Talk:Eugenics/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Split?

I have to wonder if it's time to WP:SPLIT this into Eugenics, mostly for "classical" eugenics – the pseudoscience stuff – and Neo-eugenics for modern things that RS classify under such a label, and which are not characterized by "good genes", "pure-race breeding" and other nonsense, but are actually medical research like gene therapy and CRISPR and so on, and why the term "neo-eugenics" is controversial, why the research itself is controversial, etc. Leave behind a WP:SUMMARY-style micro-section on neo-eugenics in Eugenics, with a {{Main}} at the top of it.

Then the navbox issue would also go away, with the box for alternative medicine and pseudo-medicine being applicable to the main article, but not to the neo-eugenics article (especially if that one has an explicitly-defined "no pseudoscience" scope, with all PS material being shunted into the main Eugenics article. This might also reduce the amount of trolling and PoV-warrior behavior. People who get pissy about CRISPR and whatever being labeled pseudo-science will not have anything to be pissy about, and people trying to make "it's real science!" arguments about eugenics proper will be easier to block as disruptive trolls, because there won't be any of the real science left in this article.

Maybe people will hate this idea, but I hate coming to this page any more because of the amount of disruptive crap going on. I'm also really concerned about the WP:COATRACK problem, the conflation of subject matter that is really only related at all by having a label like "neo-eugenics" applied to it by various parties, without sharing the underlying "theories" or methodology of what eugenics usually refers to. This also has a bias problem, in that the righteous loathing of the original concept is rubbing off on things that shouldn't be treated that way (not by an encyclopedia). E.g., just last year I was reading a paper on a proposed approach to permanently curing oculo-cutaneous albinism with gene editing; given that it affects something like 1 in 6000 to 1 in 10000 Africans, and most of them die young from melanoma (or worse – there's a large black market in at least three African countries for albino body parts to use in witchdoctor "medicine", which has lead to hundreds murders, even gangs of "albino hunters"), this kind of stuff is really significant.

While an article on the concept and term and socio-politics of "neo-eugenics" is no place to get into the details of such a medical project, if someone sees something like that, based on real science, get labeled "neo-eugenics" and they come to WP to find out more about what that means, they should not walk away with the idea that an albinism cure (or AIDS immunity, or whatever) is part of some Nazi-connected plot for building a master race and sterlizing the rest of the world. They should arrive at a page specifically about neo-eugenics and how it is different from (neo-, and all that) the original eugenics idea, why people working on real genetic science object to the label, what legitimate ethical concerns are being raised, what histrionic allegations have been debunked, etc. You know, an actual encyclopedia article, actually about that – not about something from a century to half-a-century ago that no one but nuts takes seriously. The present state of things is like having merged astrononmy into astrology because they're both about stars and have "astro-" in their names and 500 years ago there wasn't a clear dividing line. Shall we merge chemistry and materials science into alchemy? LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Not untill there are separate bodies of literature on "neo-eugenics" and "classical eugenics". There is no such distinction in the literature that I know of - and the question of whether the science is sound is mostly irrelevant - the ethical dilemmas are the same regardless of whether the science works or not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Nicholas Agar wrote "Why We Should Defend Gene Editing as Eugenics," published December 2018. See [1] In his view, gene editing is technically eugenics and calling it eugenics may encourage the caution it requires. This 2013 article from Keele University states there are different definitions of eugenics, and different groups have different motivations for how they define it.[2] At this time, there is not an agreed upon distinction in the literature between old and new eugenics, which is why liberal eugenics, new eugenics, and techno-eugenics became redirects. Waters.Justin (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not very well-versed in this topic, but I do believe that eugenics generally has a very negative connotation, and is heavily linked to racism. Therefore, using the same word to describe scientific advances that have significantly less controversy surrounding them may not be the best course of action, and may take away from the validity of those scientific practices. Sraghuvir (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)Sraghuvir

I agree with the idea of splitting the articles into classical and new eugenics. This has already been done. However, as someone who wrote a dissertation on the history of eugenics, I have a few thoughts. First, there is some truth to the idea that many of the early 20th century eugenicists were racist. No doubt about it. But not all of them were, and many -- like playwright G.B. Shaw -- were political progressives who thought the only way for socialism to succeed is to improve the average abilities or moral character of any given population. See the preface to Man and Superman as an example of this way of thinking. Second, apart from the issue of race, most modern and classical eugenicists tended to care about the welfare of future people. They mainly differed in how much weight to give to individual liberty and collective interests. So, it would be wrong to equate eugenics with racism and white supremacy for these reasons and because eugenics has been practiced in countries like China and Japan which, last time I checked, were not white countries. user: Drexelbiologist (User talk:Drexelbiologist) 10:00am, 13 January 2020 Drexelbiologist (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Drexelbiologist

Racism is not restricted to just white folks, so... that's a non-starter. Further, you would need to provide reliable sources for changes you want to make. Finally, your signature is broken. Might want to look at your settings, or what command you're using to sign. (Should just be four ~ signs at the end of your message.) — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that other groups can be racist. That's precisely my point. Contrary to what the current entry says in the beginning, eugenics cannot be intrinsically associated with white supremacy. It also isn't necessarily associated with racism, but rather sometimes is and sometimes isn't (since some of its early advocates were racist, and some were not). I appreciate your point. I just wanted to argue against who claim there's a necessary connection between eugenics and white supremacy. Drexelbiologist (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Drexelbiologist

You've got it backwards. Just because other groups can use/endorse eugenics, it does not follow that we have to eliminate the mention of ties between eugenics & white supremacy. Eugenics was not only historically tied to white supremacy, but WS still pushes for eugenics in that regard, so removing that connection from the article would be irresponsible. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

First section of entry is not neutral

While I share the editors' views that racism is bad, and that there are biological worries about certain forms of eugenics, the current version of the first section of the article unfairly portrays eugenics as intrinsically associated with "white supremacy," and seems to indicate that it couldn't work because of "inbreeding depression" and other scientific objections. But this is not the consensus view. Many bioethicists and geneticists have argued that it is perfectly possible to have voluntary eugenics that avoids racism (e.g. Hermann Mueller) and that increases genetic diversity (e.g. Allen Buchanan). So, I think two changes should be made to the first part of the article: 1) Eugenics should not be associated, by definition, with racism and white supremacy. Sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. 2) Replies should be included to worries over loss of genetic diversity, etc. I tried to do this by citing articles from journals like Bioethics and The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, in which professional bioethicists defend the view that (a) gene editing can be done in a way that preserves genetic diversity, and (b) gene editing can be done in a way that improves on evolution rather than "interferes" with it in a way that's necessarily bad (the current version of the article implies that disrupting evolution is bad). As I mentioned before my changes were "undone," mainstream bioethicists who have made arguments like those listed above include Dan Brock (Harvard), Allen Buchanan (Duke), and Julian Savulescu (Oxford). Drexelbiologist (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Drexelbiologist

Stop making new sections to continue the same debates, please. And fix your signature. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

DrexelBiologist is right: the first section masks the ambiguity of the word and makes it looks as if no counter-arguments exist on issues like genetic diversity. But they do, and DB cites them. They should be reinstated. Neutrality is crucial, especially on a charged topic like this. Brian Barry Smith (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

No, this is incorrect.

"While I share the editors' views that racism is bad..." Starting a discussion with "Now I'm not a racist, but..." is a big red flag that you should step back and reevaluate what you are saying, and how other people will view that statement. We will not view this argument favorably, if that somehow hadn't occurred to you. All of this waffle about "worries over the loss of genetic diversity" is thinly disguised pseudoscientific nonsense taken from Steve Sailer's "human biodiversity movement". This is not a scientific movement, it's a political one which dresses in scientific garb, and a very WP:FRINGE movement at that. This position is not taken seriously by mainstream science for many reasons. Wikipedia isn't a platform for these kinds of fringe political bugbears, especially not white supremacist ones.

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources which discuss eugenics discuss its inherent problems. These problems include racism, and also, antisemitism, discrimination against people with disabilities, authoritarian political issues, general pseudoscience, and so on. Since the article is about eugenics as a topic, it will focus mainly on how reliable sources discuss eugenics. It would be neither neutral, nor even appropriate, to cherry-pick a handful of sources on human genetics or general bioethics. Using these sources to prop-up the fringe position that these "counter-arguments" in support of eugenics have wide-spread support is especially inappropriate.

If you do not understand why eugenics has the strongly negative reputation that it has, the best-case scenario is that you haven't read enough reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be wrong about levels of support for eugenic policies. E.g. this recent survey (Zigerell 2019) shows substantial levels of public support. It's possible that support for eugenics seem less than it is due to social stigma among those who produce most sources (journalists and academics). Similar to the situation for e.g. gay marriage some years ago in USA. --AndewNguyen (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Greyfell is dismissing the idea that there are legitimate responses to preserving genetic diversity. But DrexelBiologist cites sources by prominent academics at mainstream universities who published their views in top journals. Why is he equating these with Steve Sailer and (in his words) white supremacy? Sounds like someone has an axe to grind. Associating famous biologists like Mueller and ethicists like Buchanan with white supremacists is neither correct nor helpful to the neutrality of the article, which is Wikipedia’s stated goal. Brian Barry Smith (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I should emphasize that Hermann Mueller was a Nobel laureate in biology who endorsed liberal eugenics and gene editing (once the technology was developed) in order to avoid high mutation load, and to preserve genetic diversity. So it’s an empirical fact that thoughtful scientists disagree with Greyfell’s insistence that eugenics is necessarily pseudoscience and that various objections have no possible replies. There are replies, and they should be aired so people can decide for themselves who is right. Brian Barry Smith (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

then bring your sources to support your contention. Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

see January 10 additions from DrexelBiologist, which Greyfell undid without stating why. DrexelBiologist alludes to this above in discussion.

See also from Hermann Mueller, “Genetic Progress Through Voluntarily Conducted Germinal Choice,” and “Our Load of Mutations.” Both of these classic works can be found online (gated) but are also cited in works like those DrexelBiologist tried to add to balance the discussion.

Finally, an overview of responses to some of Greyfell’s claims are in Powell and Buchanan, “Breaking Evolution’s Chains: The prospect of deliberate genetic modification.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy. 2011. Url: https://academic.oup.com/jmp/article-abstract/36/1/6/959278?redirectedFrom=fulltext Brian Barry Smith (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Eugenics in fiction

In the Star Trek fiction universe the "Eugenics Wars" of 1992-1996 occurred in which 85 augmented genetically altered Dictators who ruled the earth overthrown at a cost of over 30 million dead; however this was a prelude to World War III of 2026-2053 in which 600 million died Likewise in "Star Trek The Next Generation" Eugenics are touched upon in episode "The Masterpiece Society" of a colony of Genetic engineered Humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.70.36 (talk) 14:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

On assessment of scholarship

@User:Grayfell Regarding your [initial assertion], (followed by my [objection], and your [restatement]), I see that as your opinion. Can you offer anything more convincing? Degrees are one index of scholarship but so is work done. Which is why the number of pages is relevant - especially the end notes, which demonstrate substantial engagement with source material. Dayirmiter (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

This is mistaken. The "work done" doesn't transform this into a WP:RS unless this work is supported. Dinesh D'Souza is not treated as a credible scholar by historians, biologists, or other experts in fields related to eugenics. He has a reputation for misrepresenting existing scholarship and for spreading conspiracy theories. By including this in a "further reading" section, we would be directing readers to WP:FRINGE source without sufficient context, which is contrary to Wikipedia's goals.

Further, this specific book, The End of Racism from 1995, is not primarily about eugenics. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

As an easily-cited example of the controversial reputation of this book and its author: "Like Murray, D’Souza cloaked his arguments in academic garb: extensive citations, lengthy expositions, detailed history. But like The Bell Curve, The End of Racism was about promoting conservative policy, starting with the premise that the problems black Americans faced were not the result of racism and that no outside intervention — especially not affirmative action — could solve them."[3]

I cite this Vox article to support a specific point, which is more than can be said for the free-floating link to D'Souza's book. If D'Souza's polemic has something to do with "eugenics" as a whole, it would need to be explained with context, presumably from a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

That the book is not primarily about eugenics is a persuasive argument for not including it in the "further reading" section of this article.

Your assertions that the author is "not treated as a credible scholar" and "has a reputation" still appear to be your opinion - and an opinion about a person, rather than about a work or an idea. This appearance is in no way altered by your citation of somebody else's "BIG IDEA" opinion piece. My opinion is that the book in question shows evidence of considerable research, thought, and work to produce it and, therefore, is a credible piece of scholarship.

Still, I accept your removal of the work for the reason noted. Thank you for your reply. Dayirmiter (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, WP:FRINGE pertains to theories, not persons. Dayirmiter (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

By "reputation", I was referring to WP:RS, which is a policy. As a "scholar", he lacks a positive reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, so his work is not reliable for scholarship. Fringe refers to theories, but this includes views and positions, such as D'Souza's misrepresentation of Van Buren for partisan intent, or misrepresenting Nazism, the Southern Strategy, slavery, etc. always for partisan intent. This is because he is a partisan pundit, not a scholar. He isn't a fringe person, but he is a a WP:FRINGE source. Grayfell (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Council of Agde

The mention of the Council of Agde in this context does not make sense. The canon 14 (61) that forbids marriage between cousins only includes it in the list of unions already regarded as incestuous:

De incestis coniunctionibus nihil prorsus ueniae reseruamus, nisi cum adulterium separatione sanauerint. Incestos uero nec ullo coniugii nomine praeualendos, praeter illos quos uel nominare funestum est, hos esse censemus: Si quis relictam fratris, quae pene prius soror extiterat, carnali coniunctione uiolauerit; si quis frater germanam uxoris accipiat; si quis nouercam duxerit; si quis consubrinae subrinaeque se societ (quod ut a praesenti tempore prohibemus, ita et ea quae sunt ante nos instituta non soluimus); si quis relictae uel filiae auunculi misceatur aut patrui, uel priuignae concubitu polluatur. Sane quibus coniunctio inlicita interdicitur, habebunt ineundi melioris coniugii libertatem.

So the basis of the condemnation is moral - definitely not a "legal provision against the birth of allegedly inferior human beings". The source quoted (Gies & Gies, p. 52) makes it clear that this is a modification of Roman law which already "prohibited marriage between partners closer than the fourth degree of relationship, meaning aunts, uncles, nephews, and nieces". (BTW the bibliographical reference is wrong: the authors are "Frances and Joseph Gies", not "Frances Giles".) It is just part (and a very small part) of the history of the concept of incest in Western European culture. The possible relationship between the idea of incest and eugenic considerations is something that could have a separate heading here, but not limited to this example.

The confusion may have arisen from what comes next in Gies & Gies: "Pope Gregory offered a rationale based on eugenic grounds: 'We have found by experience that no offspring can come of such [cousinly] wedlock'". But Pope Gregory (meaning Gregory I) has nothing to do with that Council; he wasn't even born then (c. 540-604). The quotation comes from Gregory's well known reply to St. Augustine's series of questions included by Bede in his History (I.27), whose authenticity is still debated (see John R. C. Martyn (ed), The Letters of Gregory the Great 5-9, pp. 61ss.) I don't know why Gies & Gies call that "eugenic grounds": it stands to reason that if Gregory thought (mistakenly) that such unions cannot produce offspring, there was no question of "allegedly inferior human beings" being born, was there? But that is beside the point.

At any rate, I suggest removing the reference to Agde. 181.31.55.35 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph. The cited source doesn't even mention the Council of Agde, nor does it directly connect this to eugenics. This, alone is enough to remove this as original research and WP:SYNTH. We need to summarize what sources say, and cannot use them to support our own interpretation of events.

The second part of the paragraph was supported by this source:

• Goodell, William (1881–1882). "Clinical Notes on the Extirpation of the Ovaries for Insanity". The American Journal of Insanity. XXXVIII. Retrieved 3 February 2020.

Goodell mentioned that insanity would be "transmitted" to future generations, but the source needs to be evaluated in context. Goodell is discussing ovaries as a direct cause of insanity, and their removal as a treatment for insanity. He is specifically comparing the removal of ovaries for "physical derangments dependent upon menstruation" to "mental derangements which plainly arise or seem to arise from the same source". While this does obviously relate to eugenics in some way, this connection will need to be explained via a secondary source, again to prevent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Grayfell (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Citation needed

The claim that eugenics leads to reduced genetic diversity needs a citation because the subsequent citation doesn't mention anything about genetic diversity. 2601:940:C000:46A0:7172:E744:DB45:EFBC (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

See the paragraph's final sentence: "A long-term, species-wide eugenics plan might lead to such a scenario because the elimination of traits deemed undesirable would reduce genetic diversity by definition." The citation there should cover the paragraph's opening sentence: "Eugenic policies may lead to a loss of genetic diversity." In this case the citation at the end of the paragraph is clearly meant to cover the whole thing (because it discusses one tightly construed topic), and citing each individual sentence would make it onerous for the reader. Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, after all the bluster and edit warring, IP, this is the truth? Sorry, but it doesn't look great. El_C 00:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

IP is hopping, evading blocks, "try and block me. I will keep coming back. I have thousands of IP addresses." Doug Weller talk 07:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

"Argue" versus "say"

While "say" is generally preferable per WP:SAY when attributing a statement, "argue" is often a better fit when a position is supported by reasons or evidence. Unlike "claim" or "clarify", it is strictly neutral with regard to the truth-value of the position, but it does differ from "say" in that it implies that the stated position is more than a bare assertion. Note that this word is employed throughout Wikipedia's own policies (e.g. WP:NPOV) and even appears in footnote 5 of the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch. If it's used in the manual of style, that's a strong indication that it can be considered neutral, best-practice language. Further, in the places where I've changed "say" to "argue" in this article, I did so because "say" misleads the reader by implying that these are bare assertions when they are anything but. Generalrelative (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

"So called" euthanasia

Adding "so called" to the sentence in this edit is weasel wording. There's really no argument there. If we want to expand on how it doesn't fit the actual definition of euthanasia (with cites), I'm fine with that. But simply throwing "so called" into the sentence doesn't accomplish anything but making the sentence unnecessarily ambiguous. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. Though we disagree about how to interpret WP:WEASEL, I agree that the addition of "so-called" before "euthanasia" is far from optimal. The critical point that I think the IP who originally added "so-called" got right is that those murdered in the Aktion T4 program were not killed in order to ease their suffering (as implied by the definition of euthanasia as intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering) but rather for purportedly eugenic or even cost-saving reasons. That's why it's quite normal for serious scholarly sources to put the term "euthanasia" in scare-quotes when referring to its use by the Nazis to describe their own practices. See [[4]], [[5]], [[6]] and, if you happen to read German, Peter Sandner's article in [[7]]. I'll go ahead and think about how to compose a more substantial revision with appropriate sourcing, and then if there is further disagreement we can re-engage here. Generalrelative (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. With a few cites, we could explain that what the Nazis did doesn't fit the definition of euthanasia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Users are continuing to dispute this, most recently Generalrelative (talk · contribs) (double diff) and Tom harrison (talk · contribs) (diff). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs): Thanks for the ping but that's not quite accurate. I commented on this talk page thread after seeing Tom harrison's revert, and HandThatFeeds has stated that they are amenable to my proposed solution. There is no ongoing dispute. Generalrelative (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Eugenics Today

The most recent thing mentioned in the article was from 2015. Is there any information on eugenics from a more recent time or eugenics in the present? Shelby030520 (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Shelby030520, it would be good to have a section dedicated to the modern eugenics movement... In my view, the "Modern resurgence of interest" subheading is unsuitably nested in the history area. There are several fringe geneticists (e.g. Richard Lynn) who publicly endorse the idea of embryo selection. This would involve parents producing 10 embryos for which polygenic risk scores could be performed (say, for intelligence or neuroticism) and then inserted via IVF. This is much less controversial than sterilisation, for example. There are mainstream researchers who would support this freedom too – although they rarely spell it out. There are discussions around CRISPR editing, for example, in this book. As I understand it, CRISPR editing will only really allow for elimination of a few diseases which rely on individual genes. Most traits are polygenic and thus the "hacking darwin" suggestion is misguided. Instead, this book by Robert Plomin offers an insight into the nature of genetics (via his twin and adoption studies) and future technologies. Plomin does not argue for eugenics; he is politically to the left and is a great cheerleader for genetics research. He provides some brief commentary relating to eugenics, although I don't think that area of the book is accessible via Google Books. Sxologist (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Second comment, Plomin addresses embryo selection here on page 179. This seems to be the position of most active researchers; most people are completely unprepared to deal with ethical questions surrounding such technologies. It has been argued that a population/country could raise their mean IQ by 10 points in a single generation (assuming everyone did embryo selection), because the average IQ gap between siblings is around 13 points, which is huge. Most countries outlaw embryo selection (e.g. UK); but in future some might allow it and thus open the door to embryo tourism – another ethical dilemma. There are a few perspectives offered under the 'endorsement' subheading, which could also fit under a heading about the modern eugenics. Sxologist (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Commenting here, I see that it was suggested in the header of the talk page that a 'modern eugenics' section be created and headings be better consolidated. I think that would be suitable. Sxologist (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

First statement in Opposition paragraph

The cited:

Some[who?] have described potential "eugenics wars" as the worst-case outcome of eugenics.

Also fictional references.

(===Example===) Star Trek fictional universe in movies, television and print publications. (===Example===)

Suggestion Perhaps moving the statement to the paragraph In fiction would clarify the reference?162.196.25.164 (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Added section on Malthus' and Spencer's philosophies

I'm not especially well-versed with Malthus or Herbert Spencer, but from what i do know, they was a fairly influential part of 19th century eugenicism, effecting the works of both marxists and liberals alike. since neo-malthusians are already mentioned, although in passing, it would be nice to add the malthusian aspect of class-eugenicism, as well as the "social darwinism" that Herbert Spencer ideologically put to the table. 81.230.47.242 (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOV, WP:ONUS, the first sentence of the article, and the sidebar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Let's do some word association. First word is "Eugenics." What comes to mind next? If your answer is,

"Heteronormativity, Internalized oppression, Intersectionality, Male privilege" like in the sidebar, congratulations, you're an activist and need to step away from this article immediately.

Now let's define eugenics. We can use the first part of the definition currently on the article:

"a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population."

Read this sentence carefully. Does this imply group discrimination? No, absolutely not.

I'll ask user:Simonm223 , (Personal attack removed), who has been active in guarding the language I'm critiquing, if he thinks that this sentence implies establishing totalitarian dictatorships, waging extremely bloody civil wars, and causing mass starvation via forced industrialization:

"Socialism is a political, social, and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and democratic control, such as workers' self-management of enterprises."

It doesn't imply those things, right? So wouldn't I be an activist if I edited the socialism article to say, after that sentence, "historically this has been attempted via the use of totalitarian, undemocratic police states such as the USSR, wherein the Holodomor killed more people than the Holocaust and the gulag concentration camp system imprisoned more people than the Nazis."

It follows that smearing eugenics with a gesture towards group discrimination in the first sentence of the article is activism. I agree that this information belongs in the article, below, in a section on ethical controversies and historical practice, but if we take the first part of the first sentence seriously, Eugenics is simply an application of the theory of evolution and does not strictly imply the practice of group discrimination. Consequently, activists may well append information on eugenics onto the first sentence of the evolution article, because as eugenics is an optional application of evolution, so to is group discrimination an optional application of evolution.

In other words, we find activism here, which is a violation of WP:NPOV.

What about WP:ONUS? Well, I was bold and I removed the activism and made the article consistent with other articles on Wikipedia. However, my edit was reverted, which is expected if I am correct about the activism regarding this part of the article. Now I have the option to counter-revert or to merely post this talk page. I believe the broader consensus of Wikipedia compels me to counter-revert, throwing the responsibility for starting a potential edit-war onto the original reverter. This decision was enhanced when I noticed that this reverter and another user who also protects this part of the article heavily are both at higher risk than normal for activist motivations based on the politics expressed in their bios. These are user:Grayfell and user:Generalrelative .

I also took time out of my day to examine the history of the wording in question on this article. It appears to have been added here by a strangely now-defunct account. This was their only edit on the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eugenics&oldid=879235994 . It was then bizarrely reverted by an admin, who then reverted the reversion, symbolically affirming the edit. This appears to have been that admin's only edit on the article, and that admin's profile raises concerns of activism with respect to this topic, based on the politics she endorses. (This should be taken as a polite suggestion that, if you are ideologically concerned with issues like group discrimination, you are at risk for activism, and should step back from this article.) Consequently, any alleged consensus may be viewed as potentially astroturfed by the reputation of this admin, even though said astroturfing was probably accidental. Furthermore, there is controversy regarding this wording, as I have found plenty of examples of people attempting to remove it before losing interest and walking away, after being warred with by a small group of users with very similar politics.

Consequently, WP:ONUS falls on those at high risk for activism based on the facts and reasoning outlined here to show that the wording and sidebar are relevant and best for the article.WikiScholar12 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll just ping Grayfell here since they were mentioned above. I'm not sure there is anything worth responding to above, but more eyes on this article would be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Well I would like you to respond to some of my reasoning. Do you think similar statements in other articles would improve wikipedia? If that's the broader consensus I suppose the socialism article needs a revision. Do you think that would fly, or are you violating the broader consensus on neutrality? WikiScholar12 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging GorillaWarfare since she is apparently the admin referred to by OP. Generalrelative (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@WikiScholar12: Do not attack a Wikipedia editor for their pronouns again. You may also wish to review our WP:NPOV policy and WP:COI guidelines, which do not prohibit people from editing articles solely due to their personal beliefs, as you are suggesting. My edit to this page was to revert an edit I noticed while patrolling for antivandalism, and was based in the fact that they added commentary without sourcing. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mention pronouns in my post. That you imagined that I mentioned pronouns indicates to me that you are at high risk for activism. You may be an admin, but I worry your activity on this article is degrading towards Wikipedia's second pillar. Kindly, I suggest, if you respect objectivity and neutrality, that you find another admin without ideological commitments on this topic. WikiScholar12 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The original edit remains in history if you have forgotten what you wrote: [8]. Feel free to ctrl-F "pronouns". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you ... mistaken? Or...? I swear on my dog I never mentioned pronouns. I hope everyone does their ctrl f-ing. WikiScholar12 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The above is very reminiscent of activity last year that spilled-over to the new eugenics article. The same junk source that sock puppets kept adding were restored to that article last week. My best guess as to why I was singled out by name here is because of this history. Since the editor is already blocked, this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lewis Nottingham is for future reference. More eyes at new eugenics would also be appreciated. Grayfell (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Thanks for this notification, and for launching the SPI last year. I'll keep an eye out. Generalrelative (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcloughe.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soukphalyisabelle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The *ethos* of eugenics.

"Since the 1980s and 1990s, with new assisted reproductive technology procedures available, such as gestational surrogacy (available since 1985), preimplantation genetic diagnosis (available since 1989), and cytoplasmic transfer (first performed in 1996), concern has grown about the possible revival of a more potent form of eugenics after decades of promoting human rights." — from the page on 'Eugenics'

On his Wikipedia page, one of the 'notable ideas' of the American philosopher Richard Rorty is "sentimentality as the foundation of human rights." I, admittedly, know very little about Richard Rorty. If my cursory examination (and intuition) is valid, would it be worthwhile to elaborate how supranational promotion of human rights — after the astonishing devastation of the Second World War — through institutions like the United Nations, impacted the moral validity of eugenics practices?

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 02:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The first job of Wikipedia editors is to properly summarize the published sources. What sources are you looking at, other than Wikipedia? Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm just brainstorming here. I thought I'd put that (perhaps tenuous, perhaps genuine) connections between sentimentality, human rights, and debates on the morality of eugenic practices, be they historical or, in the case of assisted reproductive technologies, nascent. I'm sure I could dig something up that Rorty wrote which could verify (or disconfirm) my initial hunch. SpicyMemes123 (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

About the reference that Darwin disagree with Dalton

I can't find where in the reference that says about that, it could be false, but maybe it's just that i'm not searching correctly. Any thoughts? 2804:389:E800:CDCB:0:0:A8:D201 (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Voluntary childlessness / sterilization as a mean of not passing bad genes (eugenics)?

I see the article mentioning about designer babies and forced sterilization, but maybe there is an eugenic practice that is much more common, talked about much less, and is on the rise: voluntary childlessness (childfree)

Most people who are childfree chooses to be for other reasons, it rarely is only for the concerns of passing bad genes, but some people also weigh their genetics when considering whether or not to have children. If the person is wealthy they may choose an embryo selection method, if the person is poor they may just choose to adopt a child, a pet or just be happy with their SO.

Two sources that I found that can be used:

• Engwall, Kristina (May 4, 2014). "Childfreeness, parenthood and adulthood". Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research. 16 (4): 333–347. doi:10.1080/15017419.2013.781955. ISSN 1745-3011.
• Brownell, Kristen (July 6, 2020). "Why I don't have a child: I refuse to pass on my addiction genes". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2022-07-27. Retrieved 2022-11-13.

Someone else who has worked more time on this article and has a better English than me, could point were to add this. I think this could be added near the "The heterozygote test is used for the early detection of recessive hereditary diseases", or on the "Endorsement" section, saying that people may already voluntary sterilize themselves so they don't pass on genes they think would bring a lesser experience for the child and a higher heath burden on the community/government, and wikilink to the voluntary childlessness article.

-- Arthurfragoso (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your post. I do, however, have two objections. 1) The sources presented here are not up to our standards. The first is a very tiny, individual qualitative study. The findings of such a study have little weight, by any standard. The second is simply an opinion piece. 2) We would need sources that specifically refer to such decisions as a form of eugenics, which I imagine most do not, per WP:NOR. In sum, only if we get reliable WP:SECONDARY sources describing individual decisions not to pass on genes they consider to be "bad" as eugenics could we consider adding such material to this article. Generalrelative (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Generalrelative. Also, my understanding is that eugenics is something undertaken by society, rather than by individuals, and that it is a deprivation of choice. TFD (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• It's already in the article, if only very briefly. See Eugenics#Arguments for scientific validity third paragraph. In the last paragraph of Charles Darwin#Human society the discussion he had with Galton is briefly covered, noting CD preferring to simply publicise the importance of inheritance and leave decisions to individuals. Of course, that was before eugenics was named and introduced as a coercive practice, but genetic screening remains in some contexts as a choice for individuals. . . dave souza, talk 19:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks everyone for the comprehensive reply.

  I'm childfree and I'm somewhat biased. Aside from those two articles on contemporary childfree, I could not find much stronger articles, so, we should keep the article as it is.

  I also found some historical articles that are quite informative, by the keywords on Google Scholar: "eugenics childfree voluntary"

  This book on chapter 13, shows quite a detailed story on childlessness from 1900 to the present days. The book says they encouraged desirable woman to have children, and the other to not have. But they mentioned most were compulsory sterilized, and they don't give much info on the voluntary childless. Then they decided to make a congress for eugenics, and a little after the consequence was the holocaust.

  "The foundation of eugenics, therefore, perpetuated the simultaneous discourses of voluntary childlessness as a social responsibility (for women with undesirable traits) and a social irresponsibility (for women with desirable traits)."

  The essential handbook of women's sexuality. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger. 2013. ISBN 978-0-313-39709-7. OCLC 780480659.

  I also found this other article that is not much:

  "The final target of NON’s campaign against pronatalism was academia. Prior to 1970, academic literature rarely discussed voluntary childlessness. The desire for children was understood to be a universal impulse, making voluntary childlessness either rare or nonexistent. It was widely assumed that couples without children were biologically incapable of reproducing; childlessness was synonymous with sterility. Paul Popenoe, the renowned eugenicist, was one of the only scholars writing before 1970 to entertain the possibility that childlessness could be voluntary. In 1937, Popenoe concluded that “the great bulk of . . . voluntarily childless marriages are motivated by individualism . . . and an infantile, self-indulgent, frequently neurotic attitude toward life.” This assessment of the childless by choice would dominate social scientific discourse for the next thirty years."

  "The 1970s marked the rediscovery of voluntary childlessness in social scientific literature. In a 1973 article entitled “Voluntary Childlessness: A Neglected Area of Family Study,” the sociologist Jean E. Veevers lamented the “selective inattention” of social scientists who had “virtually ignored” voluntarily childless individuals"

  • (paywall) Healey, Jenna (2016). "Rejecting Reproduction: The National Organization for Non-Parents and Childfree Activism in 1970s America". Journal of Women's History. 28 (1): 131–156. doi:10.1353/jowh.2016.0008. ISSN 1527-2036.

  Anyway, this book and the article just confirms that during 1900s basically no one would would decided to deny their reproduction based on eugenics, they would do it for economic freedom and independence.

  -- Arthurfragoso (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about this. We would need a great deal of very reliable sourcing that directly and unmistakably terms this a eugenics practice, otherwise it would be a major WP:OR and WP:POV problem. A decision to be child-free on the basis of not wanting to pass on undesired heritable traits is not eugenics; it's a mixture of compassion for a future life and concern with the troubles that would be incurred in one's own in dealing with the struggles of that future life. A large number of people with albinism, or congenital deafness or blindness, or other heritable serious conditions forego breeding; this does not make them eugencists. Eugenics in the classic sense is an pseudoscientific ideology, and even in the later broader meaning it is an institutionalized program of medical practices and a regulatory regime forcing or encouraging them, in both cases with the specific goal of "improving" the human gene pool collectively. That has jack to do with not wating to pass on congenital dwarfism, or a propensity toward alcoholism on both sides of the family, or an extensive family history of early-onset diabetes, or some other personal-family concern about what might be inherited by one's own immediate offspring. They are conceptually related but they cannot be equated (at least not without overwhelmingly good sourcing that proves that the definition of the term eugenics in high-quality source material has radically shifted). See also the text-wall below about trying to redefine this term on-the-fly to mean something like "not caring or doing enough about whether COVID-susceptible people die" (even though that has no relation to reproductive regulation). This is not MakeUpNewMeaningsPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

... this section is from 2022. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It's not archived yet, and I don't want someone thinking "Hey, great idea! I'm gonna coatrack this into the article right now!".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Revealed: US pro-birth conference’s links to far-right eugenicists

I'm not 100% sure but this looks relevant here.[9] Doug Weller talk 13:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. I'll keep an eye out for more coverage. Generalrelative (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

ENGVAR

Per MOS:ENGVAR, I reverted a recent change from US to British English spelling in this article. However, it is using DMY not MDY dates, and the topic is not particularly closely tied to the US. So, we could come to a local consensus to switch to British spelling to be more consistent with the date format. This would just entail searching for 'ize', 'izing', 'ization' and changing applicable words to use 's' instead of 'z'. I don't think any other differences are implicated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what heading to put

I am afraid this article is now gaslighting me through, after a very recent change to the facts, its continued claiming of eugenics to be a "fringe" practise. An improvement to the article would therefore be for it to change for it to reflect the factual truth. Of course the problem that I face is thus: that, because eugenics is so horrific and people generally (therefore mainstream) will say they are against it when asked, it will therefore never be accepted by the mainstream that it is now being in fact practised on a mainstream basis. The mainstream will deny it and want it to be a fringe set of practises. I am therefore up against mainstream consensus that will determine this is not mainstream and will be seen as fringe by pointing out the fact that it now is. But nonetheless the article is now factually inaccurate due to a very recent change in the facts that has only occurred in about the past year and is now ongoing. What has brought me back here is my seeing numerous different people, including some scientists and doctors, making statements that link the general current response to COVID-19 as being "eugenics" and specifically using this word. I saw one the other day (I am not keeping records as I go) but I have now seen this: https://twitter.com/bethechange1682/status/1639021787844423682

At this stage, with myself seeing person after person after person over time speaking of this as being eugenics in this ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, I am now tipped over the edge by above tweet and forced to come back here (my last post on this Talk page was deleted as someone thought it was my own personal opinion) and challenge the now inaccurate statement in the article that eugenics is a fringe set of practises. The original tweet is not saying that people generally are enjoying seeing immunocompromised people die. What she is saying is that they are enjoying their normal life but as a consequence of this is causing immunocompromised people to die and selecting them out in a eugenics way. The reply makes clear this person perceives very strongly that this is eugenics, expressly or impliedly, and the lived experience of this person cannot be denied.

I also have this article https://rabble.ca/health/dont-look-away-from-the-implicit-eugenics-of-living-with-covid/ which also has experts mentioned in it. Whether or not these are fringe experts in that the vast majority of experts might not currently agree this is eugenics, it does appear that there is a section of the public, of immunocompromised people and people at higher risk from COVID-19, that does think that the mainstream practise of living with COVID is eugenics. People will of course be sad to find this is the case and will not want to believe it is. The original tweet refers to "all of society" having abandoned immunocompromised/higher risk, therefore now mainstream no longer fringe. The section of the public that believes it is eugenics cannot be written off, because the people that are immunocompromised or higher risk might be more than some people would think.

There are lots of us that are clinically vulnerable and which cannot be seen in normal society as disabilities are not always obvious. Indeed, some of us may no longer be circulating in normal societies that permit the amount of COVID-19 that they do, likely increased and continuous by people behaving on mass scale as if is normal pre-pandemic life, which it may well be for them but not us, as they now select us out and send us more so to our deaths or to further long-term disability. Unfortunately, I noted above that it was said "Also, my understanding is that eugenics is something undertaken by society, rather than by individuals, and that it is a deprivation of choice". It is - the living with COVID in the sense of largely behaving as if it is back to normal life and doing this on mass scale as appears to be being done is something being undertaken by society. And it *is* a deprivation of choice, because it denies immunocompromised people the choice to live normal lives that they cannot. Sadly and unfortunately it fits precisely the definition given of eugenics in what the person on here wrote. The article above points out that did have opinions that opposed the lifting of mask mandates but that this did not stop their mass behaviour of resuming pre-pandemic activities and now doing so by almost completely dropping wearing of masks - clearly almost no-one else actually has any personal responsibility.

Therefore, on the basis that they will say they are against something which results in eugenics (is being undertaken by society right now in normal pre-pandemic behaviour as if the pandemic isn't here or the virus not here at the levels it is and is depriving some individuals of choice), people will generally of course say they are against it, and therefore eugenics is a fringe belief.

However, it is not a fringe set of practises because, despite this belief, it is now in fact being practised on a mainstream basis (that I believe most people, i.e. the mainstream, are not even aware of the fact they are practising it and therefore do not intend it but they are in fact practising it whilst not even being aware that they are but are therefore still practising it) and, it seems, with much of the population in denial as to what they are doing, will probably deny it if told since it seems impossible to believe, as well as most people being in some sort of mass delusion over this (of course the mass will never accept or see that it is), the reasons for which I could go into in huge detail with masses of evidence from media reporting to psychology as to people's behaviour in general and why this might be the case but would take me absolutely ages to do so, would be too long not read, and would be way way too much esoteric and too far gone now with most people that have fallen into this widespread irrationality in any event and, for this, I would back myself up with multiple pieces of research that show people on the autism spectrum tend to make more rational decisions, based on evidence and facts, rather than emotions that have clearly come into play and affected a lot of people on the pandemic and the threat of an infectious disease, and therefore I suspect I am more accurate at calculating odds and risk from the disease: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14946-never-gamble-with-an-autistic-opponent/

Indeed, cognitive dissonance and normalcy bias come into why people are behaving en masse as they appear to be, although if I go into more I will then need to find the numerous supporting evidence and people could be sure I have all that evidence somewhere to back myself up on everything I say if I can find that page on an autism website that says precisely this about autistic people. I am afraid it is too much for me to go into any more about this as it is so frustrating to see how most people are and, after I've written this and left it here, I will not be able to visit the article again because its gaslighting of me by claiming this is a fringe practise when this is no longer in fact true is so offensive and so emotionally destructive to myself to keep seeing it that I am no longer able to come back here to see it again and again.

The reason I am not amending the article itself is because it would be hugely controversial to call eugenics now a mainstream practise, even though this is the truth and does indeed fit exactly someone's understanding as posted by them earlier here and sadly I've now looked at it and brought precisely what is going on en masse in society (therefore mainstream and what is now in practise) squarely within what they wrote their understanding of eugenics to be. It is almost undeniable, except that, because I suspect most people, the mainstream itself, would deny it because it would be horrific to confront themselves with what practise they are actually doing, we therefore need to have some debate and create a false side in which some people say it isn't true and therefore neutral point of view accepting neither side. Certainly at present the claim this is a fringe practise - which has been true for an extremely long time but now only in the past year or two has become untrue - is, because of the people that are now saying living with Covid situation is eugenics, no longer something that is undisputed but instead is now contentious and controversial and therefore itself should no longer claim it is a fringe practise when there is now a non-insignificant section of the public that is using the word "eugenics" to describe the situation seen in living with Covid - I am seeing multiple different people on Twitter, and although this may be a fringe echo-chamber and will not be the mainstream view, nonetheless a group of immunocompromised people cannot be dismissed so easily unless it is wished to throw them all under the bus and itself be mainstream attitude in that.

Indeed, these people will never look at other humans the same again. So maybe the article should still say this is fringe practise (based on an incorrect mainstream belief that it is fringe practise because the mainstream would never want to admit their own collective behaviour was eugenics and of course I can't say the mainstream belief is incorrect because that itself puts me as fringe, even though it is incorrect and minority opinions can be right) but the article should now whilst saying it is fringe practise point out that this is disputed, because it does appear to be disputed by a group of immunocompromised people, mainly but not exclusively because it does also include myself and includes some experts, and these people cannot be entirely dismissed (almost by definition the immunocompromised will not be the majority of people) and I do seem to be seeing multiple people mentioning eugenics in this context not infrequently - maybe the mainstream is not circulating with immunocompromised people and is ignoring their statements in the ether of Twitter. Not least it is very uncomfortable to those whose behaviour is eugenics, namely the mainstream now, to see it this way.

It is all a disregard for these people whilst everyone else is doing their normal lives. The multiple people in the minority mentioning it as eugenics are a voice that means claiming it is a fringe practise is not an uncontentious thing, it is now hugely contentious of this article to me by gaslighting me, the disagreements with it cannot be totally ignored except if they are this speaks volumes to me about most people's attitudes now as well, don't care about immunocompromised and callous. How do I get such a horrific thing accepted as being the mainstream that it now is? Not least to point out that I am actually a level-headed and rational person (the article from New Scientist suggests I am more likely to be compared to most people and this article also shows most people make some pretty irrational decisions: https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/the-fallible-mind/201708/why-advertising-falls-flat-in-individuals-autism I do tend to be more rational, because I am autistic, and have the two scientific articles as prove of that and there are more I could provide, but enough about me as all I am saying is that I am quite level-headed and rational and have previously been in mainstream behaviour myself before the pandemic, so not the case that I am some automatic fringe deviant but bizarrely much of the rest of the world seems to have departed me in the past year and gone into some strange parallel universe for reasons that I can see why but are way too detailed to set out and take us way off-topic here anyway.

I have provided just two examples of sources saying or in effect eugenics, or maybe three since there are two tweets there. The article says "This becomes more difficult if we name what is happening: the normalizing of eugenics" and doesn't use the term lightly. Normalizing of it means it is now mainstream, no longer fringe instead normalized. It is found in everyone's behaviour that is now proceeding as if the virus isn't here and doing normal pre-pandemic behaviour acting in this way and not wearing masks/respirators to protect others. Failure to do this is itself an act of eugenics, that may deny other people choice since if immunocompromised they may not want to be around, or able to be around due to the increased risk maskless people pose to them, those people and therefore it is excluding people from society, including myself. It is eugenics because if immunosuppressed people catch the virus they are the ones most likely being thrown under the bus by other people's normal behaviour and more likely to be killed. I would not go as far to say herd immunity is eugenics, particularly as it seems the prospect of this is now remote.

Instead, it is the practised behaviour (apparently contrary to the belief) that is mainstream, passing the virus to these people is clearly causing deaths, that most people are proceeding as if not happening, indeed not because they want to necessary but because they are either not informed they are happening or are not interested enough to see it - we are now at 1,000 hospitalisations per day again in my country, the highest number of infections now in the year so far - yet the behaviour, perceived by some or many immunocompromised people (who may be more than you think) as eugenics continues to go on and is mainstream behaviour, sacrificing disabled and elderly people to be able to do their own normal life in an ongoing pandemic, including regularly speaking about this pandemic as if it has gone into the past and therefore mass denial about that, apparently to excuse the behaviour.

Also unacceptable and I had better leave this page soon because mainstream behaviour is now offensive to myself. Even at the time in 2022: "Many are now rationalizing their behaviours as somehow not endangering others (a virtually impossible calculation), even though we experienced a sixth wave of COVID because of lifting most restrictions." The behaviours are rationalized as somehow not being eugenics even though they are. People do not believe in eugenics. But they are practising it, in fact, right now, on mass scale - mainstream practise the article even last year speaking of a small and loud minority being "...a sideshow and a useful scapegoat that distracts us from the noticing how a eugenic-minded way of thinking is no longer an extremist or fringe ideology."

As far as I see it, there is every reason for the mainstream to fall into denial that this is the case, because it is their behaviour - and of course they don't want to stop their normal life because it is understandable to see how the pandemic has been so hard for them and continues to be hard for us whilst they now have what they think is their normal back (it's not - because passing the virus around and repeatedly infecting others is not normal, by definition, as per what was before, i.e. what could be gone "back" to so has not been gone back to, even though everything that has been on the news seems ultimately aimed at creating the impression this is the case, but instead a move into passing this virus around without precautions, that most people no longer see as necessary, has taken place and sadly it is eugenics because it is denying other people choice - people do not have choice to avoid being exposed to this virus by other's not wearing masks, the only other choice is their social exclusion that I can confirm, from my own experience of it, is now continuing to take place every day with no end in sight to it and didn't exist before this pandemic). I am encountering different people on social media, the parts of it in which I circulate, calling it eugenics not every day but not infrequently.

Maybe the appropriate amendment, but I will not make it because I see it as too controversial to make without at least mentioning on talk page - if I were to go straight ahead and make the change it would probably be seen as vandalism so I therefore will not do it - would be to say it is a fringe belief and fringe set of practises but believed by some immunocompromised people to be a mainstream set of practises - even though this would still have me disputing that it is a fringe set of practises since it has now, in literally the past year, changed from being fringe into now being mainstream practise and therefore it is not accurate to say it is a fringe set of practises! It is not - and I have seen the other person's understanding on this page of what "eugenics" is and it plainly describes exactly what is being practised on a mass scale now - mainstream therefore - it is society not just a few individuals and it does deny choice. It is squarely and completely within how this person has said their understanding of eugenics is. I have assessed it objectively, not my opinion, it is clearly within the plain description they've left us on 13 November last year as to what someone independent of myself understands it to be and I've seen the article before (the one I've linked to) and now the further tweets by more people independent of myself and not known to me who are saying this is eugenics and that other person saying "all of society" - practised on mainstream basis by description therefore.

I am also aware that you can see all sorts of outlandish views on Twitter and probably find any view at all on the internet and does not necessarily mean it is widespread. However the trouble is I don't find the view that this is eugenics is outlandish. And it fits exactly within what someone on this page has described that they understand it is. It should also be said that the idea that the current widescale and mainstream practise of normal behaviour in society that has become eugenics in the context of this pandemic, people behaving on mass scale as if there is no pandemic at all and no Covid around, probably wanting for understandable reasons to put it out of their mind whilst continuing to pass it on and on and causing the problem in the behaviour to perhaps many immunocompromised people that results in the eugenics, the idea that this is eugenics did not occur first in myself, instead it started for me by me seeing people saying it is and then usually when I hear something claimed, in my critical thinking, I question it and on this occasion after hearing it first time I went and looked into it and found that it fitted and is - and now I keep seeing further people saying it is eugenics. And then find it fits a description given by someone on this very page full and square. It is eugenics, it fits what they described in their understanding in the way I have now seen it does, and it is going on on a mainstream basis of practise.

Indeed, I then find myself asking if I am going mad to think this is eugenics, despite multiple people all independent of myself also saying it, and me finding it is mainstream behaviour in society, and therefore this article is gaslighting me in its current form that I won't change for reasons already stated. It has now become a strange world where the mainstream now appears to have gone in a deluded way to me and normalization of deviance perhaps (again not an original idea from myself), in this case the proper and correct behaviour of wearing a mask to protect others has been ditched on mass scale and this deviance from the correct behaviour, appropriate to the ongoing and actual risks in this pandemic rather than succumbing as so many do to the normalcy bias, given that there is a disconnect between the public and scientists as to the actual risks of COVID-19, now become normalized. With the deviance involving the vast majority of people now practising eugenics without knowing it being normalized, it is mainstream.

The mainstream now so far gone down this rabbit-hole that how will this Wikipedia article now be changed to the truth (given it was true before but has become inaccurate due to a very recent change in the facts) given that the Wikipedia consensus itself is based on the mainstream, that on this is down the rabbit-hole? Especially given the huge incentive for most people to be in denial about practising something that is seen as so emotive and horrific as this is and perhaps the only reason I am able to come here and be in the truth is because I haven't fallen into doing this mainstream behaviour but instead I now one of the very few actually acting appropriately in relation to this pandemic, that there is also widespread denial about and people talking about it as if it is all in the past, possibly believing this to be so, myself acting on the basis of the scientific evidence throughout the past year whilst it seems to me most people have given up and no longer paying attention to it, instead getting most of their information (if they aren't tuning COVID-19 out) from a very selective media that has failed to report most of what has been going on in the scientific research and seems to pick one outlier study the other day that hasn't been peer-reviewed to say everything is now good. aspaa (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

This is far, far too long to be actionable. Break down the specific changes you want made, preferably with citations to back them up. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I can see that it is the precise wording that is problematic. "... is a fringe set of beliefs..." should really be "some aspects of which reflect a fringe set of beliefs..." Modern genetic screening and counselling (most notably and ironically amongst the Jewish community) are eugenics in practice and obviously not 'fringe 'at all. The desire for healthy children is universal. 92.12.195.5 (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a very unusual claim to make. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

"The original tweet is not saying that people generally are enjoying seeing immunocompromised people die. What she is saying is that they are enjoying their normal life but as a consequence of this is causing immunocompromised people to die and selecting them out in a eugenics way" I do not get your premise. People with immunodeficiency likely have much shorter lifespans, but they are not legally prevented from procreating or typically subjected to compulsory sterilization. So, some of the typical methods of eugenics do not seem to apply. Dimadick (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This says it all: I am therefore up against mainstream consensus that will determine this is not mainstream and will be seen as fringe. That's entirely correct. Any time someone posts a mile-long screed about "the truth", they should be ignored, especially if they explicitly declare they are fighting against the preponderance of mainstream source material. If they're doing this at multiple talk pages or otherwise being disruptive, they should be indefinitely blocked as obviously WP:NOTHERE and per WP:NOT#FORUM WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. If aspaa (who seems to have no idea what "gaslighting" actually means) has some kind of defensible point to make, they can concisely post a change request with regard to a specific piece of content in the article, and with actually reliable sources to back it up. And even then it's going to be subject to intense scrutiny at an article like this. Skimming the above text wall, aspaa's central point can be responded to with this: COVID-19 having more impact on people with certain pre-existing medical conditions, and policymakers and medical systems not being able to do anything about that, and a lot of individuals not seeming to care about this more than they care about other life-or-death problems in the world, is not eugenics (has nothing to do with allegedly improving the human gene pool). The fact that some random poet and self-described activist at the unreliable WP:UGC site Rabble.ca doesn't know (or pretends he doesn't know) what eugenics actually means is of no concern to WP or its article content (or its readers). "The multiple people in the minority mentioning it as eugenics are a voice that means claiming it is a fringe practise [sic] is not an uncontentious thing, it is now hugely contentious" is patent nonsense. The very fact that it's a handful of non-notable bloggers at unreliable sites simply misappying the term eugenics as argument to emotion to advance a socio-political point about a COVID-vulnerable sub-population makes it fringe, and also makes it simply off-topic, because it is not about actual eugenics. Aspaa is doing the direct equivalent of arguing that because a bunch of far-right bloggers like to call environmentalists "eco-Nazis" and misuse the term Nazi, that WP must rewrite its article on Nazism to redefine the term to include environmentalists. Wikipedia is built on the preponderance of the material in reliable sources on a topic, not on the venting of random blowhards misusing words (intentionally or out of ignorance).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggested additions to "Modern Eugenics"

The article is quite long, so apologies if I simply missed it, but there seemed to be no mention of the forced sterilizations of Indigenous women in North America (as recently as 2019 in Canada) nor the requirement for transgender people in the Netherlands to be sterilized (which appears to have ended in 2014). These are only two examples, though there are surely many more. This is of obvious importance. It is not good to pretend eugenics has barely been practiced since the Nazis, no good can possibly come of it. CLMeadow (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the limited content on the article is intentional. The best way to expand an article to put in the work yourself. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you believe it would go better under "Modern Eugenics" or "History"? I'm also considering renaming "Modern Eugenics" as it covers more speculation on ethics. CLMeadow (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither, but in the "Forced sterilization" section, since both of those are about alleged forced sterilization (some claims of which turn out not to be true, but are really cases of something like "enticed sterilization", though of course the motivation behind it is still eugenic). Have you actually read the article? You seem unaware of its basic structure yet are convinced that it is faulty. And let's do one thing at a time; it's unclear exactly what you mean by "as it covers more speculation on ethics", and "Modern eugenics" appears to be a perfectly reasonable section heading for material on eugenics-related debate from the 1980s onward (nor have you suggested an alternative – no one here is a mind reader. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Resident evil mentioned in opening paragraph, but not in the popular culture section.

I would like to point out that the opening paragraph for this article mentions the video game series Resident evil, but the "In popular culture" section does not. I wish for this inconsistency to be resolved, but I do not know the depth to go into without getting off topic. I leave this as something for wikipedians to discuss. 98.181.69.7 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no "In Popular Culture" section, nor does there need to be. It's not an inconsistency. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Grammar

"... Lee urged highly educated women to have more children, claiming that "social delinquents" would dominate unless their fertility rate increased" Come again?? On what way would the increased fertility rate of these "social delinquents" decrease their dominance? Perhaps: "Lee urged highly educated women to have more children to counteract the domination of "social delinquents"" - or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Disputed edits

I invite Biohistorian15 to discuss their preferred edits here. In my view, removing "Nazi eugenics", "Bibliography of genocide studies", and "Outline of genocide studies" from the See also and describing Eugenics as a "field of study" represent a substantive POV-shift which would require consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just thinking about opening a thread myself. Maybe I am mistaken but please explain which of the following assumptions was in error:

(1) A point that already has a whole eponymous section with reference a la "main article: ..." below the heading does not need to be brought up in the "see also" section

(2) If two topics are not (non-controversially) the same - considering e.g. positive eugenics most prominently (!) -, one does not reference a separate bibliography from the already expansive one in the main article. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Aha, I see my error in both cases and retract my comments. I'll self-revert. Thanks for unpacking this for me. Generalrelative (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thank you! Sorry for the accusation in that case. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No stress. In actual fact I was being far too hasty. Generalrelative (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Exempt/Recover certain threads from "Lowercase sigmabot III" Archiving?

Some discussions (e.g. whether eugenics is supposed to be called "pseudoscientific" or not etc. ...) have opened up multiple times and are arguably not fully resolved. Would it be possible to keep a lot of these on the talk page indefinitely, and if so how? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing this to WP:FTN to see if there is wider community interest in reevaluating the longstanding language. Not sure it makes sense to selectively keep certain threads from being archived. Generalrelative (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Nah. If discussions go idle, they can be archived. If the question isn't fully resolved and it becomes important to resolve it, we can go through WP:DR or create an WP:RFC to deal with it then. Otherwise, there's no reason to have those discussions just permanently pinned here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Some discussions (e.g. whether eugenics is supposed to be called "pseudoscientific" or not etc. ...) have opened up multiple times and are arguably not fully resolved.

They absolutely have been resolved, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT notwithstanding. The scientific consensus is that eugenics is a pseudoscience because it is not founded on the basic principles of scientific inquiry. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Considering that this is one of the most controversial wiki articles out there: I don't believe all the discussions have been resolved to the point that there is really no content disputes on this talk page whatsoever. Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Then provide the suggestion for improving the article. Otherwise this isn't going to accomplish anything. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 10:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I will, in fact, commit myself to improving the article over the next few weeks. For this purpose, I think, just importing archived arguments in relevant discussions as a blockquote should do for now... Biohistorian15 (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Would probably be more effective if you made your points in your own words, rather than just quoting someone else's. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Apply boldface to "positive" and "negative eugenics"?

Otherwise, we might well have to make it a whole subsection for people to link to (as opposed to an anchor with intuitive relevance per the emboldened terms...) Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

To the common distinction between "pos." and "neg. eugenics" as found in the article; it used to be boldface some time ago. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think it's necessary to boldface those terms. They're italicized in a few spots, but after that it seems fine to just leave them be. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, you're probably right. I'll consider creating a new section with terminology/etymology in the future.Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Disputed edits regarding Huxley

I invite HandThatFeeds to please specify their reasons for not including my clarifications about a well-known book that is otherwise easily misinterpreted. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

First off, as I mentioned, the prose you added did not match Wikipedia's WP:MOS and read more like an essay.

Second, the citation added was a paper whose author asserted their personal opinion and interpretation of the book as part of the CRISPR debates. There is nothing to demonstrate this is WP:DUE for the Eugenics article itself, nor that the author or the paper are a reliable source for the topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of the citation, but anyhow: would it help if I moved parts of the quote to a note and solely relied for my clarification on an in-text quote from BNW itself instead? Biohistorian15 (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't think the citation is due for inclusion in this article at all. It might be relevant to Brave New World but, as a primary source, that would be iffy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try doing without for now. Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)