixon was secretly in favor of eugenics - and if they cited this obscure (private) quote to bolster their point - would the formula A said B about C (because of D) come into play?
Kind of like, "X said all Jews did Y. So Z called X antisemitic."
Note carefully: I am not saying Wikipedia should agree with Z's characterization. Merely that if Z is a notable source, we can summarize his position, right? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if we have a source that says so we can add something like, "According to Smith, Nixon supported eugenics." We just shouldn't read a quotation from Nixon and decide on our own that it indicates support for eugenics.   Will Beback  talk  03:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, I'd further qualify and say that Z not only has to be a notable source, but sufficiently relevant and reliable. For example, the National Enquirer is notable, but never reliable, and Richard Dawkins is notable and reliable, but not relevant on American politics. --Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this article is already quite long, I'de avoid adding informaiton that some public figure secretly endorsed eugenics buit never expressed that belief publicly or made any effort to support eugenics policies. If Nixon were recorded making a nice comment about Irish setters, I don't think we'd add it to that article. If he owned such a dog, and was seen on TV frolicing with if, then that'd be different.   Will Beback  talk  06:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your prompt and informative answers. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the deletion when it had no summary, but now the editor has explained I accept the point: Nixon's comments do not amount to an endorsement of eugenics and the deletion was justified. --Old Moonraker (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the editors who restored the deleted material, in the light of this discussion now removing it again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction definition was too narrow

Many dictionaries do often describe Eugenics as "selective breeding" but that is too narrow of a definition. That is like defining the field of medicine as "heart surgery". Selective breeding was a popular method of implementing Eugenics in the past because that was the only way known, and of course most of it was wrong like any science in its infancy, but the goal of improved human ability & health were the desired outcomes and of course it had to be from manipulating the human genome for it be differentiated from nurture methods of improving ability & health. A eugenicist would not care if the improvement of humans was from selective breeding or from a more modern method of prenatal screening as long as the goal was achieved. So therefore Eugenics is the study & implementation of ways to improve human ability and health through manipulation of the human genome. This definition can be verified and is not opinion by examing Pro-Eugenic believers. A science is not defined by its enemies but from those that believe it be a science and study the field. Also providing CURRENT examples is neccessary with any definition. They all fit the correct definition of Eugenics & the Human Genome Project is as much or more of a part of Eugenics as measuring cranial sizes is part of Eugenics. [15]Quisp65 (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, we are not here to forge new definitions of words. Wikipedia must strictly adhere to what already exists. If most definitions use a narrow sense, then this is the sense Wikipedia must use.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But not all dictionaries use "selective breeding" as its definition. When selective breeding is being used it is the outdated definition due to the only way to manipulate the human genome in the past was selective breeding.Quisp65 (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any WP:RS that define eugenics as "manipulating the genome"?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Eugenics is the science that deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also those that develop them to the utmost advantage" Francis Galton "Essays in Eugenics" p35 "Eugenics its Definition, scope and aims" [16] Note it says "all influences that improve the inborn qualities". We now know that is the human genome that make up INBORN qualities and manipulating is how you go about influencing. We can modernize what Francis Galton said to be manipulation of the human genome.Quisp65 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your source still doesn't talk about the human genome. Without it, your definition is WP:OR.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The human genome was not a phrase coined back in the early 1900s. As I said we now know "inborn qualities" comes from the human genome which is the entirety of mankind's hereditary information. But if it makes more people happy we could leave out genome and use Galton's definition and then give the examples of genetic counseling, prenatal selection & the Human Genome Project. But the problem is Galton's definition is too early 1900ish. He uses race to easily when he is referring about mankind and I see no reason why we can't modernize "inborn qualities".Quisp65 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question? Is modernizing a definition allowed? By leaving eugenics as "selective breeding" we are not covering the full scope of eugenics. I can site sources that refer to Eugenics as manipulation of the genome but these sources describe it in lengthened ways. I am looking for a simplified correct full definition. I don't feel Wikipedia has to be a encyclopedia of quotes!Quisp65 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to answer this question myself. Wikipedia does allow the use of synonyms and it is appropriate to use "manipulation of the human genome" . The synonym for inborn is heredity and heredity is the genetic makeup of a species and the human genome is the full scope of genetic makeup of humans. Francis Galton coined the original term eugenics so therefore Francis Galton's definition is the most accurate description of eugenics. So taking Galton's definition in 21st century English it would be Eugenics is the study & implementation of ways to improve human ability and health through manipulation of the human genome. Therefore this description DOES NOT fit under original research.Quisp65 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is still OR. Find a reliable source which says so, please.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following why using Galton's definition (one of the original founders of eugenics) and using it in 21st century English is not a reliable source? I don't think you have have to document and link every synonym for it to be appropriate.Quisp65 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Galton's theory is a reliable source. Your personal interpretation of what it should be in the 21st century is OR and isn't a reliable source. Please re-read WP:RS and WP:NOR. --Ramdrake (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would leave wikipedia to nothing more than quotes. You can follow the synonyms with a dictionary taken directly from Galton's quote. A little more than just my interpretation. But needless to say I could see how someone could play with words and confuse a definition even though I know that is not the case here. I may give into a more direct quote from Galton or some other dictionary that takes into account the full definition. Because the current one displayed does not describe the full belief of its founders or current believers, so at best it's a correct misinterpretation, much like describing "the field of medicine" as "heart surgery" is a correct misinterpretation.Quisp65 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please review Wikipedia policy or bring a reliable source that describes eugenics in terms of improving the human genome. Your personal interpretation -or mine, for that matter- doesn't count.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Government's eugenics

I just added a piece that got immediately reverted, talking about the Don't Cross the Line program in Australia and its influence on the type of men that they feel women should approve of. Why is a link to the program's page itself not a good enough source? Obviously, politicians aren't going to publically discuss subtle programs with these kinds of goals. 58.170.103.99 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening a discussion here. The problem isn't the reliability of the sources, it's that we need a reliable source that has made the same interpretation of them as you have: that they amount to a eugenic program. Without this, it's original research and not allowed. RV. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Make this article more scientific?

What about making this article more scientific so people can actually use it?? There is no technical info. Come on, it doesn't take an university degree to describe it. It's merely selective breeding, it is well documented and has been practiced for 1000's of years with animals. It shouldn't be hard to describe the science behind it as the mechanisms are exactly the same with humans. There are no principal differences between breeding an intelligent search dog and an intelligent human, the method is the same. 93.161.107.169 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed your uncivil heading. Please see WP:TALK for guidance on the use of talk pages and WP:RS for reliable source guidance. See selective breeding for more on that topic. It is not useful to duplicate that content since those wanting to know about that topic may refer to that article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if the word 'nonsense' was offensive to you. Anyway, I'm not intending to write anything in the article(wow they would jump on me for vandalism), I'm merely requesting that it be more encyclopedic so one can use it for school as a reference. I have been to the selective breeding page but it's almost a stub. It points to 'animal breeding' which is a short messy article that gives you no info. There must be someone around with expertise in eugenics? 93.161.107.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It seems like several users here started personally harassing me because of my comment. How sad. Anyway, I propose that there be made a section explaining the differences between selective breeding of animals versus humans. The ethics is already covered, I'm more thinking of how to bring forward specific traits like it is done with dogs. 87.59.126.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Article published in 1915

This site: [News] has an American article published in 1915, with support to eugenics. This American article was published in a American magazine called The Atlantic Monthly.Agre22 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Oliver Wendell Holmes

Though Buck v. Bell is referenced, conspicuously missing from the text AND the discussion are Judge Holmes' opinions.

Rensensekid (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php
  2. ^ Daniel J. Kevles, "International Eugenics," in Deadly Medicine (cited in the article), 41-59, info specifically from 47.
  3. ^ Harnden, Toby (24 June 2009). "President Richard Nixon said it was 'necessary' to abort mixed-race babies, tapes reveal". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-07-12. There are times when an abortion is necessary...I know that. When you have a black and a white.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eugenics&oldid=341001951"