18:2718:27, 10 February 2020diffhist−1,214
m
New eugenics
Undid revision 938743824 by
PiotruśW (
talk). This is incorrect. Go to the talk page and make your case their. You are literally deleting experts in bioethics and replacing them with confusing language that is ideologically biased.Tag: Undo
1 February 2020
18:1118:11, 1 February 2020diffhist−1,054
m
New eugenics
→History: deleted the Edwin Black reference for two very important reasons: 1) Black is a journalist, not a historian or a bioethicists, 2) Black is describing the worst excesses of older and more coercive eugenics programs, not liberal eugenics. It biases the page to add Black's critique as if it is authoritative (it's not) or relevant to new eugenics (it's not)
17:5017:50, 1 February 2020diffhist−445
m
New eugenics
See talk page. Including definitions by a figure who had nothing to do with "liberal" eugenics is not accurate. The term comes from Agar, not Galton, and it is both false and slanderous to attribute to Agar the view that we should stop those deemed "lesser" or "inferior" from reproducing. He never says this, nor do any of the main advocates of liberal eugenics. See talk page on DEFINITIONSTag: Undo
15:0015:00, 13 January 2020diffhist+1,272
m
Talk:Eugenics
→Split?: Yes, the articles should be split (they already are), and no, even classical eugenics is not necessarily racist. Classical eugenicists disagreed with one another.
23:4823:48, 10 January 2020diffhist+2,335
m
Eugenics
Undid revision 935163737 by
Grayfell (
talk) The previous discussion was entirely one-sided, offering objections but no replies to worries about issues like genetic diversity. I cited top-ranked bioethicists from places like Harvard, Duke, and Arizona who write in mainstream journals like Bioethics and The Journal of Political Philosophy who debate these subjects. Greyfell undid them. This is vandalism on his part.Tag: Undo
23:4523:45, 10 January 2020diffhist−211
m
Eugenics
Undid revision 935163646 by
Grayfell (
talk) Greyfell is trying to control the narrative in one biased direction. I've added much more mainstream authors who wrote influential books. Greyfell is deleting them because he disagrees with their perspective. But surely we should include all mainstream perspectives on this subject, not just left wing activists.Tag: Undo
18:4818:48, 27 November 2019diffhist−57
m
Eugenics
Slightly altered the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph to contrast early 20th century eugenics, which is often tied to racism, with later versions, which are not. Also cited the most influential book ever written on the subject: In the Name of Eugenics, by a Harvard historian
18:2718:27, 10 February 2020diffhist−1,214
m
New eugenics
Undid revision 938743824 by
PiotruśW (
talk). This is incorrect. Go to the talk page and make your case their. You are literally deleting experts in bioethics and replacing them with confusing language that is ideologically biased.Tag: Undo
1 February 2020
18:1118:11, 1 February 2020diffhist−1,054
m
New eugenics
→History: deleted the Edwin Black reference for two very important reasons: 1) Black is a journalist, not a historian or a bioethicists, 2) Black is describing the worst excesses of older and more coercive eugenics programs, not liberal eugenics. It biases the page to add Black's critique as if it is authoritative (it's not) or relevant to new eugenics (it's not)
17:5017:50, 1 February 2020diffhist−445
m
New eugenics
See talk page. Including definitions by a figure who had nothing to do with "liberal" eugenics is not accurate. The term comes from Agar, not Galton, and it is both false and slanderous to attribute to Agar the view that we should stop those deemed "lesser" or "inferior" from reproducing. He never says this, nor do any of the main advocates of liberal eugenics. See talk page on DEFINITIONSTag: Undo
15:0015:00, 13 January 2020diffhist+1,272
m
Talk:Eugenics
→Split?: Yes, the articles should be split (they already are), and no, even classical eugenics is not necessarily racist. Classical eugenicists disagreed with one another.
23:4823:48, 10 January 2020diffhist+2,335
m
Eugenics
Undid revision 935163737 by
Grayfell (
talk) The previous discussion was entirely one-sided, offering objections but no replies to worries about issues like genetic diversity. I cited top-ranked bioethicists from places like Harvard, Duke, and Arizona who write in mainstream journals like Bioethics and The Journal of Political Philosophy who debate these subjects. Greyfell undid them. This is vandalism on his part.Tag: Undo
23:4523:45, 10 January 2020diffhist−211
m
Eugenics
Undid revision 935163646 by
Grayfell (
talk) Greyfell is trying to control the narrative in one biased direction. I've added much more mainstream authors who wrote influential books. Greyfell is deleting them because he disagrees with their perspective. But surely we should include all mainstream perspectives on this subject, not just left wing activists.Tag: Undo
18:4818:48, 27 November 2019diffhist−57
m
Eugenics
Slightly altered the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph to contrast early 20th century eugenics, which is often tied to racism, with later versions, which are not. Also cited the most influential book ever written on the subject: In the Name of Eugenics, by a Harvard historian