Jump to content

Talk:Nazi eugenics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Page name

This page should probably be called Eugenics in Nazi Germany, no? --Fastfission 02:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazism and religion Nazi mysticism Nazi architecture Category:Nazi physicians Nazi human experimentation Nazism and race Nazi songs Nazi mysticism etc... Nazi Search Mengela 02:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, okay. The one which is most related in its grammatical syntax is probably Nazi architecture or Nazi human experimentation (both of which could easily mean "Architecture in Nazi Germany" or "Human experimentation in Nazi Germany"). Anyway, it was just a thought. "Nazi eugenics" looks wrong to my eye, but it doesn't matter much and consistency is probably more important anyway. --Fastfission 03:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Biological engineering

The article said genetic engineering but in reality it was Biological, because genetic had not been invented yet no one knew anything about genetics, genetics were invented in the 50s with the discovery of DNA in 1958 the correct historical term is biological engineering, since A genetics were not invented, B no one was targeting the genetics but where you were born and what you looked like which has nothing to do with genetics but biology, people actually have LESS genetic similarity with their neighbors then do with people from other countries, and again GENETICS HAD NOT BEEN INVENTED in the 30s or 40s Shearsteps 03:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The concept of Genes dates back to the 1900s. In any case, the word genetic just means "of origins" (hence Genesis, miscegenation etc (Latin miscere “to mix” + genus (“kind”) ). It was widely used in the early 20th century. Paul B 09:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The german term seems to be "Erbgesundheitsgerichten" - Hereditary Health Courts. Paul B 10:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Mention that eugenics was practiced and promoted in many more places than Germany then and now. Euthanasia I am less familiar with ( we take the 5th I guess) but there must have been cases of governments using this - ie I doubt Germany thought this up in a vacuum.159.105.80.141 14:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This article must not rely on primary nazi sources

Readers, who could be affected by nazi eugenic measures, or who have acquaintances or relatives who are victim of nazi eugenics could feel threated or offended, if wikipedia would use nazi criminals as a direct source. Also, if nazi sources would be used, the victims of nazi eugenics would not, and never could, have an equal chance to present their point of view about nazi eugenics. So if the nazis can speak up and present their ideology, while the victims have to remain silent in the article, wikipedia would factually accept the results of the crimes (euthanasia, sterilization,...). The only method I see for wikipedia in order to give a critical account of Nazi ideology is to rely on good secondary sources which explain nazi ideology. Relevant rules are

  • WP:RS#Scholarship: "Wikipedia articles should point to all major scholarly interpretations of a topic."
  • WP:RS#Extremist_sources:(...) should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."
  • WP:WEIGHT:Wikipedia "must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint".

I've therefore removed the primary sources Haeckel (who may not be a nazi but holds an extremist view, too) and Hitler, in which they approve of or demand infanticide. Instead, I've inserted a version using secondary sources. I also consider to ask wikipedia-admins (again) to stop the insertion of primary nazi sources into this (and other) articles.

--Schwalker 13:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Swalker, your argument is self-defeating. Numerous articles on Nazism quote from Mein Kampf. Wikipedia is not censored, so whether it might offend someone is beside the point. The quotation is the same whether it is footnoted to a primary or a secondary source. Secondary sources are preferred where there is a danger of OR but there is no rule against quoting primary sources, expecially since there is no dispute about content here. Haeckel was not extreme at all in his day, he was highly distinguished. You are misrepresenting the policy about the 'majority viewpoint'. This refers to the opinion of the majority of specialists about matters of fact. It does not mean that you can't quote from the opinions of someone if that opinion is contrary to what the majority of people think. That's the road to absurdity. That way quotations from atheists would be banned even in an article about atheism because they might offend someone and because they contradict the majority view on the existence of God. Paul B 14:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Schwalker, Wikipedia is not censored. If you feel offended because we are citing Hitler, then seriously, that's your personal issue. We don't take sides here on Wikipedia because we have to be WP:NPOV. If you think Hitler was evil, that's fine, but we are as Wikipedians, obliged to write encyclopaedic articles about the Nazi ideology without bias. That means, we have to use primary sources in many cases. And for the record, what they did in Sparta with their infanticide policy, was simply eugenics and nothing else. That is why Hitler lauded Sparta, because he favoured their eugenics practise. As for the Nazi eugenics victims, you can mourn them all you like in real life. But don't take it out on Wikipedia. As someone said last time you complained on WP:ANI about this: you're trying to make a federal case out of nothing. Move on. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:07 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Paul Barlow,

I don't know which Wikipedia articles use Mein Kampf as a primary source (apart from Mein Kampf itself). I may add, please try to substitute Mein Kampf by proper secondary sources in these articles! I've checked that the current article Nazism does not use it as a primary source. Instead Mein Kampf's contents is reported in Nazism via secondary sources such as Ian Kershaw and Henry A. Turner.

  • No, it's not all the same whether a quotation is taken from a primary or secondary source. In deed, there is a dispute about content here. For example, EliasAlucard first insisted to rephrase the term "folkish" from the Hitler quote as "National Socialist". Meanwhile they seem to have accepted that this was wrong. User EliasAlucard still insists on calling the Spartan infanticide policy euphemistically "treatment", and on using the nazi-language term "deformed". Also, a secondary source would not use such long Hitler quotes as EliasAlucard tries to push into the article. All such mistakes of interpretation can be avoided by using reasonable secondary sources.
  • Haeckel's justifiaction of infanticide (see the quote with footnote 37 in O'Mathúna (2006)) is extreme from our today's point of view. But also for his contemporaries, as he admits himself ('humane civilization' would erupt in a cry of indignation). Of course, at the same time Haeckel (and other proponents of eugenics) were highly educated personalities, which makes the thing even worse.
  • I did not say that "you can't quote from the opinions of someone if that opinion is contrary to what the majority of people think." In fact, I myself have quoted from Hitler's opinion - via a secondary source. If Hitler would be used as a primary source, then Wikipedia would accept him as a kind of "specialist" for nazi-eugenics - as if the hundredthousands of victims were not even better specialists in this field.
  • The comparison with atheism does not work well in my opinion, since atheism is not a capital crime, while nazi eugenics was. For an example, in the Gulag article, you will find a secondary source quote (A.Aplebaum) describing the matters of fact in the introduction, but the article does not bring extensive (if any) direct quotes of sowjet leaders justifying the gulag system.

--Schwalker 23:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Schwalker, this is not really an edit dispute. You are trying to make an edit dispute out of this. If you think it's offensive that we use Hitler as a primary source, then you are being either extremely meticulous or extremely sensitive. There is no problem in using Hitler as the primary source for this article. In fact, that is what we should do. Secondary sources are not as reliable as primary sources. Also, mind you, what the Spartans did was eugenics treatment on deformed children. Yes, they killed them. That is a way of practising eugenics. Other types of eugenics treatment include sterilizing. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:10 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
If you want to understand Hitler's beliefs concerning eugenics, doesn't it make more sense to read what he said or wrote on the topic, rather than read a third party's interpretation of it? Wikipedia should keep it in a NPOV perspective, so that people know that it's being presented not because it carries any correctness on its own, but because it was Hitler's opinion and (like it or not) Hitler's opinion has historical significance. But as long as that's the case, I don't see the problem. Quoting Hitler isn't the same thing as glorifying him - it can just as easily demonize him, depending on the opinion of the reader, without changing a single word. --DachannienTalkContrib 23:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Well said, Dachannien. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:58 01 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Dachannien,

The purpose of this article is to explain what nazi eugenics is, not to "understand" Hitler.

If the article would make the reader understand (in any emphatical or rational sense of "understanding") Hitler's beliefs concerning eugenics, it would effectively turn the reader into an adherent of nazi eugenics. I think this can't be the purpose of Wikipedia. There is no rule which would entitle anyone to present their opinion on Wikipedia. On the contrary, the WP:NOT#SOAPBOX applies to Mr. Haeckel and Mr. Hitler, too.

The encyclopaedia can only reflect the secured knowledge within the public discourse. If secondary sources exist, then they have precedence of primary sources, because the public discussion takes place in, and consists of secondary sources.

I agree that an article bringing an unmediated Hitler quote would be in the danger of either glorifying or demonizing Hitler. Actually, that is what the Germans did: first they glorifyed, and after 1945 they demonized him. To avoid both, glorification and demonization, and in order to instead explain why Hitler may have held his beliefs, and other people followed him, the article must rely on secondary sources.

--Schwalker 11:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was perhaps the most vocal proponent of eugenics (and specifically Nazi eugenics) in the 20th century, not to mention that he actually implemented a policy that led to the deaths of millions of people. Understanding Hitler's beliefs about the topic is part and parcel of understanding the topic in general. My point about glorification versus demonization is that that should be left up to the reader to do. Wikipedia simply has to present a neutral viewpoint on the subject.
I also don't understand why citing someone who cited Hitler is better than just citing Hitler. If you have additional sources that provide analysis, and you can present that analysis in a NPOV way here, then add the material and cite the sources. But there's no reason that a reader should be denied the ability to directly find the original source for a Hitler quote.
BTW, as for the "not a soapbox" policy, I'm sure we can let Hitler and Haeckel know about the policy the next time they visit Wikipedia. I'm approaching the Hitler citation from the position that it is as NPOV as you can get, because it presents Hitler's unvarnished opinion without the commentary of third parties. My concern is that your desire to remove the Hitler citation is due to a POV bias.
Here's one way you might gauge your own reasons for wanting the quote/citation removed: You've mentioned that you would rather quote secondary sources with analysis of Hitler's views, rather than cite Hitler directly. Okay, well, not every secondary source views Hitler with contempt. I'm certain that if you look hard enough, you can find racist neo-Nazi skinhead literature that quotes Hitler and portrays him with reverence just as much as other secondary sources condemn him and his actions. If the article were changed to include only secondary sources, would you then be opposed to citing neo-Nazi secondary sources (alongside secondary sources that condemn Hitler, to maintain NPOV balance) as you are opposed to citing Hitler himself? If so, then as I see it, your motivation here is censorship of a viewpoint you don't agree with - in other words, POV.
I would rather the article quote Hitler himself, in context, so that people can understand what he was saying and make their own judgments on it, as well as reference that material if they so choose. By going into analysis from secondary sources, you open a can of worms where people can bring in all sorts of analyses that cast the article into the fiery pit of POV edit wars. --DachannienTalkContrib 15:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
My sentiments exactly, Dachannien. As for secondary sources, this one should be enough. It seems very neutral to me. I added it because it's an academic source. If the article would make the reader understand (in any emphatical or rational sense of "understanding") Hitler's beliefs concerning eugenics, it would effectively turn the reader into an adherent of nazi eugenics. — Hitler's beliefs aren't that powerful and enticing. I don't think there are many people out there who find killing sick babies desirable. So you shouldn't worry too much about that. And those who do get attracted by such politics, will find out about it either way with or without Wikipedia. — EliasAlucard|Talk 18:11 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Schwalker's claim concerning the use of primary sources is supported by WP:PSTS. Tazmaniacs 22:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all. In fact, WP:PSTS supports my and Dachannien's arguments. — EliasAlucard|Talk 00:25 03 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
WP:PSTS notes that "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." The quoted passage (1) is easily accessible as part of the full source both online and elsewhere, and (2) is presented solely as "this is what Hitler said" without framing the quote as some sort of impartial analysis of eugenics. If there is any complaint to make about that section of the article, it would be that there is a bit of summary text preceding the quoted passage. If that qualifies as "explanatory" material (though I consider it still to be descriptive), we can also have a secondary source (which we do) to back up that explanation. In any case, the two sources taken together represent a useful insight into Hitler's beliefs on eugenics, which lets us see his stated motivations for ordering so many people to be killed. --DachannienTalkContrib 02:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
We need to find a common place to discuss this issue brought about by EliasAlucard, as currently the debate is being spread out on Talk:Nazism, Talk:Eugenics and Talk:Nazi eugenics. I think here is the best place. EliasAlucard first tried to insert the following quote in Nazism: (diff:

"Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first National Socialist state, and praised its early eugenics treatment of deformed children"

There is two different issues here:
  1. one fact: Hitler praised Sparta.
  2. and the free interpretation of Hitler: Sparta was practicing a policy of eugenics.
Wikipedia can insert the first fact where it is appropriate (henceforth, not in Nazism where to do so would be to give it undue weight). But to endorse Elias Alucard's claim that Hitler was correct and that Sparta was effectively practicing a policy of eugenics is not at all appropriate. We should separate these two discussions, and if one wants to make the claim that Sparta was enacting an eugenics program, he would need to find a reliable source for this anachronic allegation, which means find one or more renowned historians of Antiquity which have not only used eugenics as an analogy for Sparta's policies but have completely identified them. As eugenics is a concept born in the 19th century, related to scientific racism, Darwinism and Social Darwinism, etc., I doubt such a source can be found. Practicing infanticide is different from following a policy of eugenism, which, by definition, can only exist in the frame of scientific racism and of the theory that a "race" can be improved by some kind of public health policies — these disciplines (scientific racism, public health, etc.) having been created in the 19th century, Sparta did not practice eugenics. This is simple original research. Tazmaniacs 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that Hitler believed that the Spartans were engaged in eugenics, though, so I've modified the article to step away from the conclusion that the Spartans really were doing that, and kept it at the level of describing Hitler's belief (last sentence before the quote). There may be a better way to reword that sentence to make it clearer what is and isn't being asserted. --DachannienTalkContrib 14:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Two thoughts:
1. the use of original quotes from Hitler or other Party members seems appropriate, and needn't imply an endorsement of the views. An article on the New Deal would legitimately include quotes from the various politicians who devised it or were associated with it. One could argue that a discussion of Nazi eugenics that did not include original quotes from the leader of Nazi germany as well as others in positions of power would leave out a key historical detail: this was not a program run by rogue, private scientists, but rather a governmental, and government-sponsored agenda. To the extent that some might be offended by this, it seems likely that their offense is towards that fact, not that Wiki is somehow giving a microphone to a dictator. After all, Wiki hands the same microphone to those who once declared that the earth was flat or that space-flight was impossible, and there is certainly no endorsement of those views.

2. The issue of race, genetics, and their relation to the eugenics program is a complicated one, to say the least. As others have pointed out, there is no question that many of the Nazis drew inspiration as well as information from programs in the U.S. that were designed to weed out the "feeble minded" (trial transcripts from Nuremberg indicate as much), and that, for instance, were meant to apply what we would now call pseudo-darwinistic principles to the entry rules at Ellis Island (again, to keep out "undesirables"). What is much less clear is the degree of influence that the work in the U. S. and elsewhere really had.

It seems a stretch to say that those outside of Germany were proto-Nazis, and by Nazi standards it's not even clear that they merit the term "eugenicists" in comparison. There might be some value, however, in a discussion of just what the Nazis believed that race was and the bearing that it had on their policies, including those associated with eugenics. Surely those beliefs did not arise in a National vacuum, but their origin is unclear; researchers from the early 20th century might have been seen as pioneers, or, for all we know, bumblers, by the Nazis.

Along these same lines, it does seem fitting that this article mention the fact that the Jews were seen through the lens of the various concepts of race, people, and so on. The Jews were regarded as sub-human, which suggests that the notion that the Nazis would have applied the concept of "race" to them deserves some interpretation. (Perhaps it is more correct to say that the Nazis regarded the Jews as a distinct species, rather than a race?) In any event, the interpretation of these historical details could also benefit from a broader context: just what was the dominant view of such things, and how was that view reflected in the Nazi eugenics programs? In writings of the period, Nazi references often use "race" in a number of ways, to refer to things like what we would today call a cultural identity, historical legacy, and other things that we would not ordinarily associate exclusively with DNA or biology. C d h 04:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dachannien,
I'm quite certain that "racist neo-Nazi skinhead literature" will not be used in Wikipedia because of the rules WP:RS#Extremist_sources and WP:FRINGE. On the other hand, WP:RS#Scholarship says:"Wikipedia relies heavily upon the established literature created by scientists, scholars and researchers around the world." So articles must use this established literature. Intentionally not to take into consideration these scholary sources would be a case of WP:CENSOR.
You claim that "Understanding Hitler's beliefs about the topic is part and parcel of understanding the topic in general." Well, this may be true, or not, but as far as I can see, it is a hypothesis. As such, it would need a kind of source, too. I can't see that to regard Hitler's personal views as the only decisive factor concerning nazi eugenics would be a consensus among scholars. A different approach would be to ask why the German population brought Hitler into power, and then accepted, approved of, and executed eugenic measures. Also, the history of resistance against nazi eugenics should belong into this article. --Schwalker 19:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, the history of resistance against nazi eugenics should belong into this article — No one here disputes that. You're free to add important material about that too. But seriously, it is allowed to cite Hitler on Wikipedia. He's an important historical figure, and his opinions – like it or not – count in historical articles. — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:01 08 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Excerpt

Hi, for the convenience of those who may not be able to see the books.google.com picture of the Mike Hawkins book, page 276, here is a transcript of what I can see:

276 Social Darwinism in European and American thought

great instinct for survival but this only acted at the level of the self- preservation of the individual; hence Jews lacked sufficient idealism to form their own state. Instead they sought to corrupt and then subjugate the states which harboured them. (18) But the Jews were not the only 'racial danger' which the 'culture-creating' Aryan needed to guard against, and one of the crucial functions of the state was to maintain and improve the racial health of its people. In keeping with a long-standing feature of a certain genre of Social Darwinist thought, Hitler was of the opinion that modern civilisation tended to substitue social for natural selection, with highly damaging consequences for racial hygiene. Mod- ern warfare, for example, tended to eliminate the healthiest specimens in the population while sparing the weaklings, and modern judicial and penal practices likewise preserved the lives of criminals. Birth control had created a situation in which people sought to limit the size of their families while paying little attention to the racial value of the children they did beget. It was racial suicide to countenance the continued propagation of defective and incurable sick infants. Hitler lauded the eugenic practices of ancient Sparta on the grounds that the destruction of weak, sickly and deformed children 'was more decent and a thousand times mroe humane than the wretched insanity of our day'.(19) In a speech to the Nuremberg Party Rally on 5 August 1929 , Hitler denounced 'sentimental Humanitarianism' and the 'sense of charity' which he considered responsible for 'maintaining the weak at the expense for the healthy'. He complained 'that even cretins are able to procreare while more healthy people refrain from doing so ... Criminals have the opportunity of procreating, degenerates are raised artificially and with difficulty. And in this way we are gradually breeding the weak and killing off the strong.'(20)

Hitler's writings and speeches portrayed nature in rigidly deterministic

terms. Expressions such as 'eternal', 'inexorable' and 'iron' were used to refer to nature and its laws. Sometimes 'God' or 'Providence' were substituted for nature, but it is evident that Hitler was not appealing to any Christian deity, for he defined God as 'the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe', and referred to Providence as 'the unknown, or Nature, or whatever name one chooses'.(21) These natural laws were inescapable realities which could not be ignored without courting disaster: 'Nothing that is made of flesh and blood can escape

culture and their relationship to National Socialism, see G. Mosse, The Crisis of German Ideology (New York: Shocken, 1981). (18) Hitler, Mein Kampf, 273, 299. Cf. Hitler, Table Talk, 117. (19) Hitler, Secret Book, 8-9, 17-18. (20) Noakes and Pridham, eds., Nazism, III, 1002. (21) Hitler, Table Talk. 6, 44.

End of page --Schwalker 17:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And your point is? — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:33 29 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes vs References

Gentlemen, I refer you to Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Mixed citations and footnotes. Something for everyone. Hope this helps. --CliffC (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The word Footnotes or Notes is more specific, and describes exactly what appears in the section. The word References is ambiguous, and gives no clue about what is actually in the section. References could refer to a list of print publications, films, external links or any other forms of information. The title Footnotes or Notes lets people know right away that it is the list of inline citations from the article.Spylab (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
References is the standard term used at Wikipedia, start looking at other articles to confirm it. Chessy999 (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have looked at many, many Wikipedia articles. Footnotes or Notes is the standard heading for the sections that include footnotes. Section titles should reflect what actually appears in the sections, instead of having ambiguous titles that could mean many different things. See Wikipedia:Footnotes (especially the bottom section, which is titled Notes.Spylab (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The only one u r fooling is yourself. Chessy999 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In my experience "References" is more common (probably because the template is called "reflist" and the older template was actually called <references />). The William Shakespeare article, which was recently featured, has "References". However, today's one, Red Barn Murder, uses "Citations". Since these both got to be featured, there does not seem to be any hard and fast rule. Paul B (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

IQ

The Action T4 article is linked to from the Wikipedia article on race and intelligence, which implies that the Nazis used intelligence tests (among others) to select victims for this program. On the other hand, I've also heard it asserted that the Nazis opposed the use of IQ tests as gentiles did not always come out ahead on them. What sort of sorting tool did they use to determine who had "mental disabilities", and what kind of documents do we have from the era describing them? Boris B (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Doctors performed the tests, the people selected were institutionalized. Chessy999 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Eugenics in Japan

Comment: Social Darwinism was part of Nazi Eugenics, the Eugenics in Japan program was not part of Nazi Eugenics. A link in the EIJ article to NE is appropriate, not the other way around. Green Squares (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Why link both ways: Page 225 of Abortion and Protection of the Human Fetus details the influence of Germany's Hereditary Disease Law on Japan's National Eugenic Law. --CliffC (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Israel, too

Israel sterilized Ethiopian Jews (women, I believe) who had immigrated to the newly formed state. This went on until the 1970's. Please check these facts and add to the list of countries that had sterilization policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.60.17.112 (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Evidence? Paul B 12:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a page about Nazi eugenics, not about compulsory sterilization. Tazmaniacs 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a clear brief reference to other articles on eugenics would be good. You do list below the article "eugenics in Japan". but a clearly stated link to details on the late 19th and then 20th century eugenics practices (and preached) in Britain and the US should be added. Israel, other nations surely could be added on in some way (if it is verified they practiced eugenics).Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

From Darwin to Hitler

I removed this book from the Books subsection because first of all, it's published by the discovery institute, a hub for the Creationist movement. They are NOT reliable, and it's not Wikipedia's job to give attention to a fringe group in such a devious manner as listing their materials as notable reading. They have time and time again been proven to lack even basic common sense on this subject, their argument basically being that the Theory of Evolution led to the Holocaust and other such atrocities, so I'm strongly opposed to their propaganda being pushed here. Eik Corell (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a "point of view" censorship and this article should be restored. If there is weakness in this book, perhaps discuss the SPECIFIC reasons this book fails to meet minimal scholarship standards.

I did not read "From Darwin to Hitler". However I did read "Mein Kampf" and have heard or read excerpts of other Nazi leaders' speeches...Generally speaking, Hitler or other Nazis did use (and perhaps misuse and misapply) the theory of evolution as well as use (and perhaps misuse) the theory of eugenics as excuses to murder/forcibly sterilize and otherwise abuse millions.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT: if th fringe view has been notable enough to have been analysed by reliable third party scholarship specifically related to this subject, we can consider basing part of the article on that reliable analysis subject to WP:GEVAL, but endorsing an unreliable fringe view by proposing it as further reading isn't a good idea. . . dave souza, talk 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see this view as being notable. We are not talking about a topically-relevant alternate point of view here, this is basically a smear against science itself, using the very language science employs to spread its devious lies, and the more coverage it receives, the more effective it is, and every time it is shot down in flames, it mutates: It's no longer Nazism it caused, but rather Atheism, which is then blamed as the instigating factor for the holocaust. Or, "scientific naturalism" was used to justify the holocaust, and it goes on like that. This stuff belongs in the antiscience article. Science kills people, "Darwinism" leads to Nazism, Atheists caused the holocaust, etc - It's not even consistent. If this nonsense is to be included, surely this will have a profound effect on the moustache article. You know, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, all had moustaches?
I am against any inclusion of this "viewpoint" because that's not what it is, and that's the whole point of it - It's a smear that masquarades as a refined and profound analysis of the social consequences of science; a much better way to articulate that "science leads you to killing people". Nutshelled: This is crazyness, derived from more craziness(Creationism), pushed by crazy people(Creationists). Eik Corell 19:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see more name calling which is diverting this article from a key point students should ponder...

Why did Hitler consider the killing, forced sterilization of other races, the disabled, and the above listed so-called other "undesirables" a moral imperative?

(See Hitler's, other Nazi leaders' repeated statements concerning their views that they had a "moral" imperative to cleanse the race...See also Wannsee January 1942 meeting information.) Why did Hitler's followers (including many educated scientific persons) so quickly help carry out this demented so-called "moral" imperative to "purify" the Aryan race?

The answer cannot even be explored because some above veer off into the current intelligent design debate. Thus, they throw out "From Darwin to Hitler" apparently without examining it or like sources.

This topic (The Nazi's view of racial "cleansing") has been addressed by various serious scholars, and has (most likely) differing conclusions. Why not have Wikipedia people briefly summarize 2-3 of the major differing conclusions?75.4.155.55 (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support fromAmerican eugenists

Nazi eugenics had big support from Dr. Morris Fishbein ; see this site: [Counter]. In fact, on this site, we can read:"The editorial record of the New England Journal in the early l930s was awful. Editorials lamented the supposed increase in the rate of American feeble-mindedness as dangerous and the economic burden of supporting the mentally feeble as "appalling". In 1934 The Journal's editor, Morris Fishbein, wrote that "Germany is perhaps the most progressive nation in restricting fecundity among the unfit", and argued that the "individual must give way to the greater good"."Agre22 (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Perhaps a reference could be made to this in a new section such ac 'Contemporary views on Nazi eugenics' or similar? RashersTierney (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Number killed in Action T4?

The article on Action T4 state 200-250,000 and does not cite controversy about the matter. The number here is much lower. Is there a consensus among authoritative sources, and what is it? Fbkintanar (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have heard a higher number but if you can find some legitimate sources, we can add the references and change the range number. Green Squares (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The Holocaust Museaum here in Montreal Canada has 250,000 killed written on the wall of their T4 section. 40,000 killed is too low. Simply do the math. 1939 to 1945 and the percentage of mentally ill in the population was roughly one out of every 300 people. 89,682,000 was the population of Germany therefor 296,000 expected mentally ill, but there were only 20,000 at the end of the war I believe . http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/163/1/27 says "Operation-T4 claimed approximately 200,000 lives"edit forgot to sign--Mark v1.0 (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler and evolution

I think it would be worth checking and maybe including information from the Sceptic Wiki. You may think it's biased based on it's name, but it includes references to Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, where he states things showing that he denies evolution. I've looked up a few of the references, and I can only confirm them.
I really don't think Hitler's acts can be linked to evolution.
- BlaBlaDK (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuals "Lebensunwertes Leben"? since when?

I'm seriously asking. --HanzoHattori 20:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the Night of the Long Knives, I would presume. D Boland (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Outcomes

What was the eventual result of Nazi eugenics? Did the Nazis actually cause any long term changes in the genetic makeup of Germany? 198.82.18.148 (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nazi_eugenics/Archive_1&oldid=1137040048"