Talk:Eugenics/Archive 5

Wikiquote page
Have created a page at quote here. Please help build it up. Richard001 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Australia section
A couple of things don't make sense in the Australia section. It says that it was a "white supremacist" policy to encourage the mixture and assimilation of native Australians. Wow, does this not make sense or what? If they believed they were inferior why would they purposefully seek to assimilate and intermix with them? Quite the contrary, the policy seems to have been parallel to modern liberal views that genes mean nothing and that exclusively how someone is raised separates him between savage/civilized, and that the mixed natives could be "civilized" by being taken away from their tribal upbringing. They were trying to raise "civilized" native Australian children by their own standards, so this was indeed a very strange policy, but one that would make zero sense to actual white supremacists,. In fact, it would make sense more to their arch enemies, cultural Marxists. White supremacists would have obviously been against the idea of bringing "half-castes" into their culture/race by the very nature of that ideology wanting "purity". There are also a couple of incomplete sentences in the section. It almost seems like a lazy drive-by smearing attempt of the entire article or subject, than an accurate critique of Australia's policy. The article can/needs to be there, but desperately needs less biased and assumptive writing or at least some more sensible logic as to how those seeking to assimilate mixed children were comically ironic, self-defeating "white supremacists". Why would 'white supremacists' have created a program to racially preserve aborigines in the FIRST PLACE? Crude bit of legislation, yes. White supremacy? No.

thanks for reading... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.212.149 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2008 July 29


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).


 * Content should be based on reliable sources and should be verifiable. Material that is not adequately sourced and disputed may be removed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg
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 Media copyright questions. --12:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category?
I don't understand how eugenics can be considered pseudoscience &mdash; it's immoral certainly, but it's not a science in and of itself, nor does it claim to be. It's simply a (mis-)application of other, well-founded sciences, with a (questionable) goal in mind. However, since the category tag has been added and removed several times, I wanted to discuss it here before proceeding further. --Sapphic (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please review Category_talk:Eugenics, Talk:Eugenics/Archive_2, Talk:Eugenics/Archive_2, etc., before reopening this discussion, please. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was based on genetics, even though nobody knew what a gene was back then. Its theories never had any empirical evidence. They presented themselves as science. It was not science. Pseudoscience is a set of ideas that present themselves as science but are not. Therefore Eugenics is pseudoscience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed those archived discussions (thanks for the references) and I think the issue needs to be revisited. My understanding &mdash; confirmed by the opening sentence of the article itself &mdash; is that eugenics is a social philosophy and is thus neither science nor pseudoscience. Calling it pseudoscience would be akin to calling communism or Christianity a pseudoscience; it's a category error. Some of the archived discussions claim that eugenics has been considered a science by some in the past, and if those claims could be backed up with reliable sources and mentioned more prominently in the article, I think it would be fine to keep the pseudoscience category tag. Otherwise, I really don't see how it applies. --Sapphic (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No response here in over two weeks, so I'm removing the category tag. Please discuss it here before re-adding it.  --Sapphic (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this thread. I don't really care about the category, but it is a mistake to say that eugenics hasn't been promoted as a science. During the period that it was most prominent in the U.S., from about 1890 to about 1940, it was indeed promoted as a science. The Eugenics Record Office presented itself as a research center as received funding from the Carnegie Foundation on that basis for decades. In 1939 the foundation reviewed the ERO's research and they found that it was useless. They decided that the ERO was mostly involved in promoting eugenics rather than researching it and they cut the funding. So it meets the definition of pseudoscience: a field that claims or claimed to be a real science without adhering to scientific principles.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks for the research. I've added the tag back, though somebody should probably rewrite the intro to clarify things.  Something along the lines of "Eugenics is a social philosophy that ... blah blah ... and has in the past been presented as a legitimate science by supporters."  I'll leave that task to the next person who finds the categorization confusing, unless I get to it first. :)  --Sapphic (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Prejucised genetical determinism?
Did the eugenics proponents before World War II have any real means to tell if a trait was heritary or not? Or did they just assume them to be heritary unless they had evidence to the contuary? I wounder because many traits they claimed to be heritary has turned out to not be so.

2009-03-29 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Now I have heard that the early proponents intentionally ignored the possibility that traits where not hereditary because they wanted to believe that they were hereditary. If so they may not even have attempted to find out if traits where hereditary or not. Anyone who can verify this?

2009-05-17 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

They didn't even know what a gene was. That wasn't established until 1953 with Watson's discoveries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.61.194 (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The substance of which genes are made was discovered in 1953. That genes existed become known in the scientific community in the early 20th century: they just did not know what substance it was made of.

2010-05-13 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

This article mentions nothing of modern eugenics
Eugenics is not just sterilizing the poor and nonwhite. Why doesn't this article mention genetic engineering or any of the like? YVNP (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible problems with the opening paragraph
I've a couple of criticisms - seeing as this is a 'Controversial Topic' I'll wait 5 days for feedback before acting on anything.

1. Self-contradiction

"Eugenics was a ... movement which was ... largely abandoned" If it was only largely - and not completely - abandoned, then it still is a movement.

2. Racism

"Eugenics was a racist ideology" Although I am well aware that the major eugenics programs - American, Swedish, German - did advocate racial discrimination, I don't think race is a necessary component of eugenics. If one were only (!) in favour of sterilizing the disabled, then one would be an advocate of eugenics, but not a racist. I suggest we change it to "Eugenics was an international scientific, political, moral and frequently racist ideology and movement" or similar.

3. The 'Logical Conclusion' I dispute that the logical conclusion of eugenics was the Holocaust. I realise that in the early 20th century many advocates, both sides of the pond, suggested killing as a method of eugenics; but forcible sterilization, however abhorrent it may be, is not (IMO at least) quite as bad as killing, and they are two quite distinct acts. Sweden's eugenics program, which practised only the former, is evidence that the two are not necessarily linked. It could be changed to "largely abandoned after the Nazi regime took the idea to an extreme length in the Holocaust". If we are going to keep the current claim, then I think we need more than one source to back it up, given how substantial a claim it is.

Hadrian89 (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. I suggest ""Eugenics was a ... movement which ... is now in wide disrepute" This allows for the present re-emergence of similar ideas under different names, such as Human genetic engineering. 2. I further suggest not using the adjective "moral" which is POV. So: "Eugenics was an international scientific, political, and ultimately racist ideology and movement".  3."largely abandoned after Nazi regime politics adapted the idea to committing extreme racial persecution in the Holocaust".   Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its been a bit more than 5 days I realise...sorry I didn't follow through with the promised edits. Several people have now edited the paragraph in different little ways and I think it might be better for a rewrite. I suggest the following paragraph or a variation thereof:


 * Eugenics is a scientific and political movement aiming to improve the genetic health of the human race by controlling the procreation of individuals. Eugenics was popular in the first half of the 20th century, when it was also often associated with scientific racism, and several countries passed laws supporting eugenic policies; however, after Nazi Germany took the practice of eugenics to extreme lengths in The Holocaust, the movement lost much support and is currently widely in disrepute.  Hadrian89 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hadrian, I think that your wording is good. In particular: "Eugenics is a scientific and political movement aiming to improve the genetic health of the human race by controlling the procreation of individuals". For me the central point of eugenics is really about control of breeding, typically with the intention of refining a particular trait. To draw a parallel - Dog breeders select out traits, and sometimes not with the health of the pups in mind. Rather because the breeder wish to control the breeds characteristics (for better or worse), eg: Pug dogs are bred with the intent of having a short snout (among other things). This is not actually good for the dogs health as short snouts can cause breeding problems. So, again, I think the key components of eugenics are control of breeding, and then perhaps the intention of refining a trait. So 'traits' rather than necessarily genetic health, as in the example if the Pug I would say the genetic health of the breeding program is really debatable, if not terribly lacking!. The traits being selected for could be quite varied, eg: appearance, general health, longevity, temperament, intelligence, submissiveness, etc. Kastelz (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hadrian, I also agree that Eugenics is neither about racism, nor is racism it's inevitable expression. Sadly it has most certainly had a horrible history of racist abuse, being used by war mongers such as Hitler as a tool for hate. Anyone who knows anything about population genetics will understand that a healthy gene pool requires a broad variety of genes - and in human terms, that means the greater the integration of different races the better. Mutts are generally healthier than pure breds!. So, in fact, eugenics programs that aim to 'purify a race' are foolish and ignorant. Kastelz (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit
Could user 189.27.231.22 please explain the rationale behind his/her edit of two hours ago? The information removed seemed like it could be useful. Hadrian89 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It had been tagged for a long time. Now restored, with source.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The correlation between the fall of morals, ethics and social values appears to coincide with the rise of crime and also the demise of societally sanctioned eugenics. I question if the public at large grew lax once a consequence was removed. Eugenics was a world wide belief for generations, to believe that social mores were not affected/effected seems a difficult idea to wrap an informed mind around. Given that premise, I question the premise that the article is too long. I would contend that the article is missing a great deal of authorities, (which will be added to this premise), but is actually not nearly as comprehensive as should be when the far reaching practice of eugenics is considered.I found nothing to be removed or summarized any further, and actually find a need to add more material. Of course, this premise could arguably be one for a related article and discussion. Ideas?Jentingh1 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Your initial assertions seem like speculation and personal theories ('the correlation appears to coincide', 'I question'). Are there are any significant sources which have argued the same line as you? Anyway, even if eugenics is massively important, we want to keep it readable and that means keeping the level of detail down and putting that information into dedicated articles instead. Hadrian89 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Traditional eugenics -- the incest taboo
On reading this article, I was struck by the absence of any reference to incest taboos, which would seem to me to be germane. Every major religion (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest#Religious_views_on_incest) and the vast majority of legal codes restrict inter-family breeding, with the majority of the legal restrictions using homozygote incidence as their justification. Does this not constitute an "accepted" form of eugenics? West Coast Gordo (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm dubious of its relevance, but if you have WP:RS(s) to that effect, please proceed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point Gordo, there are clearly eugenic benefits resulting from our common revulsion towards incest, but I would imagine that the origin of the incest taboo predates our understanding of genetics by thousands of years. Wherever or whenever it comes from, therefore, its existence is not a result of eugenic philosophy so doesn't belong in this article.  There are probably many other social and biological mechanisms which help us to select suitable breeding partners, like arranged marriages in some religions or biological sexual attraction towards healthy specimens, but like incest taboos, these are not part of the science of eugenics.  I agree with Wsiegmund: not relevent.  Traveller palm (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest Edit
I reverted the latest edit intro because it seemed to me to say that eugenics still exists as a subject. My own impression is that the subject is quite dead as an academic "discipline" for all the reasons stated further on in the article. Indeed, journals and departments have been renamed as a result. Peterlewis (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eugenics may well be dead as a subject, but it still exists as a social philosophy (the links to pro-eugenics websites are evidence of advocates). I realise that my wording of 'scientific movement' did suggest the former, so I'm happy to abandon the phrase and stick simply to 'social philosophy' (which is how it is referred to elsewhere in the article anyway). Were there any other qualms? I'm keen to change the opening paragraph/sentence as it's a real mouthful and still doesn't actually tell the reader what eugenics is. Hadrian89 (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Markacohen, I reverted your last edit as the grammar was wrong and as you removed the idea of discouraging/preventing reproduction. Btw, seeing as you were editing the opening paragraph too, you might be interested in my suggestions for it in the above section. Hadrian89 (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hindu Eugenics
Hinduism (Manusmriti) specifies that one should not marry in the same "gotras" (64 or so families) and within 7 steps of blood relations on either side of parents for better progeny. Though Manu gave a lot of thought to better progeny (that is Eugenics), ironically "marry only within the caste" sociology has killed the purpose of Manu! So Hindu arranged marriages (that form >95% Hindu marriages) observe all the three rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.194.130 (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The movement...
This sentence was tagged and then deleted for lack of a source. However it makes several different assertions and I beleive that most of them are sourced in the article. Which assertions are being questioned?  Will Beback   talk    22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The movement, led by race scientists, financed by private philanthropies such as the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation and implemented by governments was practised in North America, Europe (particularly Nazi Germany), and Australia (among others).

The sentence I fact tagged on 15 January, and deleted on 16 February, was the fifth sentence in the article. This sentence made a number of significant claims, as follows:

The movement [was] led by race scientists [The movement was] financed by private philanthropies such as the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation [The movement] was practised in North America, Europe and Australia (among others).

1. This sentence was not supported by any in-line citation to point to the source of its information. Most importantly, the information in the preceding four sentences is different to the information in the sentence in question, so the citations provided in the first four sentences cannot be assumed to be relevant. In an encyclopedia, and particularly in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient to take the view that 'there are relevant citations and you will find them if you go looking for them elsewhere in the article.' WP:Verifiability says The threshhold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

2.  If the movement was financed by private philanthropies other than Carnegie and Rockefeller, those other philanthropies may be named in the article if they can be adequately sourced. In an encyclopedia it is not acceptable to include other entities by implication by using the words such as. This implies there were philanthropies in addition to Carnegie and Rockefeller, while attempting to avoid the responsibility to provide a citation to verify the involvement of others.

3. The sentence said The movement ... was practised in ...  It is unclear what this was intended to mean. The verb to practise is not appropriate to the noun the movement. A movement is a body of people. One does not practise a movement. Perhaps what was intended was to say eugenics was practised on these continents, or the ideology was present on these continents, or the movement had members on these continents. Without a citation of the source of the information it is impossible for any reader or editor to determine what the original author intended.

4. The sentence said North America, Europe and Australia (among others). Again, it is not acceptable to include other entities by implication by using the words among others. This implies there were continents in addition to North America, Europe and Australia where eugenics were practised but without attempting to say what continents they were. If Wikipedia is not willing to explicitly nominate what continents they were, Wikipedia should not imply that there were others. Implication avoids the responsibility for citing sources to ensure verifiability.

The responsibility for providing sufficient in-line citations to ensure verifiability rests with the original author, and other like-minded editors. This responsibility does not rest with those who review Wikipedia, or who are inclined to challenge statements or delete them. WP:Verifiability says Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

The sentence in question was conspicuous, both for the boldness of its claims and its lack of citation. I placed a fact tag (citation needed) against this sentence on 15 January. I waited a month (which was probably very generous). By 15 February no attempt had been made to ensure verifiability of this sentence so I deleted it. If others are able to find suitable references they are welcome to restore as many of the claims as are supported by those references. (For claims as bold and potentially controversial as these, citations should include chapter and verse, not simply the title and author of a work.) By matching information to sources through in-line citations this article will be improved. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's typical for the intros of article to have few or no citations because they should simply summarize what is already in the body of the article. Have you had a chance to read the whole article? I know it's quite long, but some of the points you've raised are addressed elsewhere.
 * 1. This is a summary of the article that follows, not the preceding sentences.
 * 2. Eugenics was promoted by numerous individuals, many prominent and event wealthy. Folks such as George Bernard Shaw, Alexander Graham Bell, and Mary Williamson Averell either made direct contributions or helped organize societies. The sources of support are too numerous mention in the intro - it's sufficient to indicate that mainstream charities were among them.
 * 3. You're pobably eright about the grammatical problem of "the movement...was practiced..." It's more like "eugenics principles were practiced/promoted...." That can be fixed without deleting it.
 * 4. As you can see from the article, it was also practiced in Japan.
 * While inline citations help readers (and editors) see that the article is based on verifiable sources, it isn't necessary for every single word to have a citation. I honestly don't see anything in that sentence that isn't sourced elsewhere in the article.   Will Beback    talk    23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the fifth sentence said Eugenics were not confined to any one country or culture, but were widely practised around the world I would accept some of what you say about it summarising what appears later in the article, but the sentence was not in any way a summary. It was highly explicit, nominating philanthropic institutions by name, and implying there were others in addition.  It was highly explicit about which continents were relevant, and implying there were others in addition.


 * Your view about claims in the introduction not requiring citation is your personal view. It appears to have no support elsewhere in Wikipedia.


 * You have written it isn't necessary for every single word to have a citation.  I did not write that, or anything similar to that.  I am only intending what is written in WP:Verifiability.


 * If valid citations exist later in the article, anyone is welcome to use those citations to restore some or all of what I deleted, and to post the citation against what they restore. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:LEADCITE says, in part:
 * The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited. Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus.
 * Since these assertions are throughly discussed in the article, and aren't especially contentious, I'm sure the editor who added them didn't see a need for inline cites. Let's unpack the sentence into two or more sentences that are clearer:
 * The movement was led by race scientists and financed by private philanthropies.
 * Eugenic practices were implemented by governments in North America, Europe (particularly Nazi Germany), Australia, and Asia. 
 * How's that?   Will Beback    talk    00:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quote from WP:LEADCITE. It expresses the principle very soundly and I am in agreement with all of it.


 * In the interests of moving progressively towards a replacement sentence or paragraph that will bring credit on Wikipedia as an authoritative and objective source of information, let me dissect your suggested text.
 * The movement was led by race scientists. What is a race scientist?  This appears not to be an objective statement.  It possibly fails WP:NPOV.  In the article there are mentions of numerous people described as scientists, but I haven't seen any described as a race scientist.  With any movement, particularly one as large and ubiquitous as the eugenics movement, I would expect to find many people exercising leadership; people from all walks of life.  Why should Wikipedia make mention of one, and only one, vocation as the source of leadership?
 * The movement ... was financed by private philanthropies. Prior to my deletion  of the fifth sentence, it mentioned the Carnegie Institute and the Rockefeller Foundation, and implied the involvement of others.  Searching the article I found a sourced reference to Carnegie, but not to Rockefeller.  Similarly, I found no citation for any other private philanthropy.
 * Eugenic practices were implemented by governments in ...' The examples given are all continents.  Continents do not have governments; countries do.  There are only seven continents and the examples cover all of them except South America, Africa and Antarctica.  There is no government in Antarctica so that only leaves South America and Africa.  I know this is pedantic but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  (Should Wikipedia imply that eugenics were unknown in South America and Africa?  Not if Wikipedia wants to be credible.)  It would be much better for the sentence in the Introduction to be truly a summary and say something like Eugenics were not confined to any one country or culture, but were widely practised around the world.


 * This article contains quite a number of fact tags (citation needed). It could do with more critical review of the kind we are doing right now.


 * I am happy to continue working with you on this topic. Regards.  Dolphin51 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be more helpful if we think of this as our text rather than my text. How would you suggest drafting it?   Will Beback    talk    05:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the field of eugenics I see my role as critical reader and peer-reviewer rather than author or subject specialist. In the absence of additional citations, I think the best that could be restored as the fifth sentence of the introduction would be something like Eugenics were not confined to any one country or culture, but were widely practised around the world and were promoted by governments, and influential individuals and institutions.  Anything more explicit than that would require additional citation.  Most sentences in the introduction already have at least one citation.  Dolphin51 (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. "Widely" might be a stretch, but the "around the world" is certainly accurate. Thanks for the help.   Will Beback    talk    11:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

One To Zero?
"...it has reduced the ratio of children born with the hereditary blood disease from 1 out of every 158 births to almost zero."

How can a ratio be reduced from 1:158 to undefined? Asperger, he&#39;ll know. (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that could be rephrased. I expect it means that there the disease used to occur in 1 out of every 158 births, but now it accounts for far fewer. It'd be better to be more precise. Maybe saying it now occures in 1 out of every 1000 or 500,000, or whatver the actual incidence is would be clearer.   Will Beback    talk    05:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the original source, in case anyone has access to it.
 * It be useful to get a better number.   Will Beback    talk    05:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It be useful to get a better number.   Will Beback    talk    05:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics among the Jollofs tribe, perhaps some to include in the pre-Galtonian eugenics section
From Charles Darwin's "the descent of man and selection in relation to sex", pages 357 and 358:


 * ''The following case, though relating to savages, is well worth giving from its curiosity. Mr. Winwood Reade informs me that the Jollofs, a tribe of negroes on the west coast of Africa, "are remarkable for their "uniformly fine appearance. A friend of his asked one of these men, "How is it that every one whom I meet is "so fine-looking, not only your men, but your women? The Jollof answered, It is very easily explained: it has always been our custom to pick out our worselooking slaves and to sell them." It need hardly be added that with all savages female slaves serve as concubines. That this negro should have attributed, whether rightly or wrongly, the fine appearance of his tribe, to the long-continued elimination of the ugly women, is not so surprising as it may at first appear; for I have elsewhere shewn3 that negroes fully appreciate the importance of selection in the breeding of their domestic animals, and I could give from Mr. Reade additional evidence on this head.

--Extremophile (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazil hated eugenics
The article claims that Brazil had eugenics legislation.In fact, Brazil hated eugenics and never had eugenics law.In Latin America, only Mexico had eugenics into its laws.And this happened because of a masonic government.The opposition from Catholic Church, public opinion and militaries doomed eugenics in Brazil from the start.Agre22 (talk) 02:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

New sections?
Perhaps some new sections for the third and fourth paragraphs might make this article easier to read, or perhaps some paragraph could be split. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction of disputable NPOV
While the article as a whole is surprisingly NPOV (considering both the topic and the high frequency of lapses even in uncontroversial WP articles), I am a bit troubled by the introduction. I prefer to bring my opinions up here (instead of editing directly), because there are many references involved, and because I want to avoid an edit war. To illustrate with two examples:

Example 1:

though current trends in genetics have raised questions amongst critical academics concerning parallels between pre-war attitudes about eugenics and current "utilitarian" and social darwinistic theories[4].

Reading between the lines, this says: "Good" scientist are worried that eugenics is rearing its ugly head again.

A more informative and NPOV formulation would simply state the fact (if true) that the ideas are still present, and make a rough indication of their current form and popularity (or lack thereof).

Example 2:

Today it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people.[7]

This statement may be technically true, in that it reflects a very common view. However, in context the impression is likely to arise that "Today, we now better than the fools of yesterday, and rightfully distance ourselves from eugenics.". A better formulation would either focus specifically on the excesses by, e.g., Hitler as a "brutal movement", or state that this excesses have had a corresponding negative effect on the popular opinion of eugenics. (Note that by use of the word "excess", I do not automatically imply that "unexcessive" eugenics would be acceptable: My own opinion on the matter is somewhat skeptical, mostly due to ethical considerations and the eternal "Who has the righ to decide?" question.)

I would prefer to see the introduction make a neutral statement about the principal ideas of eugenics, very briefly discuss its overall history, briefly point to the worst excesses, its fall from popularity to disgrace, and touch upon current pro- and anti-positions. The details, in appropriate proportions, should be (respectively, are) covered by the main text. I note that the introduction, as it currently stands, is much too long for my personal taste, and could stand to be cut to a quarter of its current size. 88.77.132.11 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV requires that major points of view be represented fairly and backed by reliable sources. "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'." If "it is widely regarded as a brutal movement which inflicted massive human rights violations on millions of people", then NPOV requires that it be so stated, as long as it is a significant point of view and supported by WP:reliable sources.


 * Your work is more likely to be accepted if you log in and edit some uncontroversial articles. Established editors are often suspicious of anonymous editors whose only contributions are to disputed topics, despite the guidance of WP:BITE. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical sequence of subsections
The sequence of subsections was confusing, implying that Nazi eugenics predated the earlier versions of eugenics in various countries, particularly Britain and the U.S. which was used as a precedent by the Nazis. I've therefore rearranged the subsections in approximate historical order, and have also rearranged paragraphs in the U.S. subsection in historical sequence, moving the dubious unsourced first paragraph near the end. . dave souza, talk 09:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Singapore and SDU
'Singapore practiced a limited form of eugenics that involved discouraging marriage between university graduates and the rest through segregation in matchmaking agencies, in the hope that the former would produce better children, although this point is contestable.[101] Most notably its government introduced the "Graduate Mother Scheme" in the early 1980s to entice graduate women with incentives to get married, which was eventually scrapped due to public criticism and the implications it had on meritocracy.[102]'

Singapore STILL practices it. The Social Development Unit (SDU): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Development_Unit:_a_Social_Engineering_Initiative_by_the_Singapore_Government

Please amend the article and give links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.140.195 (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanger was not a eugencist (2)
http://fundamentalistdeceit.blogspot.com/2008/01/demonizing-of-margaret-sanger.html

Theres much more pages debunking it, but that one is the best. Consider the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.15.93 (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reinstated, with ref. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reinstated again, adding a quote from Sanger herself. A blog declaring that this is one of "The lies of the Christian Right in America" doesn't have as much sway here on Wikipedia as print sources from the university presses.--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, she was very racist/eugenist. Please read the Sanger's book in this site: [Woman and the new Race].Agre22 (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)agre22


 * Agre22, please give a page number. I do not have time to read the whole book!. Also do you think that racism and eugenics are the same? This is not the case. From the bits that I did read she talked a lot about the welfare of foreigners of various races, and how America abused them, kicked them, and treated them like slaves and animals (pg36-38). Would you call concern for the wellbeing of other races a 'racist' act?. If there is racist hatred in the book I couldn't find it. Eugenics? maybe.. I am not sure. 211.30.189.190 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC).


 * "Now, as the findings of Tredgold and Karl Pearson and the British Eugenists so conclusively show, and as the infant mortality reports so thoroughly substantiate, a high rate of fecundity is always associated with the direst poverty, irresponsibility, mental defect, feeble- mindedness, and other transmissible taints. The effect of maternity endowments and maternity centers supported by private philanthropy would have, perhaps already have had, exactly the most dysgenic tendency. The new government program would facilitate the function of maternity among the very classes in which the absolute necessity is to discourage it. " from her own text mentioned in the first 'Sanger was not...' section above. That's a highly eugenic outlook, unsurprising because she was a eugenicist by any reasonable definition. Squiddy |  (squirt ink?)  20:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Content -- Nixon

 * United States President Richard Nixon believed abortion was necessary as a form of eugenics to prevent interracial breeding, particularly between "a black and a white". 

My removal of the statement that President Nixon supported abortion for eugenical purposes was challenged. I defend it. I may agree that his quote about abortion and mixed-race persons was an unethical position. But the news article cited and quote contained no evidence whatsoever that he supported abortion because of eugenics. His quote did not logically imply that he said it with eugenics in mind. (four tildas, etc.)
 * Do not remove this discussion point, or I will be once again accused of making edits without explaining myself. This is not vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.137.134 (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the deletion of this material. It is original research to say that Nixon's was supporting eugenics in his comment. This is a very obscure comment, made in private and with no apparent effort to influence public policy towards eugenics.    Will Beback    talk    22:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree. But if some notable source said that they thought Nixon was secretly in favor of eugenics - and if they cited this obscure (private) quote to bolster their point - would the formula A said B about C (because of D) come into play?


 * Kind of like, "X said all Jews did Y. So Z called X antisemitic."


 * Note carefully: I am not saying Wikipedia should agree with Z's characterization. Merely that if Z is a notable source, we can summarize his position, right? --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, if we have a source that says so we can add something like, "According to Smith, Nixon supported eugenics." We just shouldn't read a quotation from Nixon and decide on our own that it indicates support for eugenics.   Will Beback    talk    03:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ed, I'd further qualify and say that Z not only has to be a notable source, but sufficiently relevant and reliable. For example, the National Enquirer is notable, but never reliable, and Richard Dawkins is notable and reliable, but not relevant on American politics. --Tznkai (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that this article is already quite long, I'de avoid adding informaiton that some public figure secretly endorsed eugenics buit never expressed that belief publicly or made any effort to support eugenics policies. If Nixon were recorded making a nice comment about Irish setters, I don't think we'd add it to that article. If he owned such a dog, and was seen on TV frolicing with if, then that'd be different.    Will Beback    talk    06:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your prompt and informative answers. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted the deletion when it had no summary, but now the editor has explained I accept the point: Nixon's comments do not amount to an endorsement of eugenics and the deletion was justified. --Old Moonraker (talk) 04:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As one of the editors who restored the deleted material, in the light of this discussion now removing it again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Introduction definition was too narrow
Many dictionaries do often describe Eugenics as "selective breeding" but that is too narrow of a definition. That is like defining the field of medicine as "heart surgery". Selective breeding was a popular method of implementing Eugenics in the past because that was the only way known, and of course most of it was wrong like any science in its infancy, but the goal of improved human ability & health were the desired outcomes and of course it had to be from manipulating the human genome for it be differentiated from nurture methods of improving ability & health. A eugenicist would not care if the improvement of humans was from selective breeding or from a more modern method of prenatal screening as long as the goal was achieved. So therefore Eugenics is the study & implementation of ways to improve human ability and health through manipulation of the human genome. This definition can be verified and is not opinion by examing Pro-Eugenic believers. A science is not defined by its enemies but from those that believe it be a science and study the field. Also providing CURRENT examples is neccessary with any definition. They all fit the correct definition of Eugenics & the Human Genome Project is as much or more of a part of Eugenics as measuring cranial sizes is part of Eugenics. Quisp65 (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, we are not here to forge new definitions of words. Wikipedia must strictly adhere to what already exists. If most definitions use a narrow sense, then this is the sense Wikipedia must use.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But not all dictionaries use "selective breeding" as its definition. When selective breeding is being used it is the outdated definition due to the only way to manipulate the human genome in the past was selective breeding.Quisp65 (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any WP:RS that define eugenics as "manipulating the genome"?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Eugenics is the science that deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also those that develop them to the utmost advantage" Francis Galton "Essays in Eugenics" p35 "Eugenics its Definition, scope and aims"  Note it says "all influences that improve the inborn qualities".  We now know that is the human genome that make up INBORN qualities and manipulating is how you go about influencing.  We can modernize what Francis Galton said to be manipulation of the human genome.Quisp65 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your source still doesn't talk about the human genome. Without it, your definition is WP:OR.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The human genome was not a phrase coined back in the early 1900s. As I said we now know "inborn qualities" comes from the human genome which is the entirety of mankind's hereditary information.  But if it makes more people happy we could leave out genome and use Galton's definition and then give the examples of genetic counseling, prenatal selection & the Human Genome Project.  But the problem is Galton's definition is too early 1900ish.  He uses race to easily when he is referring about mankind and I see no reason why we can't modernize "inborn qualities".Quisp65 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question? Is modernizing a definition allowed?  By leaving eugenics as "selective breeding" we are not covering the full scope of eugenics.  I can site sources that refer to Eugenics as manipulation of the genome but these sources describe it in lengthened ways.  I am looking for a simplified correct full definition.  I don't feel Wikipedia has to be a encyclopedia of quotes!Quisp65 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to answer this question myself. Wikipedia does allow the use of synonyms and it is appropriate to use "manipulation of the human genome" .  The synonym for inborn is heredity and heredity is the genetic makeup of a species and the human genome is the full scope of genetic makeup of humans.  Francis Galton coined the original term eugenics so therefore Francis Galton's definition is the most accurate description of eugenics.  So taking Galton's definition in 21st century English it would be  Eugenics is the study & implementation of ways to improve human ability and health through manipulation of the human genome.  Therefore this description DOES NOT fit under original research.Quisp65 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is still OR. Find a reliable source which says so, please.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not following why using Galton's definition (one of the original founders of eugenics) and using it in 21st century English is not a reliable source? I don't think you have have to document and link every synonym for it to be appropriate.Quisp65 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) Galton's theory is a reliable source. Your personal interpretation of what it should be in the 21st century is OR and isn't a reliable source. Please re-read WP:RS and WP:NOR. --Ramdrake (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This would leave wikipedia to nothing more than quotes. You can follow the synonyms with a dictionary taken directly from Galton's quote.  A little more than just my interpretation.  But needless to say I could see how someone could play with words and confuse a definition even though I know that is not the case here.  I may give into a more direct quote from Galton or some other dictionary that takes into account the full definition.  Because the current one displayed does not describe the full belief of its founders or current believers, so at best it's a correct misinterpretation, much like describing "the field of medicine" as "heart surgery" is a correct misinterpretation.Quisp65 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, please review Wikipedia policy or bring a reliable source that describes eugenics in terms of improving the human genome. Your personal interpretation -or mine, for that matter- doesn't count.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Australian Government's eugenics
I just added a piece that got immediately reverted, talking about the Don't Cross the Line program in Australia and its influence on the type of men that they feel women should approve of. Why is a link to the program's page itself not a good enough source? Obviously, politicians aren't going to publically discuss subtle programs with these kinds of goals. 58.170.103.99 (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for opening a discussion here. The problem isn't the reliability of the sources, it's that we need a reliable source that has made the same interpretation of them as you have: that they amount to a eugenic program. Without this, it's original research and not allowed. RV. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Make this article more scientific?
What about making this article more scientific so people can actually use it?? There is no technical info. Come on, it doesn't take an university degree to describe it. It's merely selective breeding, it is well documented and has been practiced for 1000's of years with animals. It shouldn't be hard to describe the science behind it as the mechanisms are exactly the same with humans. There are no principal differences between breeding an intelligent search dog and an intelligent human, the method is the same. 93.161.107.169 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed your uncivil heading. Please see WP:TALK for guidance on the use of talk pages and WP:RS for reliable source guidance. See selective breeding for more on that topic. It is not useful to duplicate that content since those wanting to know about that topic may refer to that article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry if the word 'nonsense' was offensive to you. Anyway, I'm not intending to write anything in the article(wow they would jump on me for vandalism), I'm merely requesting that it be more encyclopedic so one can use it for school as a reference. I have been to the selective breeding page but it's almost a stub. It points to 'animal breeding' which is a short messy article that gives you no info. There must be someone around with expertise in eugenics? 93.161.107.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC).


 * It seems like several users here started personally harassing me because of my comment. How sad. Anyway, I propose that there be made a section explaining the differences between selective breeding of animals versus humans. The ethics is already covered, I'm more thinking of how to bring forward specific traits like it is done with dogs. 87.59.126.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC).

Article published in 1915
This site: [News] has an American article published in 1915, with support to eugenics. This American article was published in a American magazine called The Atlantic Monthly.Agre22 (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Oliver Wendell Holmes
Though Buck v. Bell is referenced, conspicuously missing from the text AND the discussion are Judge Holmes' opinions.

Rensensekid (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Appel viewpoint
Appel is a eugenicist and a blogger. Therefore, while he can't be a source on primary subjects, he can be a source on the content of his own ludicrous columns Crayvella (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I dislike Appel as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that any one editor should delete his Wikipedia presence without good reason. As long as he's being cited for the content of his columns as evidence of his views, rather than the factuality of his arguments, then he's a perfeclty legitimate source Crayvella (talk) 23:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If his Opposing Views column is significant and notable, then it should not be difficult to find another source that cites it, e.g., The New York Times. If not, then I don't think it should be included in the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Implementation methods
Three main ways? What about the active allowance of natural selection. Instead of punishing certain individuals for natural acts (for example, killing a criminal), you do nothing? Some, including myself hold to the view that the best way to implement Eugenics is by letting nature run it's course (and maybe a side of indentured servitude for those who cost us physically or mentally). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.161.35 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Eugenics.
In an otherwise helpful summary, I could not find any reference to Fisher's work. He contributed theory prolifically and at a high level. His "Genetical Theory of Natural Selection" (1930, reprinted 2009) is a good start. He makes the simple point that inverted birth rates cause civilizations to decay intellectually and therefore actually (through lesser leaders). Fisher recognized the ethical dilemma during his years leading the Eugenics Society in London, and was sensitive on "policy". He mathematically showed the real dilemma. Genocide (e.g. Hitler) had nothing to do with eugenics. It has become fashionable to think it did.

Someone might easily improve this by reading Fisher. Needs to be qualified person as it's quite difficult.

Wikipedia is a remarkable effort. Let me know if this needs my help.

Kieron Dey kierondey@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.236.2 (talk) 00:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Flying-Tyger wrote. <- First Version

The source#1 is being written like this.

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

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

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

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

Eugenics and religion
Such as abortion today, Eugenics was a left, protestant, jewish and feminist movement .In USA, eugenics and racism were the same, even so, few (leftist) negros were eugenicists, such Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. Du Bois,etc. The claim that eugenics was only among "liberal" protestants is senseless.Jeovah Witness were eugenicists; at least until 1940 decade.The same is correct about the adventist church and pentecostals.The founder of pentecotalism, the gay, freemason and racist pastor Charles Fox Parham(1873-1929) died as an eugenicist;he was an eugenicist from the its first day.The founder of Adventism, Mrs. Ellen G. White(1827-1915) was also an eugenicist, in all her last decades of life.Mormonists were supporters of eugenics in Utah and any other american state.Who will consider pentecostals, seventh-day adventists and mormonists as "liberal" protestants?And all of these sects/cults were eugenics' supporters;at least until the foundation of Third Reich, in 1933. About jewish eugenics,comparaed to its numbers, no other religious group gave so much support to eugenics as the jews.The biggest rate in religious afiliation, among American Eugenics associations were the jews.Eugenics' fall in USA came only, wyth the nazism from 1933 onwards.Eugenics was "correct and scientific" when used against sick, poor and colored, but "terrible" when used against jews. Catholic Church was against eugenics from its first day, because its clergy was of hight quality and there was faith and latin mass. The support of eugenics from jews and protestants clergy came from it was and remains a married clergy. There wasn't no single judaism or protestantism; there's thousands of protestantisms and dozens of judaisms.Eugenics emultaed these kinds of religions.Anyone could invent his/her Jesus or "race" at his/her image, simlarity and will. The second thing was the fact that Catholic Church was and remains, a global instituition.Eugenics was a racist movement, and to support it wasn't a problem for a sect/church in USA, but would be terrible for catholicism in Africa and Latin America.Eugenics was popular in United States and Canada. The third difference was the clergy itself.You are a priest or a nun; you don't have sons to support.If you are a rabin or a pastor, your human instint sends you to give the church/sinagogue's money to your sons, not to sick, poor and colored persons. About abortion, seventh day adventist hospitals do hundreds of thousands of abortions, in USA every year, against no abortions in catholic hospitals also in USA.The money, not God, does matter, to the protestants sects/churches. The article forgets the fact that eugenics never became popular, when the clergy was against it.Eugenics became law under jews (USA and former Soviet Union), under pagans(Germany, Japan and Italy) and protestants (USA, Iceland, Norway,etc.).In no place, atheists were strong enough to support eugenics movement.In Brazil,where eugenics was under the leadership of a freemason and atheist called Júlio Afrânio Peixoto, eugenics hadn't no power or popularity at all. No other thing in the last hundred years, had so bigger support as eugenics:jews, nazists, socialist, tycoons, japaneses, germans, americans, blacks, members of Ku Klux Klan,atheists, religious bigots,scientists, dictators and democrats gave support to eugenics.Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini,Stalin and american presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt, Taft,Woodrow Wilson,Warren G. Harding,Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman,etc were eugenicists.Hermann Göering, Dr. ´Morris Fishbein and Albert Einstein were eugenicists. Even so, eugenics fell and had to become "ecology" or "neo-malthusianism", because such as american cardinal Gibbon told, in 1913:"Eugenics is a fraud", and this fact, not the lack of support sent eugenics to the same destiny, as all other fakes, in human history.Agre22 (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)agre22


 * Discussions on talk pages should be focused on ways of improving the article, and are not provided as soapboxes for editors to air their views on the subject matter of the article. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh come on, the talk page IS a big soap box. People are pushing their POV left right and center. There are better things to critique here. What he wrote is so very lacking in references. Also he writes a rather amusing "Catholic Church was against eugenics from its first day, because its clergy was of hight quality and there was faith and latin mass". I can barely imagine how latin protects one from the doctrines of eugenicists. Kastelz (talk)

If a certain religion tells its' members to only marry and breed with other members of a) the same religion, or b) the same race.. then wouldn't they be practicing some kind of 'religious eugenics'? Seems to me it satisfies the description of eugenics as a "practice of selective breeding applied to humans, with the aim of improving the species". At the very least we can agree that this would be a form of selective breeding with the intent of benefiting a group of people. Kastelz (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There needs to be a section under criticism for criticism from religions. I know that the Catholic Church vehemently opposes eugenics as I am Catholic. --PaladinWriter (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish eugenics

 * The following is the first essay from Jewish Eugenics and Other Essays, Three Papers Read Before the New York Board of Jewish Ministers, 1915, Bloch Publishing Company, New York, 1916. --Millstoner (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Jewish eugenics reference documents: . --Millstoner (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Timeline of Jewish eugenics: . --Millstoner (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Jewish Eugenics: A History and Contextual Timeline by John Glad will be published later this year. --Millstoner (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your "timeline" is just a google search for the terms "jewish" and "eugenics". The vast majority of hits is not related to Zionism but to Nazi Germany. At least try googling with quotes, "jewish eugenics", which gives you a rather different picture, namely, that the term beyond your 1915/16 papers has next to no currency. But of course this is still just a computer-generated timeline based on google hits, not a "reference".

Regarding the Nazi section of this article, which mentions Glad,
 * "Two scholars, John Glad and Seymour W. Itzkoff of Smith College, have questioned the relation between eugenics and the Holocaust. They argue that, contrary to popular beliefs Hitler did not regard the Jews as intellectually inferior and did not send them to the concentration camps on these grounds."

I have my doubts this is WP:DUE. The paragraph is a non-sequitur, because it suggests "eugenics" automatically means "breeding for intelligence". While the definition of eu- is of course entirely up to whoever happens to try and pursue eugenics. The Nazis obviously did not propose to select for "intelligence", they proposed to select for "Nordic" traits. Thus, even if Glad and  Itzkoff are correct in stating that "Hitler did not regard the Jews as intellectually inferiors" (and indeed that there is a "popular belief" assuming as much), this doesn't go towards disproving a "relation between eugenics and the Holocaust". The ideology behind Nazi eugenics is the Nordic/Mediterranean divison, an idea not due to the Nazis at all but widely accepted in the early 20th century, as put by Madison Grant (1916),
 * "The Nordics are, all over the world, a race of soldiers, sailors, adventurers, and explorers, but above all, of rulers, organizers, and aristocrats ... The mental characteristics of the Mediterranean race are well known, and this race, while inferior in bodily stamina to both the Nordic and the Alpine, is probably the superior of both, certainly of the Alpines, in intellectual attainments."

So, what the Nazis were going to select for eugenically was this soldierly/explorer "master" quality, not intelligence. The Nazi regime moved away from the scholarly consensus of the early 20th century when they recast this idea in terms of "Aryan/Semitic" (rather than "Nordic/Mediterranean", because it so happened that the "Nordic/Alpine" division ran right across their territory, and you couldn't unite Germany on racial grounds if a major racial division ran right across your turf. So "Aryans" it was, and of course by 1933 it didn't really matter if anything made any sense just as long as you shouted it out to enthused mass rallies. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that eugenics is being shunned in response to hitlerism. The Nazis perverted eugenics and now everything associated with it is seen as evil. That may be similar to shunning a religion in response to religious extremism. Regarding the Googled timeline I linked, we'll just have to wait on the new book by John Glad I mentioned to come out. In the meantime, see page 83 of this current book by John Glad. There are Wikipedia articles on Nazi eugenics and Racial policy of Nazi Germany. I've read that Hitler considered the Jews inferior in ways other than intellect and that the Jews were seen as having a disproportionate influence on the economy. --Millstoner (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

unfounded statements about the tanakh
"Taking a wife from outside one's kinsmen was considered tantamount to sin. Despite all the prohibitions concerning sex in Leviticus, marriage with one's first cousin is still permitted."

The first part of this is wrong, the second is pretty much just weak. Numbers 36:3 - clearly intermarriage between the tribes of Israel is described as accepted, and I think it can be demonstrated as common in the Hebrew Scriptures. The tribal inheritance followed the male line - and women could and often did marry into other tribes.

On the other hand - maybe what is referred to here is the prohibition of the people of Israel to marry or be married to other nations? Okay, maybe that is a better point - but it should probably reference something specific so that people can see what the suggestion is based on.

As for the second point, marriage with cousins can't be considered selective breeding. This isn't to say that there aren't aspects of eugenics that can be seen in the Scriptures - Genesis 24:1-4 would have been a better example, but even that I wouldn't call eugenics - there were more social/cultural/religious reasons for being picky about who to marry. The early parts of the Bible do describe different people who were concerned about their line of descent, and who they intermixed with - but I don't think the primary concern can be demonstrated to be wanting to carry on or enforce characteristics or genetic traits.

Mdg583 (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple Request
Eugenics is not science. It is a philosophy and, at best, a social program. Please let us not aggrandize the practice of eugenics. Should there ever be a theory and valid verifiable supporting experimentation then by all means good luck to you. Just remember - the law of unintended consequences states "there will be unintended consequences." Should we choose to mess with the human genome I can guarantee you it will mess back. In any number of unforeseeable ways.

(Daffy Duck voice)And Furthermore(/voice), I realize there is no POV restriction on talk pages but heaven, mercy, harmony, and grace people. Whats with the finger pointing? Everyone supported eugenics (from their own point of view) back then. Those who did not mostly died as a result. Get over yourselves and just prevent enforced eugenics from making a comeback of any kind. Evil prospers when good is idle. Dr. F 15:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Validity of statement in question. I am looking for guidance. Thank you for your time. Dmmacy
I feel there is a question as the the validity of the following statement made on the Wiki page: Eugenics.

The basic ideas of eugenics can be found from the beginnings of humanity.

I would like to see the sentence removed from the article. Examples of human societies that have practiced Eugenics or "the basic ideas" should be listed with source but the statement of "the basic ideas of eugenics" being found from the "beginnings of humanity" needs much more support. Please advise.

Thank you for your time. Dmmacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmmacy (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Down Syndrome abortions as "eugenics"
The article defines eugenics as selective breeding for the purpose of improving the human species, but no evidence is presented that the practice of selectively aborting Down Syndrome fetuses aims at any such improvement or that it amounts to anything anything more than individual decisions not to raise a child with Down Syndrome. As no attempt at improvement is alleged, the case for calling the practice "eugenics" (or, as the op-ed author coyly refers to it, "neo-eugenics") is weak and unproven.

Indeed, the use of the word "eugenics" in this connection is tendentious, inflammatory and surely intended to be provocative. Its application in the source cited, an op-ed piece, is a rhetorical posture and does not fall within commonly-accepted definitions of the term.

In the absence of a consensus that the practice of selectively aborting Down Syndrome fetuses is widely regarded as an example of eugenics, there is no basis for including it in an article on eugenics. If evidence can be adduced that so characterizing this practice represents even a significant minority view, then there might be a basis for inclusion. But while this is clearly the author's view, I see no evidence that it's a view held by a significant minority.

Here is a commonly-applied test for distinguishing significant minority viewpoints from negligible ones (which typically are not included -- see Undue weight):


 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents


 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

A single op-ed piece does not in itself represent a significant minority viewpoint. I await evidence that a significant minority regards this practice as falling within commonly-accepted definitions of eugenics. Until it arrives, this passage should stay out. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I clearly stated in my text - and it was also in the article in references - that prenatal screening is not confined to Down syndrome. It is true that people with Down syndrome usually dont propagate, but those with "spina bifida, cleft palate, Tay Sachs disease, sickle cell anemia, thalassemia, cystic fibrosis, and fragile x syndrome" sure do. (see the article prenatal screening). It is clearly an eugenic practice.--Giornorosso (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That is your view and the view of Mr. Leroi. But the issue is whether it constitutes the view of a significant minority, a matter to be settled with evidence.


 * In my opinion, which also counts for nothing, if the aim of "improving the qualities of the human species or a human population" is absent, there is no basis for calling a practice eugenics. I see no evidence that women electing to abort Down Syndrome fetuses are acting from the motive of improving the species.  Candidly, that sounds ludicrous on its face.


 * I oppose expanding the definition of eugenics to include practices superficially similar in effect but whose motives are wholly different because such an expansion is tendentious, meant to stigmatize a practice the author dislikes by invoking unpleasant associations. -- Rrburke (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginals
Children where not taken away from their parents as Eugenics (notice how it would not stop the children from being aborigional and having aborigional children) they where taken away as by 20th century standards the children where neglected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.106.67 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to IQ Testing
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I do ongoing updates to the source list, I have found some very interesting monographs on the history or the current status of eugenics, some of which are very likely to be helpful for further edits to this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Positive and Normative Eugenics Research
Positive science research explains how things are without placing a value judgment on the explanation. Normative science research, on the contrary, attempts to explain how things are while placing a value or ethical judgment on the explanation. The differences between these two must be noted and clear to the reader when explaining eugenics. Value judgments such as claiming eugenics is always a violation of human rights or evil should be avoided unless the purpose is to explain a value judgment, and it should be accompanied with a citation. Eugenics is both an applied science and a pseudoscience depending on how the word eugenics is defined and implemented, so both view points should be considered acceptable in the article as long as the proper citation is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waters2100 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Divorcing Darwin from this trash
We need to bring the point harder that Darwin wasn't a supporter of what would become Eugenics, and actually disagreed with it in Chapter 21 of his book "Descent of Man." He believed Altruism was a trait shared by many species and made the point in that same book that it could further the existence of the species. Let us put him in the criticism section even though he was dead before the term Eugenics existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macabre215 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 26 September 2010
 * A fair point, but not sure how much more needs to be done in this direction. Perhaps we should be clearer that both Galton and Darwin rejected compulsory schemes. Could you look through the sources and make more detailed proposals, or edit in some improvements based on cited sources? . . dave souza, talk 08:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * But isn't altruism a form of voluntary Eugenics? For instance if you know that you have 95% chance of producing a child who suffer's from a genetic trait, say Down Syndrome, wouldn

t it be altruism not to mate? To decide not to further the genetic trait responsible for an increased chance of having a chile with Down syndrome Smileofreason (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete Coverage of German Eugenics
In light of the atrocities committed during WWII that were supported by the German eugenics movement, it is easy to understand the temptation to label it a Nazi program, however, the movement was well under way in Germany before the rise of the National Socialists to power. The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Genetics (KWIA) was founded in 1927 with the support of the Weimar government thanks to the lobbying of Adolph von Harnack, the president of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (KWS) (a prominent German scientific organization). Ernst Haeckel, the first major proponent and proliferator of Social Darwinist biopolicy in Germany, was popularizing initiatives such as sterilization and euthanasia of the "unfit" almost a decade prior to the start of World War I. If someone is interesting in presenting a more balanced view of German eugenics, I highly recommend the following articles which are also sources for the facts stated in this comment:

Berez, T., and S. Weiss. "The Nazi Symbiosis: Politics and Human Genetics at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute." Endeavour 28.4 (2004): 172-77.

Stein, George C. "Biological Science and the Roots of Nazism." American Scientist 76 (1988): 50-58.

--PanzA1370 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, since you evidently have these sources to hand it will be much appreciated if you can write a suitable addition to the section. A paragraph would probably be about the right amount for this overview, detail could be added as a background section to Nazi eugenics as an improvement to that article. I'd be a bit cautious about any claims of Haeckel's involvement, as he's repeatedly been the subject of attacks from politically motivated historians, so careful sourcing would be needed there. You're welcome to be bold and edit the article, if in doubt you can raise any issues for discussion on this talk page. . . dave souza, talk 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have some sources too, including some that trace the connections among eugenics in the German-speaking world and eugenics in the English-speaking world, and I will attempt to use those to update the article as I go through editing several dozen articles that relate to one or more of those sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Claim of "original research"
At the time of posting, this article has 154 references, some of them quite detailed. An unexplained addition of an tag at the top, even when made by an editor with whom this seems to be a "specialist subject", does not seem justified. What's the reasoning, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This might be a mistake on my part. I just dropped in to browse the section on the U.S., and noticed that the first sentence of the first paragraph was based on original research from primary documents. Most of the other eugenics-related articles on WP are terrible and based on (often inaccurate) original research and misrepresentations of source material, so I jumped to a conclusion about this one. I'll remove the tag for now, and come back when I've got a chance to verify the information in this article. Thanks for the sanity check. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I greatly appreciate your attitude. Notice I've added a reference. These articles have been improved over the past couple of years. Yopienso (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * An overview from someone other than the "usual suspects" will be very welcome: thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The Definition of Eugenics by Francis Galton
As far as I have understood, Francis Galton coined the word eugenics. Shouldn't this article begin with his definition "the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage" because that is what he meant? Uikku (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Widely accepted, or accepted by progressives?
Squiddy may well be correct that eugenics was widely accepted, but by whom? We have a RS that says it was promoted by progressives. For that reason, I'm reverting Squiddy's reversion. My quick google of "eugenics widely accepted" shows it was widely accepted by scientists and/or academics. If someone has a better reference than this one that it was widely accepted by "everyone," by all means improve the article! Note that our article on eugenics in the U.S. says "Eugenics was widely accepted in the U.S. academic community." I think that supports the notion that progressives were the ones who cabbaged onto the idea. Yopienso (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The source quoted says 'situation was most keenly appreciated by progressives' which implies that it was also appreciated by non-progressives. The same source also says that 'rationalists' and 'the educated class' shared these concerns, and none of this allows the wording 'Eugenics was popular among progressives' which implies that it was only popular among progressives.
 * You could have looked at more of this article, where you would have found that other supporters of eugenics included Conservative PM Arthur Balfour and, oh yes, the Nazis. It was broadly supported, and one of the forms of POV trollery which afflicts the article is this - editors coming along and trying to suggest that only one political faction supported it.
 * When my uni library reopens in the NY I can provide more sourcing. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  10:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Another source added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. We have to have the sources support what we say. Now we need to include the progressive bit, using the Salon article, or, much better, this source. Yopienso (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added the role of progressives down in the history section in the U.S. I think it belongs there rather than in the lede. The paragraph I edited needed the awkward first sentence changed, and the rest of the paragraph was already written for my new topic sentence, including a fine clincher. Yopienso (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyvios in second subsection on China
The page is not blanked, but while two verifiable copyvios are on the page, detailed on the copyvio noticeboard Copyright problems/2011 January 10 here, I believe the notice has to stay in place. In both cases copy pasted exact content from the two named sources. The diffs are given in the report. Unfortunately once somebody has committed a copyvio, the automatically generated notice has to appear. I agree that it has an extreme effect and only the second section on China was affected. It should, however, not be removed. In this case the person repsonsible for the copyvios removed the notice as vandaism. That was not a good idea. In the case of the copyvio, there did not appear to be instructions to leave a message on the talk page of the article, but I have now done so, since Old Moonraker made a request on my user talk page. There is an automatically generated message for the talk page of the user responsable for the copyvios, and such a message was left. It was easy to locate both copy vios by searching for exact sentences on google (one of the usual ways this is done). Mathsci (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree: As you know, WP:CV recommends: "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page". Deleting the whole of a long-standing article, from many Wikipedians supplying referenced, original material, because of a two-sentence recent edit (for which the contributor has indicated his/her source) is totally disproportionate. He/she has accused you of WP:VANDALISM; any repetition and other editors may well agree. I am ignoring your injunction to leave the deletion in place. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not delete the article, not was that my intention. I followed the instructions on the report page. I would have preferred just to blank the two segments as copyvios. As far as I am aware the notice has to stay in place while the copyvio is in place: I followed the instructions on the copyrigh noticeboard, Copyright problems, using the templates in one of the coloured windows, but I am not an expert on how things are down there. Perhaps, given the diffs of the copyvios in the report, the best would be to ask the advice of, who knows about these copyright issues fairly thoroughly. Certainly the copvio templates are not vandalism. In the interim, I will place a different notice in the section concerned. Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, awaiting some community input before any further action would be best. Thanks for the link to your request on the copyright problems noticeboard. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For reference this passage:

is a copy-paste from as you can see here and the longer section

apart from the second sentence (which is properly sourced and paraphrased), is copy-pasted word-for-word from www.toqonline.com;

In the circumstances, where whole sentences have been copied with no attempt at paraphrase, I think the best bet is to ask for Moonriddengirl's advice, if she has time to spare. Mathsci (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See here for a discussion of the permissible degree of quotation from source works. They have to be properly referenced, of course, but even so the examples you offer may well not comply. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * These are unattributed quotes, unfortunately. I'm familiar with how to paraphrase on wikipedia and when and where to give longish quotes, e.g. in the case of controversial material, which is not the case here. I have requested Moonriddengirl's help on her talk page. (In the past one user, whose contributions to mathematics articles were all copy-pasted, had all his contributions removed from wikipedia. I helped a little in the cleanup campaign, since I had edited some of the articles after him.) Mathsci (talk) 11:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. One issue here, I think, is that it is not immediately clear to people that the template can be used to cover just specific parts of articles. It's a pretty complex template, and we run into this issue routinely. I've just discovered why; evidently, nobody ever explained in the template directions how to limit blanking. I share responsibility for that, and I'm sorry. Mathsci, if you don't mind, please take a look at the new usage instructions at Template:Copyvio and let me know if you think that would have eliminated some of this issue. If not, I'll need to work it further.

Moving beyond that, per Copyright violations, bringing up concerns at the talk page is the minimal recommended action, the at least. In this case, copyright concerns are not suspected, but obvious. Further down in the copyright violations page, it is explained that in that case content can be simply removed or rewritten or the section blanked.

In terms of permissible degree of quotations, policy forbids copying content from copyrighted sources in any manner other than set out at WP:NFC, which requires both proper attribution and some formal acknowledgement of copying, such as quotation marks. Too, quotations must be used transformatively. We can't take somebody else's words just because we want their information. The content is a violation of our copyright policy. It also constitutes plagiarism as defined by Wikipedia. Even if the sources were public domain, direct copying must be acknowledged.

In a case like this, where the content is recent and not interspersed, blanking is generally not necessary. The content can simply be removed and the contributor cautioned. I'm going to proceed on that basis and close the WP:CP listing prematurely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)