Talk:Compulsory sterilization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Response to MCRU's edits[edit]

The work done on the Puerto Rice section of this article has greatly enriched the amount of information and the comprehensiveness of the article. The user has done a great job in expanding and organizing the information with strong citations while maintaining a neutral point of view. There are some places where more information/summarization would be useful, such as in the Effects section, and there are some grammatical errors. Some sub-sections might be able to be broken up into sub-sub-sections as well for clarity. There is also one place in the Procedures section where it says there has been scholarly debate, but only one side of this debate is provided. A more clear analysis of the other side would be useful. Overall, great edits! (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Response to MCRU's edits[edit]

I want to praise MCRU for the work on Puerto Rico section of the article. The user did a great job with keeping a neutral point of view and adding substantial amount to the content. The user included both sides of the argument- the US' side and the Puerto Rico side-in the "Sterilization procedures and coercion" subsection. I think this is very important, because the content becomes more comprehensive by having both sides of the controversy. Moreover, the section included numerous statistics that provide better insight into the degree of the issue. Throughout this section, the user kept a very neutral point of view by citing every sentence. In other words, all opinions and claims were credited to a reliable source. However, I would suggest to add even more recent scholarly sources, as it seems that all of the sources are pretty outdated. I would also suggest to include a holistic perspective that sums up the list of statistics in the "effects" section. Lindaticket (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

==Student eatting Puerca Rica

section, need advice==

Hello, I am a current student at Rice University and I am planning to make some edits to this article. I hope to address the concerns raised by fotoguzzi by adding many more references and evidence and organizing the information more clearly. Specifically I would like to edit the “Puerto Rico” section. I would like to add three subsections to the “Puerto Rico” section in order to better organize the information. I propose adding the following subsections in the following order: U.S.-Puerto Rico relations; Sterilization procedures and coercion; and Effects. The “U.S.-Puerto Rico relations” subsection will address the power relationships between Puerto Rico and the United states over time and detail U.S. concern with eugenics and Puerto Rican over population. It will also detail the specific legislation that instituted the policy of sterilization in Puerto Rico. “Sterilization procedures and coercion” will identify the various means of coercion used by government and non-government agencies to perform sterilizations. It will also detail the types and numbers of procedures performed. Finally, the “Effects” subsection will review the various economic, social, and other impacts of the forced sterilizations. I hope to include a link to the human rights article in this section. Presently the section contains information that I will use in the new subsections, such as the information on favoritism shown to employees who had been sterilized. I have found numerous sources that explain the coercive nature of the sterilizations, which I hope to include. I will also aim to connect this article more readily to other Wikipedia articles on relevant content in part to show the intersectionality of this topic. I plan to add to the “see also” list at the bottom of the article links to the “Birth control” article, the “Eugenics in the United States article”, and the “La operacion” article. I plan to imbed in the subsections links to the “Eugenics in the United States” article, the “Christian views on contraception” article and the “Human overpopulation” article. Finally, I hope to add the entire article to the “Human rights” wiki project. This is my first contribution and I hope to get some advice on my organization of the information! What do you think about my current plans for the organization of subsections? Is there a better, or perhaps less linear, way that I could present the information that is available about forced sterilizations in Puerto Rico? Most of the information I have found focuses on the historical US lead campaign of forced sterilization -I have found little information on forced sterilization in present-day Puerto Rico –does anyone have any additional sources/information on sterilization in Puerto Rico today? MCRU (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Compulsory sterilization of Puerto Rican Women[edit]

I am a current student at Georgia Gwinnett College. I will be adding information about sterilization of Puerto Rican women. JeOs24 (talk) 01:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)JeOs24

I have added a paragraph to Uzebekistan on recent news of compulsory sterilization occurring in that country. I have also added a compensation section. JeOs24 (talk) 04:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)JeOs24

The Puerto Rican section is a mess. At one point the article says, "In addition to the forced sterilization," but by that point in the article there has been no mention of forced sterilization. If there is no evidence, this whole section should probably be removed. Fotoguzzi (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)



The page looks good so far but I would suggest adding other sections explaining how such acts affected society and what is been done currently to make sure that it does not occur again. A legality section should be added to show how the different countries managed their programs. Also, the chart in the beginning should contain more information or be removed. A section that could perhaps be added at the end may be “compensation,” if any countries are compensating the victims of such acts. Bgarduno (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)BgardunoBgarduno (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! These are great ideas I will be sucking. I began feeling stupid on what more I should add since there isn't a lot of information out there on the sterilization of women from Puerto Rico. JeOs24 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)JeOs24

Discursive discussion of Native American Sterilization[edit]

The discussion in Paragraph 1 of the American section is unneccesarily discursive. The figures quoted from straightdope (41% of white women sterilized) refers to voluntary sterilization of white women today, not the historical compulsory sterilization of institutionalised women. It is misleading and confusing in the context. I am deleting these sentences; if further discussion of the sterilization of Native American women in the 1970s must be included, it should be in the paragraph beginning with "After WWII..." --Dave Earl (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Australia's notable programme[edit]

I notice that Australia is listed along with the Scandanavian countries and Peru as having a "notable" sterilization programme. I don't think Australia would qualify as notable in the same way as the others in this sentence. No sterilization bills were passed in any Australian state. There is some evidence that (large?) numbers of women were informally sterilized while institutionalised, but very little academic work has been undertaken to demonstrate the true wxtent of the practices. Brogbeeg and Roll-Hansen, cited as the source for Australia's inclusion, doesn't mention Australia at all. While I don't suggest the complete removal of Australia, I don't think it should be included in the "notable" sentence. Dave_Earl —Preceding undated comment added 06:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

I am going to remove Australia from the list of notable countries. --Dave Earl (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)--Dave Earl (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

structure, the Netherlands vs switzerland, Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia[edit]

Actually, the Netherlands) doesn't actually practice Compulsory sterilization AT ALL, and never has. So it doesn't belong in this article, but out of respect I've moved it to the last section. I think it's wrong that they had their own section while the Czech Republic/Czechoslovakia and Switzerland actually DID practice Compulsory sterilization, but these were buried at the end. However, if we see the Spanish language version, Holland isn't even mentioned, which is why I suspect that the insertion of Holland is a case of vandalism since the information wasn't even true to begin with. A proposed temporary (two year) compulsory contraception is by no means equal to already enforced Compulsory Sterilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrashTestSmartie (talkcontribs) 10:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

End of practice[edit]

Last edit changed "...though sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s." to "...though sterilizations continued in a few states until the late 1970s. " by anonymous user from IP Is there a verifiable source for this change? --WCFrancis 23:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Everything I've seen says that statistically relevant numbers of sterilizations died out by the mid-1960s. The laws stayed on the books longer but were generally un-used. --Fastfission 16:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I've changed the added text a bit to emphasize that though a few sterilizations were carried out until the present, for the most part they had ended by the mid-1960s (especially with the passing of Medicare legislation, which had strong consent policies for sterilizations for any state that took the money, if I recall correctly). The big periods for sterilizations were the 1930s and then some of the southern states in the 1950s and early 1960s. After that it is just a smattering of individual cases and not a concerted policy (whether it was ever terribly "concerted" out of a few states is up for debate as well, but that's more of a scholarly question than an encyclopedic one). We shouldn't give the wrong impression that large amounts of sterilizations continued until the present. I looked up the BMJ article and it is just a little news blurb, not much different from the other link posted. --Fastfission 16:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
You say the Medicare had "strong consent policies for sterilization..." What do you mean exactly? That it was opposed to them, or the reverse? I think the current formulation of the text does convey your idea that "statistically relevant numbers of sterilizations died out by the mid-1960s". Do you know where further info can be found concerning the individual and specific cases which continued later? Currently, the article states that the last one in Oklahoma was in 1981. And in other states? What's the treshold to become "statistically relevant"? (since I seem to have misunderstood you in the past, I'd like to add that in no way are those criticisms on a great - if sad - article, but only genuine interest in the matter). Regards, Lapaz 16:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
If I recall, in order to receive Medicare funding in your state the state must agree to sterilization only after informed consent (among other things). I'd have to look up the exact wording, though. As for the other places, I know that there are some books and news articles which discuss sterilizations post-1960s and even until the early 1980s, but as for "statistically relevant" I mean "numbers which indicate any sort of systematic trend or program." It isn't a totally rigorous formulation, though one could come up with something like that if they were pressed into it. It is my way of saying, "after the 1960s you don't see anything that looks like the sterilization programs before the 1960s; you have probably at max a 100 sterilizations in between 1965 and 1980, in comparison with the tens of thousands of sterilizations you have before then." The best source I know of for sterilization statistics is Robitscher, Jonas, ed. Eugenic Sterilization. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1973, which has a chapter at the end all about sterilization statistics in the U.S. Unfortunately there has been little detailed statistical treatment of these numbers or concerted attempts to compile numbers other than this one. --Fastfission 17:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Population control ?[edit]

Should this page be only about eugenics ? Seems that compulsory sterilization is compulsory sterilization, whatever the original reason, so I see no reason to say that this page is only about the eugenic aspect ...

(Plus, eugenics and population control aren't *that* distant ideas, population control worries about overbreeding, eugenics worries about overbreeding of the unfit) Flammifer 8 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)

Have there been any compulsory sterilization programs for pure population-control reasons? I'm not aware of any. -Willmcw July 8, 2005 08:29 (UTC)
This page has a bit of stuff about india's population control program, which did lead in 1976 to some forced sterilizations (though it seems the extent is disputed, and it's more a matter of occasionnal abuses (some officials were paid depending on the number of people sterilized in their area) than deliberate policy. For China, there's some talk here about coerced abortions and sterilizations still going on today, which I can believe.
But in all cases it looks like more a matter of sterilizing people after they had children rather than to make sure they don't have children. Flammifer 8 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)

I think population control measures and eugenics are pretty different fish in many ways and shouldn't be mixed together indiscriminately -- I think it would be confusing. One possible solution is to rename this page Eugenic sterilization, and then make Compulsory sterilization a disambig that points to this page and the population control page. --Fastfission 8 July 2005 11:03 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, Fastfission, I am of the opinion that this distinction, although it might be done, is very difficult and unstable. When does "population control" end and "eugenicism" starts? IMO, if sterilization is compulsory, than we're talking about eugenicism, and "population control" can take the guise of eugenicism (the other way around: eugenicism is a form of population control, although we seem both to morally disagree with it). On all these matters in which you seem to be interested, I'm sure you are familiar with Michel Foucault's works on biopolitics, which doubtlessly shed new light on these questions. Lapaz 16:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose that a sentence about the ideology behind compulsory sterilization is added: "Compulsory sterilization programs in the first half of the 20th century were inspired totally by Darwin's theory of evolution and the idea of survival of the fittest." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Funny sentence[edit]

The first significant country to undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics was the United States of America.

And an insignificant country is...?--Pecholobo 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, the "significant" should be in front of "compulsory sterilization programs". That is, they were the first country to do so in large numbers. --Fastfission 19:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Catholic Church[edit]

I added "The Catholic Church has been a notable opponent of eugenics and sterilization programs." This is probably closely related to Chesteron's view, as he was a strong supporter of Catholic values. Are there other groups that should be added to this? How consistent has the church been? I do know that they were vocal opponents of sterilization in Alberta, Canada, in the twentieth century.--Allen

Shard and the beam, for sure! The papal church has been the largest consumer of castrated boys in history, for over a millenia they mass produced pre-puberty eunuchs to sing in choirs instead of girls. The practice only ended in 1911 officially and probably lasted some more decades unofficially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The Church as an organization has to my knowledge been pretty consistently against sterilization of any form, especially compulsory sterilization. There were a few Catholic priests who wrote misc. articles saying that it could be justified under a notion of the "greatest good" for mankind and whatnot, but they were pretty few and far between. I have no idea if the church ever responded to such articles or advocacy directly. I can't think of any other group off of the top of my head which was so across-the-board opposed to eugenics and/or sterilization; almost every political stripe was represented in favoring these things at the time. --Fastfission 02:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I guess you're talking here about the US. Concerning Europe, again I'll refer you to Foucault's The Will to knowledge: in this book which doesn't hesisate in "psychoanalysis-bashing", Foucault does credit Freud and psychoanalysis of having been one of the harshest opponents to such programs (ask-me if you want exact page reference). Lapaz 16:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Modified a sentence in the British Columbia section to avoid overusing generalizations. --Dmfallak 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


I always found it kinda stupid when the Germans included epileptics in the list. Just goes to show what they knew - unless the epilepsy was part of another, larger syndrome, the stereotypical epilepsy thought of by most people is idiopathic. I'm epileptic, and in my family it's canival in me, and I certainly won't give it to my children. Lady BlahDeBlah 16:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if you would pass it to your children, I doubt that would be a reason for you not to have any children. It is sure stupid for the Germans to include epileptics, but again, the problem is not so much who was sterilized than that the sterilization was compulsory. This makes it (I know Wikipedia is not a place for moral judgments, but well...) totally morally unacceptable, whatever the case might be, and is, IMO, a crime committed to the human specie as such, as eugenicism reduces human diversity (a diversity which insures us the most chances of survival, and we should'nt forget that many of our best artists and thinkers would have qualified, for a reason or another, for such sterilization program...) Lapaz 16:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


If no one objects, I'm going to port most of the Canada info into its own article (Compulsory sterilization in Canada)? It overwhelms the article a bit as it is, and I think ideally all of the country programs should have their own articles. --Fastfission 20:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


I recently watched a documentary describing the coerced sterilization of women in Tibet - would anyone who knows more about it want to include that?


Isn't China involved in/accused of forced sterilization practices in connection with its one-child policy or something? Should this article address that? --BCSWowbagger 07:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such pratices, and there is no reference in the Wikipedia article that I could see, so don't see that it is relevant here. The only penalty I am aware of to the OCPF policy is a fine/fee and lack of certain types of government financial support for the children over the allowed limit. If you have reputable sources suggesting there is forced sterilization used in some cases, it would seem most appropriate to get it in that article first and then it would make sense to link to/include here as well. -- (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a graph of Chinese GDP per capita over time? It has no obvious connection to forced sterilisation, but implies an undemonstrated relationship between population control and economic growth. Propose removal? (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Aside from all that, does anyone have any idea why this article has two subsections named China (3.4 and 3.10 as of this writing)? Hccrle (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

US: until when???[edit]

I read: "a significant number of sterilizations continued in a few states until the early 1960s. The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.[5] The U.S. commonwealth Puerto Rico had a sterilization program as well. Some states continued to have sterilization laws on the books for much longer after that, though they were rarely if ever used." Does someone knows:

  • which states continued to have sterilization laws?
  • "rarely if ever used": how many times exactly?
  • until when?
  • Puerto Rico: who was affected? Were black or Amerindians more specifically targeted? A question which could also be adressed to the continental US: the article currently states that sterilization was applied to "mentally disabled" people & so-called "criminals" (since robbing chickens seemed to be a felony at the time in Oklahoma). It quickly mentions Native Americans without giving any numbers. Were Afro-Americans also specifically targeted? If you refer to Fujimori's sterilization program in Peru in the 1990s, which specifically targeted Amerindians, and to other similar programs, it is highly probable that these categories were also targeted. It would therefore be nice to have more information on this most important subject.

As the section on the US is concluded, my understanding is that there are still laws today concerning compulsory sterilization (since they were never overturned by the Supreme Court nor repealed in every single state, correct-me if I'm wrong) and that the last forcible sterilization in Oklahoma occured in 1981. The final sentence, "some states... rarely if ever used" seems to imply (in a rather timid way) that their has been other sterilizations after 1981. When was the last one? Last year? More information has to be provided on this, numbers, dates, states... Lapaz 16:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the kind of precisions that it would be great to have for the US part: "Not surprisingly, a statistical study done on sterilization victims in Alberta has yielded data supporting the theory that its sterilization program was biased as well. Minors, because of their legal dependency on adults, were almost always assigned as "mental defectives", thus bypassing the parental consent requirement. Albertan aboriginals and métis, regardless of age, were also targeted. Aboriginal people represented only 2.5% of the general population in Alberta, but made up 6% of the institutionalized population. Towards the end of Alberta's sterilization program, aboriginals and métis made up 25% of the sterilizations performed." Lapaz 16:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't write back further—I meant to but forgot. US sterilizations dropped to very low levels by 1964, though the laws stayed on the books for awhile. The only state still sterilizing in signficant numbers (i.e. more than 100 annually) by 1964 was North Carolina. I am not sure if there is good data on sterilizations post 1960s; there is certainly none in the published literature that I know of (most people do not seem to pay very much attention to the actual numbers, in my own work it has been murder to try and compile accurate statistics of this stuff). I have pretty reliable statistics for sterilized populations in California (from a dissertation a sociologist wrote in the 1980s) which indicate that there was no specifically racial targeting though there was a bias towards sterilizing women over men in the 1930s (though I can't remember if that took into account the fact that there were many more women in the hospitals than men). As for the repeal issue—I imagine some must still be on the books though I don't know if anyone has ever been systematic about it. There are many hurdles to attempting to use such laws today both legal and practical (i.e. many federal programs which fund psychiatric facilities explicitly have anti-sterilization provisions in them and have since the 1970s). There has been at least one case of parents trying to get their Down syndrome child sterilized but being denied because of the associations with these old programs (I think this is discussed in Lee Silver's Remaking Eden). Anyway—from my own experience, there aren't very good numbers on the sterilization progams published; even getting numbers on the biggest program (California) requires consulting about four different sources, some of which are primary sources (the scholarship spends more time on the intellectual aspects of the program rather than the practical ones, IMO). --Fastfission 16:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

incorrect info[edit]

the article writes: "....citing that few are likely still living (and would of course have no affected offspring) and ....."

What's "of course" about this? They could have had children before being sterilized (for criminal offences for example). And for that matter they could pay relatives.

My question is who said this, the government involved, or is the "of course" a wikipedia addition?

Ariel. 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Compulsory sterilization is still done in the US today. There aren't any laws actually banning it outright.

Actually there are a lot of restrictions put on the sorts of things one needs to do to even get sterilized, much less have someone else sterilized. No laws ban it specifically but there are a boatload of consequences (you lose all Medicaid funding, for example, if your hospital or doctor does anything that looks like it). And if you've ever seen the legal papers you've to sign before getting something done voluntarily, you'd know that in today's judicial culture that any doctor who did such a thing under his own initiative would be in some real hot water... -- (talk) 01:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The number of sterilisations in Sweden given in the introduction for the page seems to be in conflict with the figure in the Sweden section; 60,000 vs 30,000. Anyone know the actual value?

Latin american countries[edit]

Other countries that had notably active sterilization programs include Australia, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Iceland, and some countries in Latin America (including Panama)

Does somebody know exactly which latin american countries have (or had) sterilization programs? I'm mexican and many years ago, I remember hearing on TV about some demands made by women against certain mexican medical institutions claiming that they were sterilized without their consent. But I haven't heard anything about this again. Was it really true or was it just a rumor? does anybody know something about this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I know it occurred in Puerto Rico. There is a film called "La Cirugia," which includes interviews of women who had the procedure performed and what tactics were used by American doctors to convince women to agree to the procedure. Avx24 (talk) 13:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)avx24

Canada section "source needed" since July 2006[edit]

The entire section on Canada is unsourced, and has been for at least 18 months. Unless there is objection with valid reason, I will remove the entire section, in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Blackworm (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

United States section is unsourced[edit]

If you peel away the citations from questionable sources, the entire U.S. section is, essentially, unsourced. A book written by Angela Davis is—to put it mildly—not even a remotely reliable source, in my opinion. One of the sources is a student account in a university domain (which gives it an unfounded appearance of reliability). Several of the references are broken links. This [1] is not a reliable source. The site appears reliable, through its claimed connection to the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. But in light of all these other problematic sources, I have a hard time assuming reliability for the cited offline references, of which there are a couple more. Strikehold (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, an it has nothing about Tessa Savicki sterilized against her will, in 2009.Agre22 (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22 Obviously the article has been updated more recently, though is still a bit messy. Alexandra Stern is a reputable historian.Dave Earl (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Anything about sterilization as criminal punishment?[edit]

I found this page when I was looking for information on sterilization as punishment for crimes. I wanted to throw out a suggestion - what if the information for each country was divided by purpose? Under each country, you could have sections regarding sterilization for eugenics purposes, sterilization for genocidal purposes (or these two could be merged), and sterilization as punishment for crimes such as rape or child abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You end up with a lot of overlap that doesn't organize well if you divide countries by purpose (even within countries there are differences between regional laws). In practice the purposes overlapped—non-castrating sterilization as punishment was often done for eugenic purposes as well (criminality as the genetic issue). -- (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

British Columbia[edit]

I have removed the following paragraph which had been challenged (see above discussion):

Canadian sterilization laws were only enacted in Alberta and British Columbia, which could be attributed[who?] to their Protestant denominations. Pope Pius XI of the Roman Catholic Church denounced surgical intervention in reproductive matters, making the more Catholic regions (such as Ontario, Quebec, or the Maritime provinces) an inhospitable place to lobby for eugenic sterilization of the disabled. The introduction of progressive, left-leaning governments in Alberta[citation needed] and B.C. also had a hand in strengthening eugenic legislation. Left-leaning parties were eager to embrace new ideas, especially those that held a promise of economic turnaround.

The article is already clear that only two Canadian provinces had this practice. The suggestion that Ontario and the Maritimes were influenced by Catholicism is doubtful and the description of BC and Alberta governments as left-leaning is inaccurate. In any case these theories are unattributed.

The Four Deuces (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph / Structure[edit]


This is not a topic I'm knowledgeable on but the structure appears to need revising. The statements appended to the introductory paragraph on transgender / gender identity aspects seem inappropriate for the introduction; it suggests the apparent focus is on transgender victimisation. This is confusing considering the subsequent statement and quotation regarding eugenic racial programmes. Perhaps we could construct a post-introductory section with an overview on the impact of this topic of compulsory sterilisation as affecting different victimised groups; e.g., race, religion, gender, etc. Reorganising this entry a bit to include such a section before launching into the geographical/political subsections would be a more lucid presentation instead of the presumably inadvertent suggestion this article is focused on victimisation of only one particular group. Addition of a 'victimised group' overview could also be coordinated with the suggestions given by Bgarduno on adding legal, societal, and compensation sections as well.


Superduf (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Israel has never forcefully injected anyone with anything.[edit]

The accusation in this article attaching two sources. The second source (FORBES) is hyperbolizing and based on the first source (Haaretz). The first source is hyperbolizing and based on the report from ISHALEISHA : (link is in hebrew). Other than the fact that the organization itself is led by a biased agenda and the report has immense methodological flaws- even in the hyperbolized article there were no claims for "forced sterillization". The worst (untrue) accusation was that the condition upon which they could immigrate to Israel was by taking the drug.

When you take a hyperbole over a hyperbole and you even need to distort this in the wikipedia entry itself- that shows your unbiasedness and fairness toward your subject.

Btw I'm not a wikipedian- isn't there some rule that says that sources need to be separate? If I'm not mistaken scholasticism was replaced by empiricism quite a while ago and for a good reason.

Like I said, I'm not a wikipedian so I'm not sure about operation protocols and I don't know where to search for them. Usually I just make corrections in the talk page and leave it be, if some editor see fit he will correct the entry, but this isn't some mistake, this is a harmful slander, so I'm going to delete it. If I'm acting inappropriately- I apologise, it's not from malice.

PS. I came to this article for information about a very important subject. Now I really doubt the authenticity of the different claims here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

I don't think the information should be removed from the article just because it is "defamatory" to some nation or not, just because it is "untrue" by our standards. In a neutral environment, all valid (referenced, cited) points of view should be represented. This can be done in the form of "Party A claims x with study y, but Party B has provided studies q and p claiming h." This way, the article doesn't 'think' one or the other is true. But both are represented to the reader equally. This is the basis of how "Neutral Point of View" (WP:NPOV) is implemented in Wikipedia. (Most pages starting with "WP:" or "Wikipedia:" contain policy (what you termed "operation protocols") or commentary on it; or have some sort of role in the processes of Wikipedia like page deletion or creation requests.)
All that said, if you think the references are inadequate as noted at the start of your message, that is another issue entirely. But whether it is "slanderous" doesn't come into play on Wikipedia (if it is properly sourced). For living persons, the need for proper references is far more strict, and info can be removed sooner without discussion (see WP:ALIVE for info on that). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. First of all, yea "policy" that's the word I was looking for, English is obviously not my native XD.

Second, thank you for pointing me to the right direction for proper editing, but what I've meant is that I have heard about some steps you need to go through *before* you can begin editing. Like having a referendum between registered editors or simething like that. Like I said I'm not familiar with it.

Thirdly, The reason I have used the term "Slander" and deleted the section is due to three factors:

A) One of the articles brought, is citing and based on the other article. This is like me claiming that the sun revolves around the earth because of the wealth of ecclesial books which said so- forgetting to mention that they all are copying one single source (Aristotle). In my opinion, different sources should be independent of one another if you want to have minimal credibility.

B) Even the one original source brought (Haaretz) is not claiming what is written here. It's claim is that before some women immigrated to Israel the condition of getting entry permit was to take the drug. Pretty far fetched from "FORCED STERILIZATION" which imply completely different meaning. The "Forced" part is not present. The original articles headline uses the word "coaxed".

Also, the drug we are talking about, as far as I know is a contraceptive NOT a sterillizator (is that a word? How should have I said it?). Many women use it. To the original writers credit- he did mention that it doesn't has a permament effect. So the "Sterilization" part of the article is also not matching very well.

In addition to that, as far as I understand, the article doesn't speak of injecting *all* of the ethiopian immigrants, like the impression you might get from the wikipedia passage, but rather a specific group which immigrated in 2008 (as oppose to those who have immigrated in other years).

C) All those little distortions and 'mistakes' make me feel like they were done on purpose, hence the "slander" which implies intent.

As for my own claims about the fallaciousness of the original sources- true, I do not have at the moment links in English, just the originals themselves and the common sense to read, understand what they are saying and see the flaws in them. That is the reason I did not use my assertions as the rationale for editing the wiki. Only as an assistive explanation of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

South Africa[edit]

"In their communities, if you cannot give birth then you are no longer seen as worthy." The wording of the sentence makes it seem like a generalisation and the lack of a citation or context adds to the problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttolaz (talkcontribs) 22:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


Regarding this edit. I removed "progressive" as a modifier of "eugenics" in the lead paragraph. This is not discussed in the body of the article and is a controversial enough claim that I think it needs a source. Not only does it need a source, but it has to be essential enough to discuss in the article before we consider adding it to the lead, I believe.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

3 seconds on google yields tons of articles, even after you filter out the obviously biased ones("A Conservative History of the American Left" jumps out as one to need salt) it looks like progressivism and eugenics were very much linked, at least in prewar america. the progressive era was when it gained most of the support, it was the progressives who encouraged it, it was all about progressive eugenics" like the wiki said. the "Protestant" connection currently in the article seems more dubious and less discussed than the progressiveness one. How is it really that controversial? I remember it from highschool textbooks, my history professor at a very liberal college assigned me a paper on it. Nobody seemed to be disputing it that I've ever heard?


So, Israel admitted to forced sterilization. Can someone create a sub article about this or should i do it myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4C28:4000:721:185:26:182:32 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

to be fair to ghandi[edit]

its like sterilizing cats. you pretty much have to get every single tom to have much effect on the population at all. and thats the kind of mindset a government managing the poor like that would approach it from. vasactimies may be easier but tubes tied is far far more effective. thats the entire reason biology/instinct usually treats the males as the more disposable gender in the first place. because they are. especially with mammals the females limit birth rate while you can squeak by with only a handful of men.

the article criticizes it from a very narrow version of "common sense"(castration is easier) when from the big picture/goal level view population control wise that(sterilizing the females) was exactly the way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Israel links[edit] didn't sort them myself, but they may be useful if somebody has the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not national directories[edit]

Limiting this article to only being a national directory on compulsory sterilization limits the quality of this article and violates Wikipedia requirements. See Wikipedia isn't a directory. This article needs a more in depth discussion on the affected populations and why these populations are affected by compulsory sterilization. I posted the following new material in the "Affected population" heading and it was removed to each country, and the editor who removed it said intellectual disabilities are already covered. Let's be honest, one citation in the "Affected populations" heading is not covering it. We must include more on what populations are being sterilized and why they are being sterilized! I will move these edits back to "Affected populations" after giving time for a response. Publiceditz (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Dividing all cases and opinions by country, like a directory, not only does violates Wikipedia rules of article construction; it is also an impossibility given this is a bioethics subject that touches both national laws and medical ethics. For example the Journal of Medical Ethics is an international journal, and what about opinions of individuals who are expatriates of another country, or someone from one country but gave their opinion at a convention or journal from another? My point is that dividing a bioethics topic primarily by country misses many medical perspectives and phenomeno that are transnational. Publiceditz (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The indigent[edit]

The inability to pay for the cost of raising children has been a reason courts have ordered coercive or compulsory sterilization. In June 2014, a Virginia judge ruled that a man on probation for child endangerment must be able to pay for his seven children before having more children; the man agreed to get a vasectomy as part of his plea deal.[1] In 2013, an Ohio judge ordered a man owing nearly $100,000 in unpaid child support to "make all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman" as a condition of his probation. [2] Additionally, the Chinese one-child policy requires a "social compensation fee" for those who have more than the legal number of children. According to Forbes editor Heng Shao, critics claims this fee is a toll on the poor but not the rich. [3]

Mental retardation[edit]

The Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologist (ACOG) believes that mental disability is not a reason to deny sterilization. The opinion of ACOG is that "the physician must consult with the patient’s family, agents, and other caregivers" if sterilization is desired for a mentally limited patient. [4] In 2003, Douglas Diekema wrote in Volume 9 of the journal Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews that "involuntary sterilization ought not be performed on mentally retarded persons who retain the capacity for reproductive decision-making, the ability to raise a child, or the capacity to provide valid consent to marriage." [5] The Journal of Medical Ethics claimed, in a 1999 article, that doctors are regularly confronted with request to sterilize mentally limited people who cannot give consent for themselves. The article recommend that sterilization should only occur when there is a "situation of necessity" and the "benefits of sterilization outweigh the drawbacks." [6] The American Journal of Bioethics published an article, in 2010, that concluded the interventions used in the Ashley treatment may benefit future patients. [7] These interventions, at the request of the parents and guidance from the physicians, included a hysterectomy and surgical removal of the breast buds of the mentally and physically disabled child. [8]

A few issues: firstly, it is notable that your journal articles that are purported to have international relevance, only reference the United States (albeit with a non-case study reference to China). This article is heavily weighted already to materials about the United States, exacerbated further by the current student project. This is contrary to WP:NPOV, see also [2]. Adding more US material raises issues of WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE. Presumptions of international relevance should be WP:VERIFY.
Selecting two of the affected populations for lengthy discussion, and not others, reflects many of the same concerns, but also WP:BALASPS. It's disproportionate. The language and content of your new sections similarly does not express a WP:NPOV. Trankuility (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Journal of Medical Ethics is a transnational journal. Where should that be placed? Yes, we need to list more affected populations and examples from various countries in order to stay neutral, so the answer is to add more information not less. Currently, we only have one source in the "Affected populations" section, and no reasonable wikipedia editor would say that is enough to cover all the affected populations and stay balanced. The obvious answer to your concerns of neutrality is to add more information to stay balanced. One reference is not enough. If you want to only add general opinions, rather than country-specific opinions, from journals and organizations, I can agree to that. Publiceditz (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ VA Man Agrees to Get Vasectomy as Part of Plea Deal, Fox News Insider, June 24, 2014.
  2. ^ 'Stop Having Kids!': Judge Orders Man Owing $100k in Child Support Payment to Stop Procreating, Fox News Insider, February 5, 2013.
  3. ^ Enforecement of One-Child Policy Targets 'The Rich and Famous' in Zhangzhou, China, Forbes, September 20, 2013.
  4. ^ Sterilization of Women Including Those With Disabilities, ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 371. July 2007.
  5. ^ Involuntary sterilization of persons with mental retardation: An ethical analysis, Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, Volume 9, Issue 1, pages 21-26, 2003.
  6. ^ Sterilization of incompetent mentally handicapped persons: a model for decision making, Journal of Medical Ethics, 1999;25:237-241.
  7. ^ Ashley Revisited: A Response to the Critics, American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2010.
  8. ^ The Ashley Treatment, March 2007.
It is notable that this comment completely fails to reference the position of the disability rights movement and disability scholars on forcible sterilization of disabled people (that is is a hate crime), while referencing journals such as JME which have proven hostile to the idea that disabled people should have a voice on the matter (see JME editorials related to reactions to the paper on 'Retroactive Abortion of Disabled Infants' several years ago). It also retains the obsolete 'mental retardation' usage, which is thoroughly loathed by disabled people, has been replaced worldwide by terms such as 'Intellectual Disability' and which remains acceptable only within a subset of US medical practitioners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Alan Turing never happened?[edit]

I may be in a haze, but it seems the propagandists have kept the very modern, very western chemical castration of Alan Turing out of this discussion. Is Wikipedia becoming a neocon propaganda rag?


I see very well how this could be considered discrimination, and how it would be used to discriminate, but it has other uses. Compulsory sterilization of a rapist seems like a good idea to me no matter who they are or where they come from. I think this should be moved out of the discrimination portal. There is nothing INHERENTLY racist of discriminatory about compulsory sterilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The Rights Portal is more accurate because it is a broader category that includes discrimination, prisoner rights, and the rights of developmentally disabled. Using the Discrimination portal is too narrow because cases of involuntary sterilization done for medical reasons, failing to pay child support, or the chemical castration of pedophiles may or may not be due to discrimination. The Rights Portal is a broader subject that includes all of these cases Waters.Justin (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of final sentence of opening paragraph[edit]

From the opening paragraph:

...programs intended to prevent the reproduction and multiplication of members of the population considered to be carriers of defective, more often than not different and not inferior in a natural combination racial genetic traits.

I'd like to re-write this to make it more comprehensible, but I'm not sure I've understood what it was intended to say. Reading the reference, I think it's supposed to mean something like the following:

..programs intended to prevent the procreation of people who were deemed to have inferior genetic traits merely by virtue of having a particular racial combination.

If no one objects, I will change it to that wording.

--Tedd (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Article lede currently has pro-criminal POV weaseled into it![edit]

> government policies in violation of human rights conventions which attempt to force people to undergo surgical or other sterilization.

That is not true. Serious violent criminals are "people" too and it is the God-given right of governments to neuter murderers, mutilitators, rapists, arsonists and other serious violent criminals, in order to extinguish the crime-bearing genes from their population over the course of several generations.

Thus the lede must be modified to say: "government policies in violation of human rights conventions which attempt to force NON-CRIMINAL people to undergo surgical or other sterilization." (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Error/Unclear Wording in Puerto Rico effects section[edit]

"Of the sample of women sterilized, 46.6% had been married 15 to 19 years, 43.9% had been married for 10 to 14 years, and 42.7% had been married for 20 to 24 years" is the second sentence of the third paragraph. I do not have access to the study to verify, but this probably should read something like, "46.6% of sampled women who had been married 15 to 19 years, 43.9% of those who had been married for 10 to 14 years, and 42.7% of those who had been married for 20 to 24 years were sterilized."

Is there someone who can find the study and verify that the sentence is not merely in error? Evangeliman (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Compulsory sterilization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: How do we write on such a broad subject?[edit]

  • Is this a proper Wikipedia article or should it be a List of compulsory sterilization topics?
  • Is this article properly titled?
  • Should this article attempt to include every major incident and law regarding compulsory sterilization around the world?
  • Should a reference only be included if it specifically uses the phrase "compulsory sterilization," "involuntary sterilization," or "coercive sterilization," if not then how do we define "compulsory sterilization" without including original research?
  • How do we distinguish this article from the history of eugenics?
  • What else do you recommend to improve this article?

Waters.Justin (talk) 17:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Waters.Justin, this is a very broad RfC, almost to the point of uselessness; an RfC is usually used to determine community consensus on a contentious dispute. The kind of feedback you are requesting is important, but I don't believe it requires an RfC. Be that as it may: 1) the topic seems quite legitimate to me, although it clearly can only be a brief summary, with sub-articles to cover specific countries, laws, and movements. 2) Yes, if that is possible given size constraints. If it is not possible, the article should summarize major "themes" as it were, and leave the details to subsidiary articles. 3) There is always going to be a fine line between reasonable extrapolation from the sources and original research. The former is okay, the latter is not. This is essentially a matter of judgement; would a reasonable editor interpret a source to be talking about compulsory sterilization? If so, it should be included. 4) History of Eugenics seems like quite a distinct topic, with overlap. There's plenty of history to eugenics that does not involve sterilization; there is plenty of sterilization that does not involve eugenics. 5) The biggest problem presently seems to be imbalance; the US section (puerto rico, specifically) has far too much detail, many others have too little. It might make sense to organize this article by rationale for sterilization, than geography. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Summoned by bot. As mentioned above, I don't think an RfC is the appropriate avenue to resolving these issues. Yes, what you listed in the RfC statement warrants discussion but I think it would be best proposed as a simple talk page post listing all the items you've addressed. This would allow users to respond to each item and give their feedback. Meatsgains (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The note on spelling in the first sentence of this article[edit]

The spelling with S or Z may be important to many editors, but it is not an important part of the subject. Can we please remove that text, and place a note on whatever the current consensus is on the edit-page instead, similar to how it´s done here: [3]? "By consensus, this article follows the x-spelling" or something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree the text should be removed. The text in question is the following: "(or compulsory sterilisation respectively forced sterilisation – see spelling differences)." Waters.Justin (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Based on this overwhelming consensus I´ll boldly remove the text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


I think given the extremely controversial and shameful nature of this information it would be best if this page met he highest possible standers of certainty and proper reliable unbiased sourcing.

It falls far short of that.

Example: "In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States in all likelihood without due multi-ethnic and ethnic minority perspective."

How am I supposed to be able to know if this is true or not when neither source is done correctly, One doesn't eve attempt to link to anything and the other is not linked and doesn't bother to say where in the book you'd find the information.

I've seen pages here on practically trivial topics where editors pounce on the slightest misstep and argue every point to exhaustion, yet here statements of shameful acts are largely unsourced or questionable on POV or, over and over again, not sourced in the way Wikipedia sources are supposed entered and linked. Editors here don't get to add content just because they know it's true. Even if it is accurate the reader is supposed to know how the editor knows it's accurate. The reader is supposed to be able to decide for themselves based on evidence. And with a page on this topic that should be especially true. Jackhammer111 (talk) 23:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


How come the Israel section is removed / not added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)