This is an archive of past discussions about Eugenics. 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.
Is it crap? Why? On Wikipedia neutrality is appreciated and expected. Did you mean to point at Treating editing as a battleground or Little or no interest in working collaboratively or perhaps Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia ? Thanks for your contributions. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
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)
Still, the proportion of anti-eugenics sources is larger than the actual proportion of people who don't believe in eugenics. And given that the pro-eugenics viewpoint was historically in the majority, it needs more treatment than it is given in the current article. Sombe19 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I dont think so. Where, apart from Lynn are reputable mainstream scholars arguing in favor of eugenics today? You will have to show some very good sources to make this argument. Sure the history section can be expanded, and some of the past supporters can be represented there. But today it is a dead issue.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·00:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I know that the Mankind Quarterly and most of its contributors are pro-eugenics. Just off the top of my head, Kevin MacDonald and J. Philippe Rushton come to mind as some pro-eugenics scholars. Also Raymond Cattell. Not to mention Van Court herself. Sombe19 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but arguably except Cattell (who was not known for his eugenics views), none of those scholars are mainstream scholars , they belong to a small right-wing network of oseudoscientific racists centered around the Pioneer fund and the Mankind Quarterly was founded exactly to publish those fringe ideas since they are generally rejected in mainstream journals. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·00:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Gottfredssons "mainstream" does not argue in favor of eugenics. And it is also not the actual mainstream, she just calls it that. And yes, Mankind Quarterly is a fringe publication, not only because of its political inclinations but primarily because of its (pseudo)scientific inclinations. And yes its supporters of course likes to see the mainstream as "polluted by Marxism", that of course does not mean that they ae objective or unpolluted by politics themselves even if they like to think so.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·01:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The Mankind Quarterly is pseudoscience? LOL! The real pseudoscientists are SJ Gould and the rest of the (Marxist) environmental determinists. Sombe19 (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
For the record here is a link to the only mention[1] of Marian van Court in the Oxford Handbook of the history of Eugenics, it is in a footnote that clearly identifies her as part of a small fringe group of eugenics promoters with interesting political connections and agendas. Surely the Oxford handbook of the history of eugenics should be considered among the most reliable sources for this article - and probably should be cited a LOT more than Lynn 2001.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·01:41, 22 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)
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'.
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)
That is utter nonsense, Eugenics is a fairly well defined concept. Most social science concepts do not have "technical" definitions. Eugenics specifically refers to a a historical ideology and the movement around it, hence there is no need to have a "technical" definition any more than there is a need to define what the "rennaissance" really was, or what "anarchism" really is. The fact that people do not agree about whether eugenics is good or bad, or if it is good how it should be carried out is the case for all ideological programs.·maunus · snunɐɯ·23:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
It just needs to be written more clearly along the lines of WP:DABCONCEPT. If you really think it's not an encyclopedically coverable topic at all, feel free to take it to WP:AFD, and see how speedily it is kept. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Few more words to clarify what I mean: Suppose that you did a new invention or formulated a new concept, perhaps a scientific discover, which had no previous name. Suppose that your definition is complete, coherent and obviously free of inner conflicts, so that it is ready for public usage. You just need to name it, so you create a name. Once you combine the definition and the name, you are ready to use it. Then, generations after you use the word you coined and defined. Is it someone's job to redefine that word? No, because it was already defined. Likewise we should not redefine eugenics but use the the definition by Francis Galton. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Mistaken linking of eugenics with Nazi Holocaust
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)
You are correct that MacDonald is fringe, but I just looked up the source for the statement, the source is Edwin Black. I don't know if I would call Black fringe but his writings are extremely controversial. If the statement is going to say I think at least a more neutral source should be found. RandomScholar30 (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
This was the source listed Black, Edwin (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN1-56858-258-7. Shouldn't we at least try to find a more neutral source than Black? I saw Black on Glenn Beck's and he was blaming the Holocaust on American corporation, it sounded conspiratorial. He also wrote a book even that seemed to be blaming Zionists for Nazism called The Transfer Agreement, which Commentary magazine said was "conspiracy-mongering, innuendo, and sensationalism" https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-transfer-agreement-by-edwin-black/. I don't think its appropriate to use Black as a source.RandomScholar30 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Black's work, so I can't comment on his work as a whole, but he certainly isn't being used to support any controversial statements, as far as I can tell. Black's book is actually one of the top its returned in Goggle scholar on the subject, with 534 citations, which at least seems respectable. The other top results all seem to lean the same way, so I see no reason to change the article. LarryBoy79 (talk) 00:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Images
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)
This is from the Wikipedia article Action T4 and it is referenced. "Several rationales for the programme have been offered, including eugenics, compassion, reducing suffering, racial hygiene, cost effectiveness and pressure on the welfare budget." Even if Action T4 was solely motivated by eugenics, having two Nazi images in the history section gives undue weight to this time in eugenics history. I propose using this image instead. In the decades after World War II, eugenics became increasingly unpopular within academic science. Many organizations and journals that had their origins in the eugenics movement began to distance themselves from the philosophy, as when Eugenics Quarterly became Social Biology in 1969.Waters.Justin (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
That image, used in the article History of eugenics, could be confusing to the reader, as there is a change in title in the two later volumes. As for references, this Oxford University Press book discusses eugenics and German National Socialism but is not cited or even listed amongst the references or further reading:
I don't know how the image is confusing. The changed title just gives an example of when the word "eugenics" became taboo. If you think that book is important you can cite it or add it to the further reading section. Waters.Justin (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how a single picture gives undue weight, and I'm worried that removing the image would actually cause the opposite problem of not giving sufficient weight. Obviously the holocaust played an extremely important role in the history of eugenics, whether or eugenics played an important role in the holocaust. How can we even evaluate whether it is giving undue weight? What criteria can we judge this on? (Honest questions) LarryBoy79 (talk) 14:33, 31 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)
There are actually three images in the section, A picture of Galton, and the two afore mentioned pictures relating to Nazi eugenics programs. I actually really like the picture you proposed for inclusion in the article, as it visually demonstrates the sort of white washing that occurred to post world war 2 eugenics associations. The two pictures relating to the Nazi eugenics programs are nice, because they demonstrate that the Nazis implemented both a positive eugenics program and a negative eugenics program, so I feel that the two pictures should both be included. Possibly we could put them in the same frame, with a caption emphasizing that these repersent two different aspects of the same over-arching eugenics program, and also include the picture you propose? LarryBoy79 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Sweden's program
I removed claims that Sweden continued a eugenic program into the 1970s. The source I rely on is Tydén's thesis.
It is shown how the Board [Royal Medical Board] during the 1930s and 1940s directed implementation towards extensive sterilisation of the feeble-minded, especially at institutions. This changed in the post-war period when the Board gradually retreated from its activist policy, letting implementation transform the policy from below. (The last known instruction to local personnel was published by the Board in 1947.) Mattias Tydén Från politik till praktik, page 587
Regarding the "undo": Just about every Western country continued with coerced sterilisations of mentally handicapped into the 1980s–2010s under varying legal foundations. This includes Britain, US, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria. There is not really any data to say that Sweden had any more of a "program" in the 50s–70s than most did in the 1990s. The source does say there was no program after the late 1940s. The thing about the program was restored to. Edaen (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia's own article on Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden states that it took place until the 1970s, using a number of news sources in Swedish as support. Unfortunately I am unable to assess the veracity of these sources. The current citation in support of the statement, a citation to an article published on the international socialist web site, seems of dubious value. The article itself doesn't list any additional sources, so I have no idea where the number comes from, though the data "1975" appears in the title of a number of the Swedish sources. From a cursory analysis of some other news sources, it appears that some eugenics laws were repealed in the 1970s, which may be where the number comes from. But, as Edaen asserts, the existence of the laws on the books does not mean that they were enforced. The sentence in the article certainly implies that the laws were enforced, so I would be in favor of either rewording, or finding a better source for the statement. In the US it seems pretty clear that practices in California qualify, though we still need a better sources to cite. The statements used in this article should agree with the statements in the Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden article as well. LarryBoy79 (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I removed the text again. There is an introduction to Swedish sterilisation policy in the government report SOU 1999:2, see the djvu-file here. Edaen (talk) 14:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
I think you are right for removing the text. The Swedish government report says that the 1934 Sterilization Act was for those who are legally incompetent and unable to give informed consent. The justification was for the best interest of the patient and for eugenic reasons. Even today in the United States, courts allow compulsory sterilizations and abortions if it is for the best interest of the legally incompetent patient. See Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia. The 1941 Sterilization Act required voluntary consent by the patient, although medical staff were allowed to attempt to persuade individuals into getting the procedure. The report also states that by 1960 almost all of the sterilizations were genuinely voluntary; however, "no certain statements on this matter can be made at this state in the investigation." Since the 1941 law prohibited compulsory sterilizations, it is seems logical to believe that the compulsory sterilizations that did occur represent mismanagement by medical staff rather than official state policy, but like the report says, the investigation is not complete. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The definition of compulsory sterilization
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)
The Guardian class of Plato?
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)
@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)
@ YoPienso: Interesting source, have read it through but can't do more at the moment as have rather a backlog of things to sort. Much appreciated, perhaps someone else can take that on board. . . dave souza, talk18:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Illogical/unsourced statement in lead
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.
Just because User:PerfectlyIrrational doesn't like eugenics, or feels it is "racist" (nothing new here), it does not mean the people who are truly contributors to the field are anything like what he believes eugenics to be (where his belief is clearly wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.161.93.242 (talk • contribs)
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 article would be improved by adding information regarding modern practices of eugenics on colored women. [Modern resurgence of interest] is incredibly brief in describing modern examples of this issue. I suggest adding information from Loretta Ross' "Understanding Reproductive Justice."[1] Ross includes information regarding "reproductive oppression"[2] by controlling communities through women's bodies. This is just a suggestion, but I recommend that the author considers other viewpoints of modern practices of eugenics.-[Abbey]Amartin19 (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)amartin19
The worst problem with this article is that it fails to define what Eugenics is. It seems to me (although I'm no student of the subject) that it is the theory and practice of controlling human reproduction in order to improve the next generation. What constitutes "improvement" is unclear, although often traits such as intelligence, health, athletic abilities, emotional stability, and artistic talent are included. It is noteworthy that this article fails to distinguish between selection of individual traits and selection of, on the one hand, group traits and, on the other, of particular genes. It is also noteworthy that modern genetics has been very poorly integrated into this article. The lead is very poorly written. For instance, in the final paragraph (as of 24.6.2017) it is claimed that a major criticism of Eugenics is that eugenic policies are "susceptible to abuse". I know of no policy which is NOT susceptible to abuse. That is, this "major" criticism applies to virtually ANY public policy, and is worthless in reasoned debate. I doubt any competent authority of the subject would argue that, alone. Two other (major? minor?) criticisms are raised: 1. That negative eugenic policies (prevention of, or discouragement of, reproduction) are a violation of basic human rights and 2. Eugenic policies lead to a less robust gene pool are both questionable at best. There is no evidence for the latter, afaik. There have been no large scale studies of either positive nor negative eugenics which have led to inbreeding depression. That is, #2 is a objective factual claim (unlike #1) which is simply unsupported by scientific evidence. As far as the former, #1, fitness automatically biases reproduction, there are (again, afaik) no societies which do not place both positive and negative inducements on reproduction. (For instance people serving 20 years to life in prison have limited freedom to reproduce.) The lead also fails to note that since the end of WW2, Eugenics has been widely and publicly and consistently condemned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.64.18 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Francis Galton who coined the word eugenics, also carefully stated in his definition that eugenics is science. This means that any pseudo- or bunk science advertised under the label "eugenics" is still not real science and thus cannot be real eugenics either. You may think that this resembles No true Scotsman fallacy, but no, quite the opposite. I am defending the original definition of eugenics, not trying to invent a new definition. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
It is a no true Scotsman fallacy, and the fact that Galton believed his pseudoscience to be scientific does not make it so.·maunus · snunɐɯ·10:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
You cannot make eugenics become pseudoscience simply by calling it pseudoscience. What is science depends on accepted scientific standards, such as the scientific method, falsifiability of claims, and Mertonian norms. If you have seen some obvious pseudoscience under the label of "eugenics", you could talk about pseudoeugenics as well. According to the original definition, anything non-scientific or pseudoscience cannot be eugenics. If you build a car and claim that it is Mercedes-Benz, then what should that car be called: Mercedes-Benz or something else? If someone does something and calls that something eugenics, it may or may not be eugenics, depending how that something fits the definition of eugenics. I did not slip to the No true Scotsman fallacy because I stick to the original definition unlike ·maunus. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
For those interested here is Galton's definition: "EUGENICS is the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage." Given that the idea that biologically distinct races exist with different inborn qualities is pseudoscientific, I don't see how his definition can escape the same problem. Especially given that the idea of "improvement" of biological traits is also pseudoscientific as it is not based on any objective standard of what constitutes an improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ·13:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Francis Galton used the word race in the definition of eugenics. Regardless did Galton mean "the human race" or "some particular race" or "any race" that is not important. Important is that he did not mean an individual. You may interpret the word "race" quite much the way you wish and the definition of eugenics is still fine. About the improvement then: Galton did not leave it there. He said "to the utmost advantage" and advantage is a keyword here. You may think what could be an utmost disadvantage; perhaps a serious genetic illness. Towards an advantage means less illness and better health. Or, as Galton continued after the short definition: "All creatures would agree that it was better to be healthy than sick, vigorous than weak, well-fitted than ill-fitted for their part in life; in short, that it was better to be good rather than bad specimens of their kind, whatever that kind might be. So with men." I don't see any problem in Galton's definition. If medical science knows how to distinguish a disease and a trait, and that is not pseudoscience, then I see that it works same way in eugenics. To detect an illness is one task, and to find its origin is another. Sometimes it may be genetic. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I was not editing an article recklessly. This is a talk page of the article. I wanted to discuss and you prefer to suppress. Were my lines unconvenient? ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 07:33, 14 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 high impact factor good journal in the fields of genetics, use to be entitled the Annals of Eugenics and was renamed for political reasons. R. A. Fisher, one of the founders of modern evolutionary biology, was a prominent eugenicist. It would be quite odd to regard him as a Fringe or pseudoscientific voice. There is some room for nuanced debate here, but I am unaware of any consensus opinion in the field of human genetics condemning eugenics as pseudoscience. So could you provide any academic support for your opinions? LarryBoy79 (talk) 08:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Do the Annals of Human Genetics still publish Eugenics studies? Does it advocate eugenics? Are any prominent contemporary geneticists doing so?·maunus · snunɐɯ·06:22, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
What would a eugenic study be, in your opinion? There are many studies on the heritability of quantitative traits in human populations and the differences thereof, and it is listed as one of the chief aims of the journal. However, the focus on the practice of eugenics, that is attempting to decrease the prevalence of genetic diseases through prevention of birth rather than treatment, is no longer a focus of the journal, so it may be appropriate to say that it is no longer a eugenics journal as such.
However, there is some question as to what is appropriate to label eugenics. Earlier in this thread, you claimed that the idea “that biologically distinct races exist with different inborn qualities is pseudoscientific”. Taking inborn here to mean “genetic”, then I believe you would be fairly comfortable labeling Charles Murry views as pseudoscientific since he claims that there exists a genetic basis for racial differences in IQ test performance. But he certainly doesn't seem to have trouble getting his work published in scientific journals, such as Intelligence. Additionally, a respectably sized group of academics have defended him against charges like yours, stating that his views are actually pretty main-stream.
So if you want to argue that the opinion that eugenics “isn't true” or “doesn't work” is so widespread among human geneticist/genomicist that it is disruptive to question whether or not it is appropriate to label eugenics as pseudomedicine then surely there should be at least a handful of scholarly statements to that effect, right? Unfortunately I think you will there is no paper trail showing that the scholarly community ever abandoned eugenics, and that to this day if you really forced scholars to choose between The Bell Curve and The Mismeasure of Man I'm not really sure which one would come up on top (though I vote for the Mismeasure of Man myself). So if a scholar within the main body of scholarly work can claim that there are genetic differences between races which result in measurable differences in IQ, is it perhaps a little too early to declare eugenics dead?
Some contemporary discussions of Eugenics. I did not note a general tenor dismissing the idea as pseudoscientific, though some sources identified eugenics with the proposition that many diseases that eugenicists sought to eliminate were oligogenic, which is false. I think this claim to be historically unlikely, as I believe the consensus has long been that most quantitative traits are highly polygenic, but I rarely read sources from before about 1970, so I could be mistaken.
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)
I see a citation to a journalist who clearly makes the claim, but are there any medical doctors or geneticists who make the claim? I'm sure the answere is yes, some do, but in order to be labled a pseudo science shouldn't it be the case that the relevent scientific community generaly considers it pseudo science? And, do you have anything stronger than the claim of a single journalist? LarryBoy79 (talk) 14:52, 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
No. I am outright stating that I will not discuss this with you, at all. That is because there is no possibility of "constructive" discussion. There are numerous talk page threads resulting in this long standing consensus, a wealth of sources in the article and on talk pages, and with only one of your sources even vaguely supporting your position, most of your own sources opposing it, this is text-book WP:FRINGE. The very idea of discussing the issue validates it beyond what can be valid scientific discourse. I stated the relevant support before: WP:DENYRECOGNITION. Carl Fredrik talk15:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Eugenics 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.
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.
- Richard Dawkins[4]
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)
I suppose the question then, is how to proceed? It is clear that some editors are simply not willing to discuss or re-consider their opinions, but I Wikipedia is built on consensus. How can you arrive at a consensus without discussing or re-consider opinions? I am at a loss. LarryBoy79 (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
We don't. That quote which is taken without context and and does not even mention eugenics, yet is still WP:FRINGE. There is no support, no serious sources have been presented — and you're just creating a time-sink. I'm closing this discussion now. Carl Fredrik talk11:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
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".
Just read it: "Eugenics ... is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality a human population." Obvious missing preposition.
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)
I see. I missed the lack of "of". Thanks for catching that.
If some sources use/imply "a" and some use/imply "the", I think it is best to go for "a" here - after all, the population of the entire world is still a population. That said, perhaps we could do more elsewhere to draw out these distinctions.
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)
Since Liberal has multiple meanings including many political varieties, particularly in the US there it's used to refer to Democratic Party supporters, I've added "also known as new eugenics, neo-eugenics, and consumer eugenics" to show the range of names for this. . dave souza, talk13:14, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Yep; I'd meant to do that myself. There's a high likelihood that even outside the US, many readers would assume "liberal eugenics" referred to one Liberal Party or another. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 04:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
