Talk:Eugenics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Eugenics was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: January 28, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eugenics article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
To-do list for Eugenics: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify:
    • Improve references, including verification of certain statements
    • Other:
    • Article is very long; better use of summary style along with creation of subarticles is needed (some possibilities: History of eugenics, modern eugenics, scientific aspects of eugenics, criticism of eugenics, eugenics in the United States etc.)


  • Archive talk
Priority 1 (top) 
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] GA problems

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

Article sent to WP:GA/R. Hbdragon88 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Holocaust Science?

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

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

[edit] Reason why Article was Delisted as GA

[edit] Eugenics

result:Delist 4-0

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

  • What is this, an article on an MMORPG? "Special abilities may only appear after many generations down the road in a very different environment". The intro also doesn't attribute the opinions it espouses, Delist. Homestarmy 02:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. has neutrality and cite needed tags.Sumoeagle179 11:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist. per Sumoeagle179. Rlevse 16:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above Teemu08 23:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Patrick Matthew-eugenic selection of trees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Eugenics in Latin America

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

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

[edit] John Linder

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

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

[edit] Huxley

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

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

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

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

[edit] Logical fallacies, scientific inaccuracies, genetic diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PaulDMessiah 05:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be familiar with the field. Please "be bold" and fix what needs fixing. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice article...for the most part

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

[edit] Your Link --Eugenics - A Psychiatric Responsibility

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

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

[edit] Request for supporting evidence for "Combating Autism Act" assertion.

Currently the section on United States says:

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Call for archiving old talk page threads

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

[edit] Eugenics in popular culture

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

[edit] Dawkins and eugenics

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

"Richard Dawkins has written:

“ The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.[1] ”

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

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

[edit] Meanings and types of eugenics

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

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

MoritzB 21:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Merge trivia section

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

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

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

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

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


[edit] The "Discrimination" template

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

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

[edit] Merge Dysgenics into Eugenics

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

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

Copied the following five comments from Talk:Dysgenics#Move_article_to_a_new_section_within_the_article_Eugenics?
  • Support, dysgenics is eugenics under an alternative name. No reason to have two separate articles. Tim Vickers 21:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the eugenics article is already too long.Rsheridan6 02:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Also oppose - they're not the same thing and the eugenics article, which I read some months ago, is definitely too long to sustain such a merge. Richard001 05:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Agreed. The Eugenics article is too long.MoritzB 15:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Eugenics is a (social) philosophy. In biology/genetics, Dysgenics is a... let`s call it "an action and its result". They belong to two compltetely different fields. The fact that Eugenics operates with terms like "dysgenics" is irrelevant. Compare Thermodynamics and Entropy or Emergentism and emergence, etc. Raborg 21:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
That may be the case, but the current Dysgenics article is written from the eugenicist POV. The two articles are closely related. IMO, the only rationale for keeping the two separate is the length issue.Verklempt 20:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I think the length issue can be addressed, and since the dysgenics article as it stands deals almost entirely with eugenics, I see no reason to have them spread all over the place. Let's keep it all together where it's easier to manage. – ornis⚙ 14:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly support such information is best understood, in it's entirety, in context. --Nicholas 20:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support The merge would be a great idea. Dysgenics needs but a stub section anyway.--MONGO 17:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Eugenics and dysgenics are basically the same concept, advanced by the same people. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Per above, Tazmaniacs 19:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose It seems that they are really distinct concepts and as such should have separate entries. As noted above, they are both important topics for the prospect of humanity and as an encyclopedia entry which provides distinctions between concepts should maintain separate delineations and corresponding entries. Additionally, both of these entries are fairly long and merging them together will make the combined entry that much longer. Stevenmitchell 20:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. There is nothing in that article that couldn't go into this one, and I agree with the assessment that it has been hijacked by POV pushers who couldn't get their POV inserted into an article which draws more attention to itself. --24.147.86.187 20:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

I`m not inactive. I`m not dead yet. Still twitching. But even with my oppose, there are still not enough to stop this merger. Raborg 13:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph "Reductio ad Hitlerum" removed

The three sources appear to be unsuitable:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Sparta and Hitler

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Charles Darwin influence to Galton's eugenics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Request for assistance on Demographic-economic paradox

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

[edit] Chinese reproductive rate

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

[edit] Leprosy

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

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

[edit] Problem of Flying-Tyger

Flying-Tyger is an editor who likes to add the war crime of Japan. However, Flying-Tyger gives priority to his feelings more than facts. (The Japanese is cruel. )　He added the section of Showa Japan in October, 2007. [3]

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

Flying-Tyger wrote. [4] <- First Version　

Eugenics in Shōwa Japan were supported by politically motivated movements that sought to increase the number of healthy Japanese, while simultaneously decreasing the number of people suffering mental retardation , disability, genetic disease and other conditions that led to them being viewed as "inferior" contributions to the Japanese gene pool.(#1"The National Eugenic Law)(#2[5])

The source#1 is being written like this.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Position of the Church

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

REF: DESMOND KING AND RANDALL HANSEN; Experts at Work: State Autonomy, Social Learning and Eugenic Sterilization in 1930s Britain. B.J.Pol.S. 29, 77–107 [6] QUote: The Church opposed further enquiries about the treatment of the mentally ill with sterilization at the time of the Wood Report.135 Its opposition to the Brock recommendations was consolidated with the 1930 papal encyclical Casti Conubii, which argued that too little was known about the mechanisms of inheritance for eugenics to have predictive power and that sterilization itself violated a God-given right to reproduce.136
D666D 21:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

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

EliasAlucard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) tagged the article as a copyvio on 17 January, but failed to post to this page.[7] "Sir Francis Galton systematized these ideas and practices according to new knowledge about the evolution of man and animals provided by the theory of his cousin Charles Darwin." appears in both the article and thebioreview. It isn't obvious to me whether Wikipedia or thebioreview is the violator here. Perhaps an active editor of this article might have a look. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The putative Plato quotation was added by an IP registered to the State Library of Victoria in Melbourne on 2005 September 29.[8]

Benjamin Jowett's translation of The Republic supports the other content, but I was not able to verify the quotation that appears in the article.[9]

Had we not better appoint certain festivals at which we will bring together the brides and bridegrooms, and sacrifices will be offered and suitable hymeneal songs composed by our poets: the number of weddings is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the rulers, whose aim will be to preserve the average of population? There are many other things which they will have to consider, such as the effects of wars and diseases and any similar agencies, in order as far as this is possible to prevent the State from becoming either too large or too small.

We shall have to invent some ingenious kind of lots which the less worthy may draw on each occasion of our bringing them together, and then they will accuse their own ill-luck and not the rulers.

And I think that our braver and better youth, besides their other honours and rewards, might have greater facilities of intercourse with women given them; their bravery will be a reason, and such fathers ought to have as many sons as possible.

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

When I attempted to ask thebioreview about the content source, I could find no contact or publisher information. Interchangez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) alleges that the site was created as a class project and the content was copied from Wikipedia.[10] Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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


[edit] Gendercide

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

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

[edit] Maintained?

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

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

[edit] Soviet Union eugenics programs

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

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

[edit] Redundant section?

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

[edit] Merge Dysgenics into this article

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

  • Support: Useful content that is unrelated to this article can be merged with other existing articles. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Dysgenics has long been largely a WP:POVFORK of this article. An early April version of the Dysgenics article, largely the work of Harkenbane and Zero g,[11] advocated an extreme point of view, in defiance of mainstream scientific thought, and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. They have contributed to this article, Race and intelligence and Heritability of IQ, also. An earlier advocate of similar material, MoritzB, was indefinitely blocked last fall for "Edit warring on White people, numerous other pages".[12] Discussions at Talk:Dysgenics are extensive, have been tendentious, and sometimes uncivil. In late April, Dysgenics was protected because of edit warring.[13] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think we need to have a discussion about what 'subarticles' there should be on this topic. It's a very broad one and I don't think we can do justice to it in one article. I don't know that eugenics/dysgenics is the best way to go, although I'm somewhat ambivalent on that one. I have suggested some other ways of splitting it in the to-do list, though nobody seems to be active here (for instance my request for someone who is actually involved in the article to archive this page has long gone unnoticed; one or more people actually volunteering to maintain the article (remove vandalism, carry housekeeping work like archiving etc) would be a nice). We also need more 'eugenics in [country]' articles. I have found there is enough literature out there to write one for my country (New Zealand) even though eugenics seems to have little impact here. For this we need to work more with country WikiProjects. I doubt think that a by country division is enough though, and think a broader discussion about how the article should be split into 'child' articles would be more useful than another discussion about the dysgenics article.--Richard001 (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Dysgenics is a phenomenon occurring in human populations, never a proposed policy. Eugenics is a proposed policy. They are not the same thing. In addition, I agree with the sentiment expressed above, that the current Eugenics article is too long and that sub-articles need to contain most of the detail on specific topics. Dysgenics can be briefly mentioned in the Eugenics article, but for a full discussion it needs its own article.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, scientifically speaking dysgenic trending -while claimed- hasn't been shown to happen in human populations. Real dysgenics is the study of deleterious mutations in animals, mostly fruit flies and mice at this point. The claim of a dysgenic effect on human populations is a WP:FRINGE concept.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: My point was simply that dysgenics is a phenomenon, while eugenics is a policy. Whether "dysgenic trending" actually occurs would be an appropriate topic to discuss in an article on Dysgenics (though there wouldn't be space enough in the Eugenics article). Additionally, I'm not sure why you want to lump this together with Nazi UFOs and reptoids as a WP:FRINGE topic--differential fertility (such that fertility is inversely related to socio-economic status) is not a controversial topic in demography.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't eugenics also be a phenomenon if the genetic quality of populations was increasing? In any case I don't think 'policy' is a very good description. It has been considered everything from a science to a moral philosophy, and the word basically encompasses all of these things. Regarding being fringe, I would think the burden of proof would be on those who wanted to say dysgenics wasn't happening, as it seems basically inevitable given current patterns of reproduction and selective pressures in developed countries. Natural selection is mainly about preventing deterioration (rather than 'creating new information'), and is to a large extent relaxed in such environments. Natural selection also requires something to work with, and when people only have a couple of kids there isn't really anything to 'choose' from, so deterioration is the only possibility. I'm also skeptical about calling something fringe science when very little research seems to be done on the subject. Do any governments actually fund research to see if dysgenics is occurring? It seems to be a taboo topic that nobody will go near. Richard001 (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree, eugenics could be a phenomenon; dysgenics, though, would never be a policy. For your other point: from the perspective of natural selection, all changes increase fitness: the "fit", by definition, outproduce others. So one cannot speak of a natural population moving in a "dysgenic" direction. The terms eugenic and dysgenic apply only to changes in human populations or their domesticates when human value systems dictate what is a good change and what is a bad change. Perhaps the most value-neutral and succinct approach is that of Ronald Fisher who observed (in the final chapters of The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection) that the most socially fit people of his time were the least biologically fit (i.e., those with highest SES had the lowest fertility). Fisher's formulation appears to be what most people have in mind when they talk about dysgenic changes in human populations. The empirical evidence supports Fisher: there is nothing "fringe" about the fact of differential fertility. So I'm puzzled by some of the discussion on these pages: Why do some assert that "dysgenic trending" occurs only in non-human populations? Why do some assert that dysgenics is a "fringe" concept?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment' I'll answer that one: the one conclusion one can draw about the differential fertility of the more highly educated would be that, in theory, generation after generation the average IQ of the population should decrease. However, this differential fertility has been going on for some time (remember that in medieval times, the more intelligent elements of the population were routinely sent to monasteries and abbeys for purposes of higher learning -- and usually ended up being monks or nuns? Nobles also had traditionnally fewer children than commoners.), and documented IQ averages of populations worlwide have been shown to increase rather than decrease since we started measuring IQs. The "expected" dysgenic effect of differential fertility isn't happening. There's even a mathematical model which explains why it's not happening. However, many deleterious mutations have been found in mice and flies, and for research purposes, scientists for some years have been deliberately breeding individuals with these mutations, among other goals for the purposes of building models of physiological processes. So, you're right on this one point: dysgenic trending doesn't seem to be happening at all under normal biological conditions; however, empirical evidence says that dysgenic trending on the trait of IQ in humans isn't happening either. Hope this answers some of your questions.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Thanks, Ramdrake, for responding, and so quickly. I do, however, disagree with you on a few points. First, on medieval Europe: you should take a look at the work of Laura Betzig (lots of cites on Google Scholar); she has established pretty conclusively that the biological fitness of the nobility (in most cultural regions, not just Europe) was extremely high, relative to commoners (partly through the institution of wet-nursing, but mostly through extramarital copulations by noblemen). Second, I don't understand why children assigned to the priesthood or to orders would be any more intelligent than other children. Third, the medieval evidence is not really relevant to contemporary conditions anyway: dysgenic population changes (in the Fisher sense) first appear with the demographic transition; before then, those with higher SES actually had higher fertility (as Laura Betzig shows). Finally, IQ. To focus on IQ, rather than SES, is a deviation from Fisher. Why this deviation? Richard Lynn (and he is indeed a reputable academic, respected even by people who disagree with him, like James R. Flynn) may be partly to blame, since as an intelligence researcher he has focused on IQ. But there are obviously other reasons, and some of these (with proper sources) could surely be mentioned in an article on dysgenics. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Eugenics is a system where one hopes to engineer a "better" population by not allowing certain people to have children (by forced sterilization, etc). Dysgenics is a system where one hopes to engineer a "better" population by making sure that everyone can have children (by subsidy, entitlement, etc); unlike eugenics, the goal of the program, but not its mechanism, is recognized by its proponents - the goal here is population equality. I understand the desire of certain individuals (with an idealogical axe to grind) in conflating the two concepts, but they are distinct. 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment you don't have a correct definition of either eugenics or dysgenics. You're confusing negative eugenics (or coercive eugenics) with eugenics, and you're confusing dysgenics with welfare state.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Tending towards merge/rename. I think we should have an article called scientific aspects of eugenics or something like that. Dysgenics seems to mix fact and value without recognizing it is doing so. For example, it begins with 'in population genetics...', as if it were a purely scientific matter. Whether or not something counts as 'deterioration' is clearly a matter of values though, as I've outlined at talk:dysgenics; it could just as well begin with 'in population ethics'. Further complicating things, the page has now been split into dysgenics (people) and dysgenics (biology), while still seeming to contain much of the same content in each article. I don't know enough about this but I don't think the term 'dysgenics' is actually used in the biological literature about non-humans; perhaps 'genetic deterioration' or 'dysgenesis'. Richard001 (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Dysgenics in a human population sense should have its own article. The Eugenics article already has enough information as it is.

--Jagz (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose Dysgenics should have its own article. Just because solution to the idea of Dysgenics is Eugenics doesn't mean they should not have separate articles.Sean0987 (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Sean0987
    • I think we should have an article about the scientific aspects (and I don't think of eugenics is the best name either, but I'm not sure exactly what to call it), but I also don't think dysgenics is a good name. Something more neutral like 'recent, current and future evolution of human beings' would be better, but again it's an horridly clumsy title. Richard001 (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)