This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Why was this ( http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/07/against-good-breeding/) deleted? We need some pro-eugenics material. How does it violate WP:EL? 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sombe19 ( talk • contribs)
And I find it hard to see how you think this article is neutral when the references section only includes anti-eugenics sources. Sombe19 ( talk) 20:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, so before we argue over whether pro-eugenics stuff should be in the article, we need to see if there's any reliable sources worth using. Obviously "Counter Currents" isn't a reliable source. So are there any secondary or tertiary sources that put this stuff in context? Guettarda ( talk) 01:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have hope that I will change entrenched views here or the tone of the article overnight, and therefore I don't see much use in sticking around here for too long. I will, however, bring up the fact that the talking points Manus brings up regarding "pseudoscience" and the "mainstream" have been rebutted by academics. An example: [3] Hopefully, over time, after considering arguments like this, those with entrenched hostility to this subject will abandon it in favor of a more neutral approach. TwinkleTwankle!! ( talk) 02:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In chapter Meanings and types there is the reference 64 which reveals the name of the book "Nazi Family Policy, 1933-1945". Look at the punctuation. Instead of a hyphen between the years 1933 and 1945, an en dash should be used. One may argue that sometimes also a hyphen may be used, but just take a look at the cover of that particular book. Does it look more like a hyphen or en dash? –– Nikolas Ojala ( talk) 01:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
hi,
i suspect that in the future there will be consistent efforts to undermine the nuanced goals of eugenics.
in fact, it's not hard to argue that uneducated individuals with internet access have an incentive to paint eugenics as racist, because the concept itself may threaten their chances to 'thrive'.
eugenics is not racist. describing eugenics as racist reminds me of the unqualified hindus from india romping around the first world, who use the term to escape responsibility (quite often, i may add. it's the first trick in their book. that, and also: deny deny deny, even with oodles of evidence. see this as a good example: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/31/nutrition-researcher-chandra-loses-libel-case-against-cbc/ hindu spent 50 court days trying to deny the obvious) 174.3.155.181 ( talk) 19:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As this article amply demonstrates, there is no consensus definition of what Eugenics is. I think that if there is no clear technical definition of it, then it isn't a subject appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia (as a separate subject). That is, Eugenics as presented in this article isn't a subject, it is a mashup of various subjects. Contrast that to the Eugenics Movement (a historical fact) that was popular until roughly 1945 - 1950, which does deserve inclusion. Any article which claims child care, prenatal care, and contraception are "methods" for Eugenics is so far into La-La land as to be beyond redemption. The major flaws are massive confusion between the historical social movement and current methods used by parents (or others) to select offspring by their characteristics (sex, genetic abnormalities, etc.) and the intentional control of population level genetics. In reading this article, I saw (but perhaps I missed it?) no mention of the most obvious method of Eugenics: polygamy, specifically the Middle-Eastern practice of wealthy males having multiple wives (although it is also not uncommon in Utah, so I hear). Supporting the reproduction of, or adding hurdles to the reproduction of some segment of the population isn't "eugenics" unless its purpose is to control (change or stabilize) the population's phenotypic expression or variation. You might as well argue that the government or insurance companies payments for eye-glasses is eugenics. Anything which significantly aids, or burdens, an individual may result in a change in reproductive success, but again that doesn't make it eugenics. It seems to me what constitute support or burden is normative. Is government support for schools for the deaf "eugenics", how about "Head Start" programs? Why not traffic lights too? (They discriminate against the blind) It has been demonstrated that certain gene abnormalities are strongly associated with incarceration (amongst males), so aren't prisons in fact limiting the reproduction potential of these men? Of course they are. But this doesn't make a prison a "part" of an eugenics program. Abitslow ( talk) 23:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Statements like this, "he methods of implementing eugenics varied by country; however, some early 20th century methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals, and racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany) as "degenerate" or "unfit", the segregation or institutionalization of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and their mass murder." in the article, in my view are mistaken. As Kevin MacDonald has pointed out (I know MacDonald is Anti-Jewish, but he is certainly correct in this case) "Hitler certainly did not believe Jews were genetically inferior", rather he regarded them as cunning competitors of other Europeans. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/04/macdonald-ford/ He murdered the European Jewish people, not because of eugenic reasons, but for the opposite reason, he did not want an intelligent racial group competing with Germans. Eugenics did play a role in certain aspects of Nazi policy, but I don't think it had anything to do with their Anti-Jewish policies. I would suggest changing the statements linking eugenics with the Holocaust. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 03:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
While on this topic, I suggest removing the image of the Hartheim Euthanasia Centre from the history section. Eugenics was only one of several rationales for implementing Action T4. Economic efficiency seems to be the larger motivation. And there already is an image of the Lebensborn hospital in this section. Two images from Nazi Germany appear to be Wikipedia:UNDUE. Waters.Justin ( talk) 01:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
There are only two images in the history section and both are about Nazi eugenics. The image I suggested references the ideological changes after WW2, so its more historically balanced than only focusing on the Nazi time period. Waters.Justin ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I removed claims that Sweden continued a eugenic program into the 1970s. The source I rely on is Tydén's thesis.
Sweden had a program, but it disintegrated in the late 1940s. Edaen ( talk) 14:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I think part of the difficulty of this issue is defining what is compulsory sterilization. Technically this can include the sterilization of a mentally disabled patient who is unable to give informed consent but has a medical necessity for the procedure or is psychologically unable to deal with the pregnancy and removal of the baby from the mentally disabled person's custody. The Ashley Treatment is an extreme example of this. Although this might be be compulsory sterilization it is not eugenics because it is not done to improve the population gene pool; it is done for the best interest of the patient. These "compulsory sterilization" articles need to be carful to accurately describe whether the compulsory sterilization was done for eugenics (the public good of improving the gene pool), the public good of reducing the cost of welfare (e.g. requirements not to breed as part of a probation requirement for failed child support payments or the one child policy), a regulatory requirement in order to complete a legal gender change, or the best interest of patient unable to give informed consent. These are the four most common reasons I see for compulsory sterilization. I think all four need to be included in the articles on compulsory sterilization, but we need to be careful how to describe them, especially when the reasons overlap. Waters.Justin ( talk) 01:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be the Guardian class of Socrates? This idea was postulated by Socrates in The Republic, which was written by Plato. Suggesting it be changed to "The idea of positive eugenics to produce better human beings has existed at least since Socrates suggested selective mating to produce a guardian class in The Republic." [1] Hman101 ( talk) 23:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
References
@ Dave souza: Thanks for adding context. There's a fascinating paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 1998 by David J. Galton and Clare J. Galton that explores Darwin's influence and views on Francis Galton's ideas. I've not been able to ascertain whether the two authors are related to each other or to Francis. You may wish to peruse it and make further edits on this article. The journal is of low impact but, published by the NCBI, should be thoroughly reliable. YoPienso ( talk) 09:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This sentence, 'Another criticism is that eugenic policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, resulting in inbreeding depression instead due to a low genetic variation.', makes no sense. It misunderstands the meaning of eugenics. Eugenics means trying to discourage people of inferior genetic qualities from reproducing, and encourage people of superior genetic qualities to reproduce, in order to reduce bad genetic characters and increase good genetic characters. Eugenics in its broad sense cannot have the result this criticism is referring, only very specific kinds of eugenics, such as the kind the royal families of Europe practiced where they married their cousins, could have this kind of dysgenic result of inbreeding depression due to lack of genetic diversity. So if that sentence is to remain, it should at least be rephrased to point out that this is only a criticism of specific kinds of eugenics, not of all eugenics. The prohibition against incest is largely in existence for eugenic reasons and it is precisely in order to stop low genetic variation and thus stop inbreeding depression, so certain forms of eugenics, such as the incest ban, actually seek to stop low genetic variation and thus stop inbreeding depression. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Just noting this because it seems this user has a clear PoV, is less than a month old.
Political participation does not hold any water in scientific endeavors. How you can expect others to take you seriously when you insert an "Alt right" sidebar, which includes many uneducated (and arguably some illiterate) people, is beyond me.
To suggest that uneducated individuals adoption of a scholarly field in order to bolster their bigoted and uneducated world-views (such as those included in the sidebar the user attempted to insert) is sufficient for an insertion is clearly false.
To suggest that large media exposure, and usage of this exposure to declare a belief in a scholarly field, is sufficient for insertion, is also false.
This user just runs around making scientific articles political on a whim, and unchecked. Something needs to be done. There are some serious scholars who put their career on this field, and while I am no fan of Richard Dawkins, his gushing over Ronald Fisher here is sufficient to convey the calibre and pedigree of pioneers in the field.
In this case I do not think scholarly opinions and uneducated opinions are all that different. The main goal remains to improve the "genetic quality of the human population". How do you define quality may be disputed and the suggested methodology may vary, but they are still part of the same field. Eugenics would frankly be a historical footnote if it did not have popular and political support.
The main problem is the association of a 20th-century movement with the alt-right, a rather vague and ill-defined grouping of right-wing ideologies and their supposed followers. The connections seems very weak to me. Some of these people are self-described monarchists. That does not require us to redefine monarchism as an alt-right idea. Dimadick ( talk) 10:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not an RfC, so I don't know why it is tagged as such. Please go to WP:ANI to discuss a particular user's behaviour. Laurdecl talk 00:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
What happened to all of the carefully gather information that was previously in this article? For example: the 2010 article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.149.240 ( talk • contribs)
This article has an unusually large bibliography section of sources that are not actually used in the article. I've flagged this for cleanup with {{
More footnotes}}
. Every source we are not using (which is most of the works listed there) is a wasted opportunity, and a waste of space in the article.
It's also lending a false sense of extremely good sourcing to an article that actually needs better sourcing. I've already flagged one cited source as unreliable (click-bait site with no known authorship), and removed another one (a redundant cite to a self-published etymology site). There are several other questionable ones, as well as passages without clear sourcing at all.
A big but unused bibliography section is also a WP:NOT policy problem: Wikipedia is not a Web index or a topical bibliographic catalogue, and listing every known work on a topic is not the purpose of this article, or any article here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:TIMESINK, WP:SEALIONING. No constructive discussion. Carl Fredrik talk 11:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WP:DENYRECOGNITION,
WP:FRINGE.
Carl Fredrik
talk 14:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Although I am loath to wade into this, I would like to see any academic support for the claim that eugenics is considered pseudoscience. For instance, the Annals of Human Genetics, a
So, is anybody still trying to provide citations supporting the idea that geneticists consider eugenics psudoe-medicine? If some citation cannot be provided in the next week I'm inclined to just remove the side bar. LarryBoy79 ( talk) 08:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Carl Fredrik: You seem to be the most vocal opposition to the idea of removing the side bar. I've explained to you that I feel that the genetics community, by and large, does not view eugenics as pseudo-medicine, and provided a list of citations to modern discussions of eugenics within medical and genetic literature. I still do not understand why you feel so certain that geneticists consider eugenics pseudo-medicine. Will you please engage me in constructive discussion by articulating your position? LarryBoy79 ( talk) 14:35, 11 September 2018
Eugenics is sound scienceEugenics is an applied science based on genetics, similar to how engineering is an applied science based on physics. The fact that many past ideas in physics were wrong does not mean physics or engineering is pseudoscience. Similarly, the fact that many past ideas in genetics were wrong does not make genetics or eugenics pseudoscience.
Dawkins, one of the 21st century's most famous evolutionary biologist, says eugenics is valid science. This link is in the article, and there are more links in the article that state eugenics is valid science than say it is a pseudoscience. I think some who say eugenics was and always will be pseudoscience, are confusing eugenics for Aryan race ideology. In the early twentieth century, the two ideologies overlapped in some ways, but they are just as distinguishable as the overlap between the Progressive Era and eugenics. Waters.Justin ( talk) 00:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
|
@ SMcCandlish: Would you like to explain this edit?
I don't see it as a matter of grammar. The question is whether Eugenics aims to improve the entire population of the earth, or whether is is more usually a population with that.
FYI, until this edit by a (since suspended) sock account, the lead said "a human population".
Yaris678 ( talk) 09:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
If all you're aiming to do is change "the" to "a" before "human population", that appears to be supported by the two sources cited (though one needed to be repaired). I've done that, but others may object that this isn't actually the definition provided by all such sources, nor does it accurately reflect all approaches to eugenics, which were (even still are) often not race- or population-based but intended to improve the "stock" of humanity more broadly. This is certainly true of many
neo-eugenics ideas, e.g. total eradication of various genetic diseases. These different "a race/population" versus "the human race/population" approaches should probably be addressed in separate sentences with separate sources in the lead, though, to keep the material readable. Too many of our leads have clumsy run-on sentences.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Liberal eugenics has to be covered in short here, per WP:SUMMARY. Unless someone reads the "See also" stuff, they have no idea we even have an article on this. Meanwhile, the current main Eugenics article overall implies that eugenics is some dead idea from Hitler on back, without giving a clear indication that neo-eugenics ideas are still continuing. We used to have a version of this material in here [5] and something like it needs to return, though presumably based on summarizing Liberal eugenics rather than based on that old 2010 text. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 03:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Why was this ( http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/07/against-good-breeding/) deleted? We need some pro-eugenics material. How does it violate WP:EL? 02:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sombe19 ( talk • contribs)
And I find it hard to see how you think this article is neutral when the references section only includes anti-eugenics sources. Sombe19 ( talk) 20:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, so before we argue over whether pro-eugenics stuff should be in the article, we need to see if there's any reliable sources worth using. Obviously "Counter Currents" isn't a reliable source. So are there any secondary or tertiary sources that put this stuff in context? Guettarda ( talk) 01:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't have hope that I will change entrenched views here or the tone of the article overnight, and therefore I don't see much use in sticking around here for too long. I will, however, bring up the fact that the talking points Manus brings up regarding "pseudoscience" and the "mainstream" have been rebutted by academics. An example: [3] Hopefully, over time, after considering arguments like this, those with entrenched hostility to this subject will abandon it in favor of a more neutral approach. TwinkleTwankle!! ( talk) 02:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In chapter Meanings and types there is the reference 64 which reveals the name of the book "Nazi Family Policy, 1933-1945". Look at the punctuation. Instead of a hyphen between the years 1933 and 1945, an en dash should be used. One may argue that sometimes also a hyphen may be used, but just take a look at the cover of that particular book. Does it look more like a hyphen or en dash? –– Nikolas Ojala ( talk) 01:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
hi,
i suspect that in the future there will be consistent efforts to undermine the nuanced goals of eugenics.
in fact, it's not hard to argue that uneducated individuals with internet access have an incentive to paint eugenics as racist, because the concept itself may threaten their chances to 'thrive'.
eugenics is not racist. describing eugenics as racist reminds me of the unqualified hindus from india romping around the first world, who use the term to escape responsibility (quite often, i may add. it's the first trick in their book. that, and also: deny deny deny, even with oodles of evidence. see this as a good example: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/07/31/nutrition-researcher-chandra-loses-libel-case-against-cbc/ hindu spent 50 court days trying to deny the obvious) 174.3.155.181 ( talk) 19:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
As this article amply demonstrates, there is no consensus definition of what Eugenics is. I think that if there is no clear technical definition of it, then it isn't a subject appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia (as a separate subject). That is, Eugenics as presented in this article isn't a subject, it is a mashup of various subjects. Contrast that to the Eugenics Movement (a historical fact) that was popular until roughly 1945 - 1950, which does deserve inclusion. Any article which claims child care, prenatal care, and contraception are "methods" for Eugenics is so far into La-La land as to be beyond redemption. The major flaws are massive confusion between the historical social movement and current methods used by parents (or others) to select offspring by their characteristics (sex, genetic abnormalities, etc.) and the intentional control of population level genetics. In reading this article, I saw (but perhaps I missed it?) no mention of the most obvious method of Eugenics: polygamy, specifically the Middle-Eastern practice of wealthy males having multiple wives (although it is also not uncommon in Utah, so I hear). Supporting the reproduction of, or adding hurdles to the reproduction of some segment of the population isn't "eugenics" unless its purpose is to control (change or stabilize) the population's phenotypic expression or variation. You might as well argue that the government or insurance companies payments for eye-glasses is eugenics. Anything which significantly aids, or burdens, an individual may result in a change in reproductive success, but again that doesn't make it eugenics. It seems to me what constitute support or burden is normative. Is government support for schools for the deaf "eugenics", how about "Head Start" programs? Why not traffic lights too? (They discriminate against the blind) It has been demonstrated that certain gene abnormalities are strongly associated with incarceration (amongst males), so aren't prisons in fact limiting the reproduction potential of these men? Of course they are. But this doesn't make a prison a "part" of an eugenics program. Abitslow ( talk) 23:12, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Statements like this, "he methods of implementing eugenics varied by country; however, some early 20th century methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals, and racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany) as "degenerate" or "unfit", the segregation or institutionalization of such individuals and groups, their sterilization, euthanasia, and their mass murder." in the article, in my view are mistaken. As Kevin MacDonald has pointed out (I know MacDonald is Anti-Jewish, but he is certainly correct in this case) "Hitler certainly did not believe Jews were genetically inferior", rather he regarded them as cunning competitors of other Europeans. http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2009/04/macdonald-ford/ He murdered the European Jewish people, not because of eugenic reasons, but for the opposite reason, he did not want an intelligent racial group competing with Germans. Eugenics did play a role in certain aspects of Nazi policy, but I don't think it had anything to do with their Anti-Jewish policies. I would suggest changing the statements linking eugenics with the Holocaust. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 03:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
While on this topic, I suggest removing the image of the Hartheim Euthanasia Centre from the history section. Eugenics was only one of several rationales for implementing Action T4. Economic efficiency seems to be the larger motivation. And there already is an image of the Lebensborn hospital in this section. Two images from Nazi Germany appear to be Wikipedia:UNDUE. Waters.Justin ( talk) 01:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
There are only two images in the history section and both are about Nazi eugenics. The image I suggested references the ideological changes after WW2, so its more historically balanced than only focusing on the Nazi time period. Waters.Justin ( talk) 14:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I removed claims that Sweden continued a eugenic program into the 1970s. The source I rely on is Tydén's thesis.
Sweden had a program, but it disintegrated in the late 1940s. Edaen ( talk) 14:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I think part of the difficulty of this issue is defining what is compulsory sterilization. Technically this can include the sterilization of a mentally disabled patient who is unable to give informed consent but has a medical necessity for the procedure or is psychologically unable to deal with the pregnancy and removal of the baby from the mentally disabled person's custody. The Ashley Treatment is an extreme example of this. Although this might be be compulsory sterilization it is not eugenics because it is not done to improve the population gene pool; it is done for the best interest of the patient. These "compulsory sterilization" articles need to be carful to accurately describe whether the compulsory sterilization was done for eugenics (the public good of improving the gene pool), the public good of reducing the cost of welfare (e.g. requirements not to breed as part of a probation requirement for failed child support payments or the one child policy), a regulatory requirement in order to complete a legal gender change, or the best interest of patient unable to give informed consent. These are the four most common reasons I see for compulsory sterilization. I think all four need to be included in the articles on compulsory sterilization, but we need to be careful how to describe them, especially when the reasons overlap. Waters.Justin ( talk) 01:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be the Guardian class of Socrates? This idea was postulated by Socrates in The Republic, which was written by Plato. Suggesting it be changed to "The idea of positive eugenics to produce better human beings has existed at least since Socrates suggested selective mating to produce a guardian class in The Republic." [1] Hman101 ( talk) 23:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
References
@ Dave souza: Thanks for adding context. There's a fascinating paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 1998 by David J. Galton and Clare J. Galton that explores Darwin's influence and views on Francis Galton's ideas. I've not been able to ascertain whether the two authors are related to each other or to Francis. You may wish to peruse it and make further edits on this article. The journal is of low impact but, published by the NCBI, should be thoroughly reliable. YoPienso ( talk) 09:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This sentence, 'Another criticism is that eugenic policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, resulting in inbreeding depression instead due to a low genetic variation.', makes no sense. It misunderstands the meaning of eugenics. Eugenics means trying to discourage people of inferior genetic qualities from reproducing, and encourage people of superior genetic qualities to reproduce, in order to reduce bad genetic characters and increase good genetic characters. Eugenics in its broad sense cannot have the result this criticism is referring, only very specific kinds of eugenics, such as the kind the royal families of Europe practiced where they married their cousins, could have this kind of dysgenic result of inbreeding depression due to lack of genetic diversity. So if that sentence is to remain, it should at least be rephrased to point out that this is only a criticism of specific kinds of eugenics, not of all eugenics. The prohibition against incest is largely in existence for eugenic reasons and it is precisely in order to stop low genetic variation and thus stop inbreeding depression, so certain forms of eugenics, such as the incest ban, actually seek to stop low genetic variation and thus stop inbreeding depression. RandomScholar30 ( talk) 18:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Just noting this because it seems this user has a clear PoV, is less than a month old.
Political participation does not hold any water in scientific endeavors. How you can expect others to take you seriously when you insert an "Alt right" sidebar, which includes many uneducated (and arguably some illiterate) people, is beyond me.
To suggest that uneducated individuals adoption of a scholarly field in order to bolster their bigoted and uneducated world-views (such as those included in the sidebar the user attempted to insert) is sufficient for an insertion is clearly false.
To suggest that large media exposure, and usage of this exposure to declare a belief in a scholarly field, is sufficient for insertion, is also false.
This user just runs around making scientific articles political on a whim, and unchecked. Something needs to be done. There are some serious scholars who put their career on this field, and while I am no fan of Richard Dawkins, his gushing over Ronald Fisher here is sufficient to convey the calibre and pedigree of pioneers in the field.
In this case I do not think scholarly opinions and uneducated opinions are all that different. The main goal remains to improve the "genetic quality of the human population". How do you define quality may be disputed and the suggested methodology may vary, but they are still part of the same field. Eugenics would frankly be a historical footnote if it did not have popular and political support.
The main problem is the association of a 20th-century movement with the alt-right, a rather vague and ill-defined grouping of right-wing ideologies and their supposed followers. The connections seems very weak to me. Some of these people are self-described monarchists. That does not require us to redefine monarchism as an alt-right idea. Dimadick ( talk) 10:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not an RfC, so I don't know why it is tagged as such. Please go to WP:ANI to discuss a particular user's behaviour. Laurdecl talk 00:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
What happened to all of the carefully gather information that was previously in this article? For example: the 2010 article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.149.240 ( talk • contribs)
This article has an unusually large bibliography section of sources that are not actually used in the article. I've flagged this for cleanup with {{
More footnotes}}
. Every source we are not using (which is most of the works listed there) is a wasted opportunity, and a waste of space in the article.
It's also lending a false sense of extremely good sourcing to an article that actually needs better sourcing. I've already flagged one cited source as unreliable (click-bait site with no known authorship), and removed another one (a redundant cite to a self-published etymology site). There are several other questionable ones, as well as passages without clear sourcing at all.
A big but unused bibliography section is also a WP:NOT policy problem: Wikipedia is not a Web index or a topical bibliographic catalogue, and listing every known work on a topic is not the purpose of this article, or any article here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE, WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:TIMESINK, WP:SEALIONING. No constructive discussion. Carl Fredrik talk 11:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
WP:DENYRECOGNITION,
WP:FRINGE.
Carl Fredrik
talk 14:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Although I am loath to wade into this, I would like to see any academic support for the claim that eugenics is considered pseudoscience. For instance, the Annals of Human Genetics, a
So, is anybody still trying to provide citations supporting the idea that geneticists consider eugenics psudoe-medicine? If some citation cannot be provided in the next week I'm inclined to just remove the side bar. LarryBoy79 ( talk) 08:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Carl Fredrik: You seem to be the most vocal opposition to the idea of removing the side bar. I've explained to you that I feel that the genetics community, by and large, does not view eugenics as pseudo-medicine, and provided a list of citations to modern discussions of eugenics within medical and genetic literature. I still do not understand why you feel so certain that geneticists consider eugenics pseudo-medicine. Will you please engage me in constructive discussion by articulating your position? LarryBoy79 ( talk) 14:35, 11 September 2018
Eugenics is sound scienceEugenics is an applied science based on genetics, similar to how engineering is an applied science based on physics. The fact that many past ideas in physics were wrong does not mean physics or engineering is pseudoscience. Similarly, the fact that many past ideas in genetics were wrong does not make genetics or eugenics pseudoscience.
Dawkins, one of the 21st century's most famous evolutionary biologist, says eugenics is valid science. This link is in the article, and there are more links in the article that state eugenics is valid science than say it is a pseudoscience. I think some who say eugenics was and always will be pseudoscience, are confusing eugenics for Aryan race ideology. In the early twentieth century, the two ideologies overlapped in some ways, but they are just as distinguishable as the overlap between the Progressive Era and eugenics. Waters.Justin ( talk) 00:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
|
@ SMcCandlish: Would you like to explain this edit?
I don't see it as a matter of grammar. The question is whether Eugenics aims to improve the entire population of the earth, or whether is is more usually a population with that.
FYI, until this edit by a (since suspended) sock account, the lead said "a human population".
Yaris678 ( talk) 09:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
If all you're aiming to do is change "the" to "a" before "human population", that appears to be supported by the two sources cited (though one needed to be repaired). I've done that, but others may object that this isn't actually the definition provided by all such sources, nor does it accurately reflect all approaches to eugenics, which were (even still are) often not race- or population-based but intended to improve the "stock" of humanity more broadly. This is certainly true of many
neo-eugenics ideas, e.g. total eradication of various genetic diseases. These different "a race/population" versus "the human race/population" approaches should probably be addressed in separate sentences with separate sources in the lead, though, to keep the material readable. Too many of our leads have clumsy run-on sentences.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 23:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Liberal eugenics has to be covered in short here, per WP:SUMMARY. Unless someone reads the "See also" stuff, they have no idea we even have an article on this. Meanwhile, the current main Eugenics article overall implies that eugenics is some dead idea from Hitler on back, without giving a clear indication that neo-eugenics ideas are still continuing. We used to have a version of this material in here [5] and something like it needs to return, though presumably based on summarizing Liberal eugenics rather than based on that old 2010 text. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 03:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)