Talk:Eugenics in the United States

Forced Sterlization in Puerto Rico

Do people think that some mention of Sterilization and Eugenics programs in Puerto Rico deserve mention? Puerto Rico has been administered by the United States government since 1898, and before 1952, it was even more directly controlled by the office of the President, who appointed the government of Puerto Rico. The 'pill' was first tested on Puerto Ricans before it's use in the United States. Also historian Christopher Thorne described it this way:

Subjects to do with breeding and race seem, indeed, to have held a certain fascination for the President... Roosevelt felt it in order to talk, jokingly, of dealing with Puerto Rico's excessive birth rate by employing, in his own words, "the methods which Hitler used effectively." He said to Charles Taussig and William Hassett, as the former recorded it, "that it is all very simple and painless. You have people pass through a narrow passage and then there is a brrrrr of an electrical apparatus. They stay there for twenty seconds and from then on they are sterile."[29]

By 1965, one third of Puerto Rican women of child bearing age had been sterilized, many without their knowledge or consent, or were misinformed that the process was reversible. Whole villages had to shut down schools because of lack of children, as is well documented in the documentary La Operacion.

Because of the close connection of the programs and policies in Puerto Rico and the US, I think it deserves mention. Your thoughts?

Places to expand upon this page

Modern Eugenics in practice today: Sperm banks are used as a way to increase the likelihood of a child's health and overall success. When donating, the man will give over a lot of medical information. This information will make him more desirable. The amount paid to a man is also dependent upon his current success as a person (intelligence and overall health) are large factors.

Other clubs and organizations: In this article there are only those two contests that were brushed upon, but at this same time there were plenty of politicians that would talk about this, as well as lobby groups that existed for these topics.

this page, even the intro, reeks of pov in favor of the concept. 24.17.211.150 (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This page is cr*p. So many, many grammatical errors that it cannot be taken seriously, not to mention a lack of verification of sources. It should be scrapped. It reads as though it were edited by people with a variety of different political agendas, including those opposed to birth control and abortion as well as those in favor of eugenics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.138.44 (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand that 7 states still have sterilization laws on the books (source: Great Courses program, "Darwinian Revolution" Prof: Fredrick Gregory) -- and it would be useful to list those if someone has an appropriate set of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.71.205.176 (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Quite a few citations have been tagged as possibly unreliable sources. For example, this webpage: Eugenic Laws Against Race Mixing at the Eugenics Archive. Could someone explain the concerns about these sources?   Will Beback  talk 

I can't find any information on their editorial practices, and it seems to be an WP:SPS, which could easily be replaced with reliable-sources in most cases. Do you have reason to believe that (a) it is a reliable source, and that (b) it couldn't/shouldn't be replaced with higher-quality sources, such as the dozens of academic books I've added as references?

Actually, on closer reading of WP:SPS, this might be acceptable in some cases (for instance, the essays in the Eugenics Archive which are written by Lombardo, a notable expert). But anyhow, I still think that there are better sources (i.e. books/papers from academic publishers and peer-reviewed journals) which should be used wherever they exist. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And on closer examination of the Archive itself, I found this. The Eugenics Archive is clearly a reliable source, without qualifications. I think I've removed all the tags from citations to it, but I'll double-check. Thanks -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Rational For My Additions

I am making the following additions to the page in order to better represent women's roles in the United States Eugenics Movement, as both the movement's champions and its victims. After reading the article, I noticed it did not delineate the unique role that women played in promoting eugenic legislation and supporting the eugenic agenda. From my extensive research on the subject, I have learned that Margaret Sanger, southern clubwomen, and several other feminists in general played an important role in advocating and passing eugenic legislation (in addition to the scientists, politicians, and theorists). I also have learned that men and women were compulsorily sterilized for different reasons, and that women of certain ethnic groups were targeted more than others. Lastly, I have learned that given the two different approaches of "positive" eugenicists and "negative" eugenicists, men and women of the upper and lower classes fit in differently to the eugenic agenda. It is my hope that my additions will be helpful to readers, and inspire them to learn more about the fascinating and controversial United States Eugenics Movement! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancingpenguins123 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Photo caption of 'Supporters'

Based on the actual signs being held, especially the one about not being able to read the sign the man is holding, makes me question if these men are actual 'supporters' of eugenics. They could be people paid to hold the signs by actual eugenics supporters - after all, if the one man can't read the sign he is holding, does anyone know if that sign was explained to him?Jtyroler (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Way too biased to be accaptable

This has got to be the most biased page I have ever seen on Wikipedia. This is complete garbage! Whoever wrote this should be ashamed of themselves. First off, this page violates NPOV. Secondly, this page was written in a cryptic style to avoid mentioning the less desirable aspects of eugenics. This article needs cleaned up now (though I bet you will just delete this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.126.14 (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Inspiration for Germany

Can I get a better source for Eugenics was practiced in the United States many years before eugenics programs in Nazi Germany and actually, U.S. programs provided much of the inspiration for the latter.? The source Lombardo, page 1 does not cover the point of inspiration. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the thing is detailed in the respective subsection Eugenics_in_the_United_States#Influence_on_Nazi_Germanywith that include some references. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

See also section . Inclution of Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger

See historic section at Planned Parenthood. PP history is an undeniable and relevant part of the eugenics movement at the United States, as well as the International Planned Parenthood Federation.[1] Planned Parenthood is mentioned by the sources dealing with eugenics movement. [2][3][4][5] Birth control is recognized by the sources as being strong related to eugenic movement and goals.[6][7][8][9] Planned Parenthood was founded by the eugenics moevement at U.S., Maragaret Sanger -an eugenic movement leader [10]- is one of the well known founders of Planned Parenthood. --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This issues is being decided at Talk:Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood eugenics link. You are more than welcome to participate in that discussion; please do. But in the meantime, I must insist that you do not edit war over this issue any longer. Your opinions are welcome, but this sort of editing is not. Thank you. — Satori Son 14:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You should specify who are you taking to, as I have not edited the article sice the discussion started at the talk page you mentioned. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was replying to your post, ClaudioSantos. And you're absolutely right: You have not edited this article since the beginning of that RfC. I made a mistake and I am sorry about that. Good luck to you in resolving this conflict. — Satori Son 18:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

They're probably talking to me because I've seen how this goes before. "No consensus so talk about it!" You talk about it but neither side wants to listen. Consensus becomes what the wikipedia article says because that's what the article says. Bullshit. If you don't like it, let's add it and then talk until we reach consensus to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.172.14.99 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

As previously stated above, this issue is being decided at Talk:Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood eugenics link. You are more than welcome to participate in that discussion; please do. AzureCitizen (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been decided at Talk:Planned Parenthood#Planned Parenthood eugenics link. I'll summarize. There was strong consensus to exclude the link to Eugenics in the United States in the See also section. A few editors including ClaudioSantos objected. In order to address the concerns raised by those who wanted to include the link, a paragraph which treated the topic in NPOV and gave it appropriate context was added to the Controversies section. ClaudioSantos strongly objected and was banned for a week for edit-warring. I hope this helps. It is clear from that discussion, that including links in the see also section of this article to Planned Parenthood would not be appropriate. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I was banned for a week because from users to admins, they do not seem to read nor to check good enough the things, otherwise they would realized that I did not violate the warning of 1RR as I did revert myself and not somebody else. I also did NOT object to deal with the thing in the "controversies" section of PP article but I even proposed a paragraph. I have to mention this because it is necessary to mark up each evidence showing that some people here are unable to read good enough, so they should refrain from (mis)represent my doings at all. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You were blocked and after reviewing your appeal the blocking admin saw grounds for upholding the block. I am not misrepresenting anything. You INDEED objected very strongly to the paragraph we developed and added to the article. Any user looking at Talk:Planned Parenthood can see that. You can blame others for your block if you want, but what I have said above is accurate - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 19:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That the wrong reading did happen two or three or four times, it does not change the fact: it was a wrong reading of the facts. The appeal was answered and based solely on the same grounds of the first block. The appeal-response also did not consider that AFTER we (you Metal.lunch and me) were warned, I did NOT ignore that 1RR-warning and I did NOT revert anyone anymore, but it was precisely the reason claimed to block me: "...after being warned you STILL reverted again...". So, two admins and some users, included you now, were not able to read good enough what actually happened or were just enough conform with that unfairly punishment. But at any rate I still find you are not able to represent me wheter you use or not use your own (mis)representations as alleged arguments here or elsewhere. For the rest, this discussion is over. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

*Cough Cough* Bullshit *Cough cough* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.172.14.99 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I do agree: "cough cough" -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

/me gives soldierman a medicinal drink to cure his cough and hopes he has no troubles swallowing the removal (again) of the link to Planned Parenthood. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, good point: medicines are weapons used to suppress dissent and protest in order to keep people obediently swallowing and smelling real crap. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ow, but this medicine was made of 100% natural ingredients (unaltered) and without artificial components or chemicals. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Poisons remains poisons and false things, due their noxious effects, and not due the nature of its components. What an off-topic.!!! -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Misattribution of quote to Margaret Sanger

This article includes the following about Margaret Sanger, 'She once wrote, “more children from the fit, less from the unfit—that is the chief issue of birth control.”' This is a misattribution documented in several reliable sources it also directly contradicts her known position against positive eugenics, that is, encouraging the rich or white or whatever on earth people thought made up the "fit" to have more offspring. At least one example: "we should recognize the difficulties presented by the idea of "fit" and "unfit." Who is to decide this question?" From Pivot of Civilization. The quote in question is from an editorial written by the editors of American Medicine. see "more+children+from+the+fit"&hl=en&ei=Psc9TufpFKjWiAKNzZ3DBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false The Pivot of Civilization bottom of page 10 and top of page 11. If that isn't proof then you can look at May 1919 Birth Control Review page 12 right column to see where the phrase appears. I normally wouldn't go to so much trouble but this is an article with lots of disputes and anything related to abortion excites people who like to argue. I don't want to argue. I just don't want wikipedia to be repeating damaging misattributions like this. I am asking that it be removed completely. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that it is a clear and serious factual error in the article to attribute the quote to Sanger. I endorse Metal.lunchbox's request, and am considering simply implementing it myself as a clear and uncontroversial correction. MastCell ^Talk 02:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. MastCell ^Talk 16:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger

In light of reason modifications to the Early proponents section and efforts to mark parts of the paragraph as needing citation and then marking citations as failing verification, I thought I should offer an explanation. First, some of the citations are to primary sources. Primary sources are allowed on wikipedia but we must use them with care: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." As such the primary sources I have used are to demonstrate the Margaret Sangers statements/positions, an appropriate use of primary sources. Just because it is not a direct quote does not make it synthesis or original research. It would be good to back these up with secondary sources but undermining the claims by marking them as unsupported is inappropriate in this case. This being such a contentious topic I hope that further discussion will not have to take place in the form of edit summaries. Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Effect that Nazi germany had on American opinon of eugenics.

I seen it mentioned elsewhere, including on other Wikipedia articles, that the discovery of the Nazi atrocities including it's much more comprehensive eugenics program at the end of the war help turn public opinion on eugenics in the U.S. against eugenics. I didn't see any mention of this in this in the article though. I think there should be something on post-WWII/post-Nazi changing attitude towards eugenics among the U.S. populace should be added. --Cab88 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

My redaction of the lede covers this. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Sanger on forced sterilization

The Early Proponents section, paragraph 6, final sentence, states:

"For Sanger, it was individual women and not the state who should determine whether or not to have a child."

This statement flies in the face of Ms. Sangers own writings. In The Pivot of Civilization, Chapter IV, Paragraph 2, Ms. Sanger writes:

"There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations--unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities."

Then, in Paragraph 24 of the same chapter:

"The emergency problem of segregation and sterilization must be faced immediately. Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous. Segregation carried out for one or two generations would give us only partial control of the problem. Moreover, when we realize that each feeble- minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eve.josechung (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(Emphasis Mine)

Reference: http://www.archive.org/stream/thepivotofcivili01689gut/old/pvcvl10.txt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eve.josechung (talk • contribs) 20:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Autism Speaks

Autism Speaks is a pretty large Eugenics organization in the United States, I think it should have mention in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.157.158 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

After review of the article Autism Speaks I cound not find any trace of eugenetics in the article, except for a vandalistic edit that added the category eugenetics. No need to mention the organisation here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Night of the Big Wind. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tuskegee syphilis experiment

I took the liberty of adding a bare bones paragraph regarding this infamous eugenics experiment. I'm sure one of the regular editors who follows this article would be interested in expanding it since there is a great deal of controversy about the study, the authors and the eugenics movement.There is lots written in medical, bioethical and legal circles about it but I am probably not the one to expand it since I am unfamiliar with the editing history of the present article. Regards to all. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been so rude to take the paragraph out of the article and into the talkpage. Main reason of the move is to facilitate discussion. And I like the discussion prior to adding to the article, because in my opinin, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is far more an example of medical racism then an example of practical eugenics. The only thing I really took out was the heading, for practical reasons.

“

Main article: Tuskegee syphilis experiment

The 1932-1972 Tuskegee syphilis experiment, a U.S. Public Health Service clinical study of the natural history of syphilis in untreated African-American men is an example of human experimentation which tested eugenic and racial theories of disease resistance. It is now widely cited by ethicists and medicolegal experts as an eugenics precident case illustrating the need for fully informed consent by subjects of medical experimentation.

”

I am not sure of this disgusting experiment deserves a place in this article for reasons stated above. I don't now if there are more of these experiments. If so, adding them all to the article will make the article too long, so bundeling them in a split off-article is perhaps a viable options. I like to hear your comments. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I, too, thought immediately that the experiments were a clear example of racism but not specifically about eugenics. I don't want to hunt down the argument in the sources so can someone quote what they say? Binksternet (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically the findings from the reviews, discussions and litigations which followed this study are as important as the Nuremberg war crimes trial to establish agreed-upon ethical requirements for medical eugenics research. My initial post was a synopsis of a synopsis of a synopsis. The sources basically refer to their own sources and summarize the authors' opinions. And previous sources can be tracked back to the original study protocols which I've read some years ago but which I've not as yet been able to find on the internet. One of the problems with a new editor trying to expand an article like this one is that such articles are built on a long history. Editors here debate the idea that medical racism is relevant to the eugenics movement based on secondary and tertiary sources which digest older information which is so old that even word definitions have changed. For instance, now Archdall Reide's discussion comments at Francis Galton's 1904 reading of "Eugenics:Its definition, scope and aims." at the Sociological Society at the London School of Economics look distinctly racist to me in 2012. But in 1904 they were cutting edge scientific discussion of eugenics principles. (Article was published in The American Journal of Sociology Volume X, July 1904; Number 1) Link. Trilobitealive (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2012

Binksternet: Accounts expresively refers to that experiment as an eugenics case, and even the most important impact of eugenics on american epidemiology. Actually Pernick in the American journal of public health, notices that racial assumptions of Tuskegee experiment have their origin in eugenics and -more interesting perhaps- in microbiology. I ahve restored the section so you can check the sources I have added. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm deleting it. Lombardo says that the Tuskegee experiment came about because of the sort of racism that was present in eugenics. Palmer agrees. There was no testing of eugenics theory or practice in the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. Binksternet (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I will restore the thing due the sources do not support your claim ("There was no testing of eugenics in the Tuskegee") but quite the contrary, your claim is absolutely not supported at any place by the cited sources:

Lombardo:"Tuskegee provided a vehicle for testing a eugenic hypothesis: that racial groups were differentially susceptible to infectious diseases."

Rogers&Meaney at Encyclopedia of epidemiology, Volumen 2, p353:"Perhaps the most significant impact of eugenics on epidemiology occurred in 1932 when the US Public Health Service (PHS) initiated the Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Male Negro, more commonly known as the Tuskegee Syphilis"

Palmer:"The Nazi Doctors Case and the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment on the Negro Male are often cited in the bioethics literature as prototypical cases of eugenic precedents that should be used as the backdrop for judicial decision making."

Palmer: "A public health perspective on the liability issues involved in Grimes provides a means of arriving at the court’s holding without invoking the eugenic precedents of the Nazi Doctors or Tuskegee."

Pernick:"Both eugenics and microbiology contributed to the assumptions about racial epidemiology that shaped the Public Health Service's decision to use African-American men for the Tuskegee Study of untreated syphilis"

and notice that indeed none of the cited sources are dealing about racism but about eugenics. --ClaudioSantos¿? 13:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The basic mistake you make, Claudio, is that you take Lombardos opinion out of 2006, as the same as the original intent of the doctors who started the abuse in 1932. There is no proof that the original research included Eugenics is the "applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population", usually referring to the manipulation of human populations., but it is clear that the experiment-starting doctors did not see negroes as equals. Scientific racism is a widespread phenonemon, but one-on-one related to eugenics. So I will remove the section and make a link in the "see also"-section. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Surely eugenics or even medicine also do not see people as equals, but the point is we can not base the article on (y)our opinion on what is or what has been eugenics, but we must restrict to publish what the sources do say. And also we can not assume based on (y)our opinion that Lombardo fails to understand what eugenics really means or that he fails to consider adequately the facts. The paper by Lombardo is a reliable, verifiable and academic source which argues and documents that Tuskegee was an experiment to test an eugenics hypothesis. More over, he is not the only one author who refers to Tuskegee as an eugenic case, but I have cited above some other reliable and verifiable sources that claim the same and even state that it was "protoypical" and "important" case of eugenics. These mentioned sources do support that Tuskegee case deserves more than a link in the "see also" section. If actually it was also a case of racism, precisely of medical racism, and if racism is intertwined with eugenics, then Tuskegee experiment surely deserves also a section in articles about racism and perhaps also at some articles dealing with medical topics, but the thing here is that Tuskegee experiment also deserves a section in this article about Eugenics in the United States, due reliable sources do support this. The section should be restored. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your biased opinion is also not of great use. You are just out of a topic ban (returned a day early?) and you are already full on the move.

This section was removed from the article and moved to the talkpage for discussion, and consensus was that it was too tricky to put it back in. Overruling that consensus is not your department, nor mine. Even the author of the section was cautious about adding it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting enough for your stance, Clausio, is that the article Tuskegee syphilis experiment makes no notion of eugenics at all Night of the Big Wind _talk 04:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You write about "what the sources do say" but one of the problems with that statement is that the sources you have found have been cherry-picked for their connection to eugenics. Many other sources do not discuss eugenics at all regarding the horrible Tuskegee syphilis experiment. We are faced with some sources that bring it up and more sources that do not bring it up, so we go with a mainstream belief that the Tuskegee experiments were racist but not eugenicist. Especially obvious is the lack of eugenics purpose in the experimental statement. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

NotBw: I have always the crazy assumption that a consensus does not exclude me myself. For the rest: .

Binksternet: Here there are indeed mentioned some sources but they are not the unique sources that relates Tuskegee with eugenics. The lack of eugenics purpose is your opinion but not what sources like Lombardo claim. And at any rate you are not providing any source claiming that Tuskegee is not an eugenic experiment as you claim. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 04:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

At that time you were still topic banned, so it would have been useless to ask you about your opinion. especially, because an answer of you would have been a (provoked) breach of the topic ban. So the consensus at that time excluded you. That does not mean, that you can ignore it straight away. Especially because you first restored it, and then started a bit of discussion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, since I was the one who initially suggested including this topic in the article I might be able to help reduce the rift in opinion expressed here. From my elderly perspective the argument arises from the not entirely accurate definition used by both sides of this disagreement which is stated in the article lead-in. Eugenics as originally formulated was was a thinking tool, an hypothesis used to approach what its originators perceived as the problem of the divergence between natural selection and social selection within populations. Instead of imagining its origin as being a social movement you need to recognize it as merely a way of structuring ideas. Analogies would be Newton's calculus which he used to approach the calculation problems of celestial mechanics or Derrida's methods of deconstruction which he applied to semantic analysis. It was only in retrospect that eugenics became a social movement with implications and derivations which have since been debated. Thank you. Trilobitealive (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

True, but you should also know that ClaudioSantos has a long history of bans and topic bans for POV-pushing: ClaudioSantos is to be topic banned for a period of six months to include Abortion, Planned Parenthood, Eugenics, and Nazi related topics, broadly construed, including all biographies of notable persons involved in such subjects, broadly construed. This would include editing any section of of any biographies that deal with said subjects. That topic ban only expired on 12-4-2012! Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

NotBW: If there was a consensus, at any rate actually there was an open question from Biksternet: "can someone quote the sources?" but nobody did answer. But, the past is the past due the present is simplier: now there is not consensus and now I am not topic banned then I have quoted the sources. I wondered if you can focus on the topic instead of me. It seems the answer is no, then ok. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If a consensus stands, you should respect it. And you should start a discussion before any change in the article. Not change the article and then start a discussion. You know the rules of the game, please respect them and adhere to them. Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Trilobitealive and Biskternet: Although racism is not reduced to eugenics and racism in eugenics shows a wide variety[11], actually eugenics has a racial component [12], so some parts of the eugenics movement had certain biological racial or even racistic conceptions as an essential part of their conceptions and hypothesis[13]. At any rate, the point here is: as it was cited above, reliable sources do refer to Tuskegee as an important and prototypical eugenics case (see Palmer, Rogers&Meaney) and a way to test a racial or racistic hypothesis which came from eugenics and some of its key authors were doctors related to eugenics (see Lombardo), so it deserves to be mentioned in this article about eugenics in the United States. Some other users think that this is not eugenics or that it is tangetially related to eugenics but they have not provided any source stating that Tuyskegee was not eugenics or that it was tangentially related to eugenics or that it was racism but not eugenics. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Santos, if you recall I was the one who originally linked both the Lombardo and the Palmer reference so I have already read them. And I see that even though you -and the opposing side- have read them there is a key point you are missing. Scientists are not "related to" eugenics. They use it as a tool, just like physicists may use the calculus as a tool. For instance I'd challenge you to find a single historical discussion of Einstein's "relationship to" math. You do find discussion of his "use" of math. Math is a tool of the mind -AS IS EUGENIC THEORY- not a relationship, religion, nor philosophy.

Binksternet after the invention of penicillin the Tuskegee experiment became, much like the Guatemala syphilis experiment, loathsome and dehumanizing but not primarily "racist". "Racism" is one of those words like Santos' use of "related to", not really meaningful in any objective manner. Cherry picking? No, merely picking from what is accessible on the internet. Most of what you are calling mainstream is merely third or forth hand info spun for one or another political viewpoint. The real mainstream thought on the subject is found in med school and law school lecture notes. Trilobitealive (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Trilobitealive: if eugenics is a method or a model or an approach with a set of hypothesis, then at any rate Lombardo clearly and precisely states that Tuskegee was a way to test an eugenics hypothesis and it was an experiment designed or made by doctors who were academically formed under the eugenics approach. I am able to consider the expresion "related to" just as a simplistic way to summarize that. And we do not have to worry if now I also affirm that "Einstein is related to relativism" or that "Marx is related to materialism and also he is related to capitalism" as "we are related to language or to the entire universe", due I understand that those expresions are quite empty and lack accuracy, but I hope we have realized that in the particular topic here discussed, we have filled roughly but enough how exactly and precisely is Tuskegee related to eugenics for sources like Lombardo and Palmer. Actually if you read my last comment I contrast the precise way these sources relates Tuskegee with eugenics, in opposition to the other position in this thread which simply and emptily claims that "Tsukegee is not related to eugenics or that it is tangentially related to eugenics" whatever it means. Thanks for your concerns. By the way, I agree with your message to Binksternet and yes, I recall you were the one who brought Lombardo and Palmer as sources and I soleley verified and quoted them and added two other very reliable sources which shows that you are not cherry picking when relates Tuskegee with eugenics in a way that justifies to include Tuskegee expriment as a section of the article. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This is a hard article to edit since there is so much emotional impact from the information. I wonder if there is a way for you and the other usual editors to come to agreement so the basic information could be included. I've got to admit that I feel like I've intruded upon a domestic dispute between intimate partners who have been arguing for a long time. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it is more that you have run into the black sheep of the family. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It continues to be that the problem with the Tuskegee syphilis experiment being mentioned in this article about eugenics is that there was no eugenics component to the test procedure. I have not yet seen that attribute properly addressed by those who want the paragraph or section retained. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Then how can we understand that Lombardo affirms that "Tuskegee provided a vehicle for testing a eugenic hypothesis: that racial groups were differentially susceptible to infectious diseases".? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You have fastened your hopes to an outlier. Lombardo is almost alone among hundreds of voices discussing the racism of Tuskegee syphilis without saying it was about eugenics.

• For instance, Allan M. Brandt's very widely cited article, "Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study" (also here), includes nothing about eugenics, though it thoroughly describes the study.
• Professor James Howard Jones' book, Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, has nothing about eugenics.
• Experimenter Fred D. Gray wrote nothing about eugenics in his The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The Real Story and Beyond.
• Susan Reverby edited a collection of articles about the study, none of which describe eugenics: Tuskegee's truths: Rethinking the Tuskegee syphilis study.
• The ABC-CLIO book Africa and the Americas: Culture, Politics, and History briefly summarizes the study and makes no mention of eugenics.
• Ezekiel J. Emanuel's book The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics includes a detailed discussion of the study and does not describe any connection to eugenics.
• The Georgetown University text Source Book in Bioethics also includes a detailed discussion of the study with nothing about eugenics.
• Tywanna Whorley includes nothing about eugenics in her chapter "The Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the Politics of Memory" contained within the Greenwood book Archives and the Public Good: Accountability and Records in Modern Society.
• The textbook Introduction to Epidemiology by Merril and Timmreck discusses the Tuskegee Syphilis study without describing a eugenics connection.
• The Psychology Press book Multicultural Behavior and Global Business Environments makes no mention of eugenics in the study.
• The SAGE textbook Counseling and Educational Research: Evaluation and Application makes no connection between eugenics and the study.
• Magdalena Natalia Zalewski makes no mention of eugenics in Between Reality and Tales - From the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment to the Atlanta Child Murders; a GRIN Verlag book.
• Scholar James H. Jones writes nothing about eugenics in his chapter "The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment" found within the book Man, Medicine, and the State: The Human Body As an Object of Government Sponsored Medical Research in the 20th Century.
• The casebook Practical Ethics in Public Administration describes nothing about eugenics though it goes into detail about the ethics of the study.
• Susan Lynn Smith writes nothing about eugenics in her Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: Black Women's Health Activism in America, 1890-1950, though she devotes a whole chapter to the Tuskegee study.
• The textbook Psychology AS: The Complete Companion uses Tuskegee Syphilis as a case study but does not mention eugenics.
• The ABC-CLIO encyclopedia African Americans in Science: An Encyclopedia of People and Progress has no connection between eugenics and the study.
• Harriet A. Washington puts two chapters in her book Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present, one on Tuskegee Syphilis and another about eugenics, but she does not mention eugenics in relation to Tuskegee, nor does she bring up the syphilis study when discussing eugenics.
• The Georgetown University book The Story of Bioethics: From Seminal Works to Contemporary Explorations makes no connection between eugenics and Tuskegee.
• National Academies Press published Women and Health Research: Ethical and Legal Issues of Including Women in Clinical Studies containing a detailed discussion of Tuskegee with no mention of eugenics.
• In 1997, Jet magazine made the study into a cover article, describing both the actual study and a fictionalized made-for-TV movie; none of these mentioning eugenics.
• Even the popular books Medical Ethics For Dummies and An Underground Education do not make a connection between the study and eugenics.

Susan Reverby notes that Lombardo and Dorr are unusual in that they put forward a eugenics connection to the Tuskegee syphilis study: Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. She says Lombardo and Dorr emphasize the eugenics background of the experimenters, not any part of the study; that the eugenics background led to the experimenters selecting African Americans as subjects. Reverby makes it plain that she sees the Tuskegee Syphilis study as "an interaction between history and memory", a device sometimes used inaccurately to show a host of other things besides racism in medicine which is what it really is. Reverby never says that Lombardo is wrong but she uses him as an example of the mismatch between facts as documented and acquired memory. Binksternet (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those sources. I am aware of the literature which deals with Tuskegee as a phenomenal of medical racism. For me this does not denies Lombardo's argument as far as eugenics has a racial componente and was intertwined with medical racism as I have referenced some comments above. Reverby could be used to shade or refine Lombardo argument and should be represented in the article. But as you noticed you have not provided a source claiming or stating that Tuskegee was not designed and implemented under an eugenics approach. None of the sources, neither Reverby, denies Lombardo statement that Tuskegee was a way to test an eugenics hypothesis which was my question. Won't be more represetative of the sources to show that Tuskegee is considered by reliable sources as an experiment tom test eugenics premises while mentioning also that nevertheless it was also shaped with racist medical premises? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I am totally against having a section or even a paragraph about Tuskegee here in this article. The only place that the Lombardo and Dorr viewpoint should be mentioned is in the article about Tuskegee Syphilis, and then their very minor viewpoint should be countered strongly by Reverby and the great mass of writings containing nothing about eugenics. We are not here to promote a minor viewpoint over the established mainstream one. Binksternet (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We have to precise the criteria. I endorse Trilobitealive argument that we should not consider "mainstream" solely based on a search on internet. There has not been provided any source claiming that Lombardo&Dorr's work on Tuskegee is a fringe point of view. Lombardo is a recognized authority on the history of eugenics[14] which is the topic of this article and we should submit to those authoritative sources dealing with eugenics to decide the inclusion of a content and to decide the correct weight and form of that inclusion. If a recognized historian on eugenics in the United States, like Lombardo, gives an space in his academic work to mention and deal with Tuskegee experiment, we are not to criticize the weight he gives or the approach he assumes, but this wikipedia article should represent adequately and due weighted the space these authoritative sources on eugenics gives to Tuskegee experiment. As the sources you brought are sources on Tuskegee/exp but not on eugenics, then let me highlight this: we should not determine the weight given to eugenics in texts about Tuskegee/exp, but we should determine the weight given to Tuskegee/exp in texts about eugenics. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You're grabbing at straws. The weight of scholarship is against the Lombardo/Dorr notion that eugenics was an essential element of the study. Mainstream scholarship says raw racism was at the heart of it. This article cannot be used as a springboard for minor viewpoints, to shoot them above and in front of mainstream scholarship. Since mainstream scholarship says there was racism but not eugenics in the Tuskegee syphilis study, our article about eugenics should not touch upon Tuskegee. Instead, the article about Tuskegee should give a little bit of coverage to the minor viewpoint published by Lombardo/Dorr. Not undue coverage, just enough to say what the minor viewpoint is and how it is dismissed by Reverby and unsupported by widely cited mainstream works. Binksternet (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you consider that eugenics is clean of racism which is not a fact nor represents the sources about medical-racism and eugenics. At least, we may coincide in that it was a horrible experiment made by doctors in the name or under the motto of public health. About the content dispute, I will just insist that we should not affirm that Lombardo/Dorr/Palmer/Rogers&Meaney/Pernick/etc. is a minor viewpoint or fringe based up on a counting of a search in google. If you are interested we should ask for another way to resolve the content dispute. Our both points of view on the particular thing are good enough expressed. Thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

WTF? Eugenics without racism? That's absurd.

I agree that we are done explaining our positions. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

While the connections made in Lombardo may have have merit... Only time will tell if they are embraced by the scholarly community. Until then I'd say it fails per WP:WEIGHT. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Mary Moe

I have removed a section that was, in my opinion, irrelevant for this article.

“ In February 2012, Massachusetts family-court judge Christina Harris ordered the sterilization of an unnamed schizophrenic woman known as "Mary Moe." The decision was overturned on appeal in which the appeals court stated that Harris "appears to have simply produced the requirement out of thin air." ”

To me, it is just a single incident that says nothing about "Eugenics in the United States" in general. The section was added without discussion, but the last one to readd it, wanted discussion about removal. And I like the discussion about adding.

Should this section be added to the article or is it irrelevant? Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to the larger context. It's too much emphasis on one case when there are thousands. The one case has not been described in context with the eugenics movement or as having any significant impact to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Just passing by ... is there an article on experiments, rather than the broad over-view article? If so, less-notable experiemtns might have a place there. I'm tired, can't be bothered to look, not my area of interest ... it was just a passing thought! Pesky (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Black, 2003 dead link

Takes me to SFGate 404 page. Anyone have the article? Andrevan@ 09:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Some doubts about an edit

Our collegue Gnrshaw added some information] that I have some doubt over. He removed some parts and replaced it with information that, in my opinion, gives undue weight to these facts. Please take a look and give your opinion. The Banner _talk 14:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the changes, either. For instance, Gnrshawn brings a 1984 population statistic on retardation to bear on the question of how eugenics spread in the 1910s. The overall changes are not good. I'm reverting. Binksternet (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet and Banner, please be more specific. The changes made by Gnrshaw seem to be based on reliable and verifiable sources. Let discuss specific concerns. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's synthesis and original research. The burden of proving the worth of the proposed changes is on anyone who wishes to implement them. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Claudio, the edits of mr. Shaw just gave me an itchy feeling. That was plain the reason why I asked for input of others. Binkersnet seem to have the same itchy feeling, you don't seem to have that feeling. Status Qua, so more input needed. The Banner _talk 22:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

en-uk vs en-us

I love that an article about the United States has British English in it. Yet another example of the systemic problems of Wikipedia. --Buddy13 (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it shocking to realise that there is a world outside the USA! The Banner talk 11:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, let's just pretend that's what happened here. Whatever you need to make yourself feel superior to us ignorant Americans. --Buddy13 (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)