Talk:Eugenics/Archive 6

Ernst Rüdin
Rüdin was not a "swiss person",he was German — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.95.83.216  (talk • contribs)  18:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Swiss-born chairman of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics: tricky one. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Incomplete References
Reference #91 now refers to a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.56.93 (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a mention of Russia?
I was surprised there was no mention of the Bolshevik eugenics movement. 209.216.183.81 (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe 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). --05:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be useful to include this. A relevant article. Loren R. Graham. Science and Values: The Eugenics Movement in Germany and Russia in the 1920s. The American Historical Review Vol. 82, No. 5 (Dec., 1977), pp. 1133-1164. I will make some mention when I have time. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jewish eugenics
Can information from the new book Jewish Eugenics by John Glad be added to this article? --Washermen (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Correcting The Introduction
The introduction to this article, captured on July 3, 2011, effectively stated that eugenics had received a bad reputation as a consequence of its strong association with Nazi Germany. This association with Nazi Germany is certainly true, but in fact it biases the article because it is historically false. I would like to emphasize that this is not an opinion, as there is ample historical data available to prove this.

The Germans, in their African colony of Namibia (then called German Southwest Africa), carried out a program of what we would now call 'genocide' against the aboriginal Herero people. One of the German officials enacting this program was Heinrich Ernst Göring (the father of Hermann Göring), as well as General Adrian Dietrich Lothar von Trotha. Skulls of the Herero were collected from Rehoboth, Namibia circa 1904, for the purpose of showing the 'inferiority' of these people from the viewpoint of Physical Anthropology. This establishes that a racist program based on eugenics, existed prior to the Nazis, who did not come to power until 1933.* In addition, the KWI-A (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute-Anthropology) used the Herero skulls by 1928.

Furthermore, there are people who continue to act as apologists for the eugenics program, who have tried to justify what happened to the Herero as late as 1985, well after the Nazis were supposedly out of power.

The off-page links discuss this information in greater detail, and provide specific references to source documentation.

By not making the changes above, it would appear as if eugenics is associated strictly with the Nazi program; this is historically false. ______________________
 * The contents of the 1918 "Blue Book" (there were two Blue Books in 1918; I refer to the one which continues to be censored) documented explicitly (including photographs) the genocide that took place at Shark Island and Windhoek; it was used as a negotiating tool by the British to gain control of what had been German Southwest Africa, after Germany was defeated in World War I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow600 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above unsigned comments seem to be missing the point: the lede discusses the strong association in the public mind between eugenics and Nazi racial policies. The fact that there was a previous, lesser known German programme in southern Africa doesn't diminish that in any way. This is fully referenced in the "Germany" section lower down. The deletion is unjustified and I am restoring the material. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The new additions, inserting this lower down, are fine but could we have a few more references, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Removed references to National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council
I made these edits without first consulting the readership. I believe that my edits are no-brainers, but I realize that some people might be uncertain, so I wish to justify my edits here. The original article stated that "Supporters of eugenics included... the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council". I removed those references to the NAS and the NRC, because they are not justified by the references provided. The first reference [88] indicated only that a man who was president of the National Academy of Sciences attended a conference on eugenics. I know from other sources that this man was in fact a supporter of eugenics. However, his statements were not official statements of the NAS nor did the NAS ever release any official document declaring support for eugenics.

The second reference [89] provides a quote from an official statement that there should be research into the biological and genetic factors in violence. It does not state that persons found to possess such biological or genetic traits should be prevented from procreating -- an element fundamental to the concept of eugenics. Therefore, the reference does not support the conclusion that the NAS and NRC supported eugenics.

Chloderic (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Fixed To Fail" on YouTube
This recent addition seems to link to a copyright movie, which makes it subject to deletion: see WP:ELNEVER. Although it incorporates old footage which may or may not be in copyright, it is itself a recent work. Views? --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is a copyright issue or not. But aside from that, this appears to be the wrong place to put the link per WP:ELNO #13. This would belong at Buck v. Bell if it can be linked at all. Jesanj (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sexual selection?
I note a number of references (such as and ) to conscious (and possibly unconscious) sexual selection as a form of eugenics. If there are no objections, I will accordingly put in a link with the above citations. Allens (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Judaism?
Which variety of Judaism? Even in Israel, there are multiple varieties of Judaism; no evidence is presented that all varieties of Judaism oppose abortion except to save the life/health of the mother, and I don't believe this is the case (other abortions do happen in Israel). Allens (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a hint: There are people who will be granted convenient housing very quickly by the state while others that look different and have to wait. 139.139.67.70 (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're referring to the dominance of Orthodox (and frequently Ultra-Orthodox) viewpoints in Israel, yes, I'm aware of this (problem, IMO). If you're claiming there's, say, encouragement of racial minorities to get abortions, I know someone whose mother had more than one abortion (for reasons other than the mother's life/health) - and she's (basically) white. Allens (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Ideology to promote colonial crimes?
Why is the section about Great Britan so short - and what about the colonial aspects: racism and eugenics? 139.139.67.70 (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to find reliable sources and improve it. As for racism, what I've seen indicates that was an American approach to eugenics: the British version was more class based. . dave souza, talk 13:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anglo-American social problems, in a nutshell?--Tznkai (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Russia and China are missing... Why so?
Soviet Russia and Maoist China have committed an enormous amount of crimes related to eugenics, but are missing completely. Was this article translated from versions in other languages which are related and accordingly incomplete? 139.139.67.70 (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Verification required . . . dave souza, talk 13:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * With regard to China, see One-child policy and sources linked from it. Allens (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A one-child policy is not eugenic. It, like its opposite (natalist policies such as the one practiced in France in the late C19), is aimed at changing the overall size of the population, not changing the differential reproductive rate of subsections of the population. See natalism and antinatalism. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  20:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm... try taking a look at the section linked to, regarding human rights. It specifically mentions a number of areas in which China was (at least formerly - they've now committed to not doing it... whether this will actually happen is another matter) engaging in eugenics. No, the one-child policy in and of itself isn't eugenics, I agree - but related policies have been. Allens (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked up the scholarly literature on the USSR and eugenics, and it seems that the Soviets quite definitely distanced themselves from eugenics as practised in the USA and Germany. The OP probably has in mind oppression of non-Russian ethnic groups, arguably amounting to genocide. Would that normally be considered to be eugenics? There is discussion of the question in relation to Nazi Germany. As is well known, the Nazis practised eugenics in the normal definition and also implemented the Final Solution. But many scholars think those were only contingently related. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethical re-assessment: "less-obviously coercive" is not neutral
Calling the results of voluntary actions "less-obviously coercive" is rather obviously a viewpoint - that such are actually coercive. Not only is this view without citations (as noted below), even if it were cited it would need to be made clear that this is only a viewpoint - that others certainly disagree (see liberal eugenics, for instance), not stated as a fact. Allens (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dysgenics section needs to be rethought or removed
Right now it just seems to be an oblique reference to Idiocracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foobard (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Since no one has come to its defence, I have removed it. Foobard (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

New edits on German colonies
A really important topic, but I'm concerned that there is far too much detail of German colonisation generally, not directly relating to eugenics. Also, a confusion of eugenic research and practices. These may well have gone hand in hand, but we need to establish that with references. What do others think? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fully agree, there seems to be a confusion between racism and eugenics, which are actually separate issues. Ideas of "racial hygiene" clearly predate eugenics, and while eugenics in some countries was used as an excuse for racism, that doesn't mean that racism is eugenics. A lot of it seems to be unsourced, and a careful check of sourcing is needed. . dave souza, talk 19:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, racism and Eugenics (even genetics) are often confused. The best way to clear up the confusion is NOT by censorship (as our Neo-Nazi friends would have us believe - ask Wikipedia editors about this one), but by exposing the facts. Don't like racism confused with eugenics, then your argument is with history.Virago250 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Saying there is too much detail isn't censorship. Please see WP:V for the need to have good secondary sources. There are several good recent histories of eugenics, so if you want to include any other material the onus is on you to show you have good sources for it. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Virago250, you have brought to our attention some excellent sources, but they've got to be summarised accurately. Schmul makes no connection between Hauschild's research and the 1902-1903 German-American war in Venezuela, so we can't either. If you can find another historian making the link, then please re-add the point. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Virago, there is some really relevant and important stuff out there, and you are bringing it to our attention, but it will all be obscured if you don't take the right material from the right sources and add it to the right articles. Look for a minute about what is said about eugenics in other countries. There is no way that this article can include a simple listing of which parts of the world were colonised by Germany. That has to go elsewhere. What is positively known about eugenics in German colonies. There is reliably sourced knowledge, and it is so frustrating to see the wrong stuff dumped in here without sufficient thought. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The eugenics work of Rita Hauschild, associated with the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Genetics in the area of Bastard studies (miscegenation) at the early German community of Tovar, Venezuela, has already been cited. To exclude this work on eugenics under the topic of eugenics sounds biased and without justification. The Venezuela Crisis of 1902-1903, also a Wikilink (and inserted by someone else), that itsmejudith suggested be used, shows the attempt of Germany to establish itself as colonies in the New World. The countries in the Caribbean, Central America and South America where Germany has its influence have already been established in the Wikilinks German colonization of the Americas and Colonia Tovar. Is there a reason why these links should not be used to show why Germany actually threatened war with the United States, as noted in Venezuela crisis of 1902-1903? It appears that itsmejudith is saying I should use this Wikilink to take out information, then saying when I add it to another place, that I shouldn't use the Wikilink.
 * Indeed, Eugenics is related to genetics (a subject I don't discuss for the most part), as well as racism. The fact that this is true, isn't a reason to exclude the information. The fact that German history is so closely tied up with both racism and eugenics is a historical fact not amenable to making believe it isn't so by saying that new information should not be added because there is so much information.
 * To summarize, it appears as though itsmejudith doesn't want information added and, furthermore, seems not to like the use of Wikilinks written by other people, to support the information being provided. If there is any question of citations, they have been given. For example, when referring to the Wikilink about Bartolomé de las Casas, this was written originally in Spanish, then abridged to the Summary version in Spanish, then translated into various languages (the version I used, in fact, being written in Middle English and published in London in 1587). If itsmejudith does not accept the citation, she should feel free to give her own, whether it be in Latin, Spanish or Middle English. If itsmejudith disputes what has been written in the various Wikilinks referred to, she should feel free to say why, rather than simply eliminating information. Bartolomé de las Casas is cited in reference to the Caribbean island (Isla Margarita), as Venezuela did not yet exist in de las Casas' time.Virago250 (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Umm... you have yet to provide evidence for the relevance of, for instance, the Venezuela Crisis of 1902–1903, nor for that matter of any publication from 1587, well before the invention of the concept of eugenics, nor for German colonization attempts that were before the invention of eugenics. The possible fact (uncited) that Brazil almost went with the Axis is also not relevant. This is not an article about, for instance, the history of racism; perhaps the Racism article's History section should be split off and expanded with the cited information you have located? Allens (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the subcategories under the Eugenics page deals with eugenics in different countries. I am primarily responding (adding information) to these questions with respect to eugenics and its relationship with German colonies. The relationship of eugenics to German South West Africa (GSWA) is obvious and direct. (For example, one of the leading eugenicists, Eugen Fischer, did medical research related to eugenics in both GSWA under the Second Reich, and in Germany under the Third Reich.) Eugen Fischer as well as many other eugenicists worked with American eugenicists such as Charles Davenport, and also did work for the IFEO. Much of this work has been reviewed in Bastard studies ("bastard" being commonly used to refer to mixed-race people or miscegenation). The wikiarticle on Bastard studies lists eugenicists who did work in various German colonies. Other German colonies were in the south Pacific as well as in the New World. It is important to show that this racist-oriented version of eugenics was not an isolated event that took place only in Germany or in one particular German colony. In fact, eugenics research took place in several colonies. For example, Rita Hauschild did research in Tovar, Venezuela. Eugenics research was also done in some of the south Pacific islands, as well as in one of the most famous locations, German Reichsgau Wartheland under the Third Reich (Auschwitz). One might think there was a disconnect between the Second and Third Reichs, yet people such as Hannah Arendt have written books about this connection. Thus, it becomes very important to show the historical connection between Germany's colonies and eugenics research that took place there. By "historical connection", it is important to show that what Germany was doing was not something that just suddenly happened without any historical precedence. In fact, Germany's claim to have colonies in the New World was based upon not only the past history but its proto-colony in Tovar. It is to be noted that I used Wikilinks already written by others, to show that Germany's history runs back several centuries and that the Venezuela Crisis of 1902-1903 was based on Colonia Tovar. (Germany entertained the idea of going to war with the United States; hence, this was viewed as a significant issue not only by Germany but by the United States as well.)
 * Regarding your idea of this material being more properly placed in the Racism article: this isn't simply racism, but was classified as eugenics. I think it's proper to deal with the subject matter under the appropriate heading. In the 21st century there is a clear distinction between genetics, eugenics and racism; however, this was not always the case. We cannot rely upon readers of Wikipedia to know the history before they look it up in Wikipedia; that's why I placed that material here.Virago250 (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you essentially stating that one reason for German colonies was to carry on eugenics research? This is going to need to be made considerably clearer (with citations, of course) in the article. That Germany's history on colonies, racism, etc ran back several centuries, I still have difficulty seeing the relevance of; please clarify. (I've taken a look at the Bastard studies article, and have noted a couple places where references are needed plus added a couple of WikiProjects - note that I don't feel that articles should be rated above Start-class except based on a consensus of multiple users.) Allens (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fischer's and Hauschild's research is very much on-topic for Eugenics. We need more detail on both, as a priority. Also in respect to Fischer's connections to the American and international eugenics movement. Can you help find more sources on this stuff, can be in any language? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This article may be of help in resolving this controversy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longsun (talk • contribs)

Australia
The Australia section focuses too much on the Stolen Generations, which were arguably eugenic and are discussed at length elsewhere on Wikipedia. I'd like to shorten the stuff on the Stolen Generations and include information on eugenics in Australia more broadly. This would include sterilization (of mental defective) debates in Australian Parliaments, and the formation of groups such as the NSW Racial Hygiene Association. Anyone object? Dave Earl (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is dysgenics in the criticism section?
How is it a criticism of eugenics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.106.136 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Origins of Eugenics
There is some confusing of the Nazi organized holocaust with the German eugenics movement. Some sentences will need to be rewritten to avoid implying the German eugenics movement caused the holocaust, and new citations will be required as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waters2100 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The opening description of the origins of eugenics is not consistent with the rest of the article. It states, "The origins of the concept of eugenics began with certain interpretations of Mendelian inheritance, and the theories of August Weismann.[4]" Galton coined the term in 1883, inspired by his cousin Darwin, as "the study of the Agencies under social control, that improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally." Simply look at the jump from pre-Galtonian to Galton's theory and that clearly demonstrates the movement's beginnings.

As for Mendel, his work was not even rediscovered until 1900, though it was quickly pulled into the established movement. Just read Punnett's 1904 book Mendelism. In talking about the "lower strata" of society he wrote, "Permanent progress is a question of breeding rather than pedagogics; a matter of gametes, not of training." Weismann builds on Darwin, so I am sure he is referenced in the early movement. Yet scientific discoveries about evolution and inheritance used by the eugenics movement should in no way be confused with founding it; that was Galton alone. --Kris (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Do you want to suggest improved wording? The "stirpiculture" of Victoria Woodhull is also important in the earliest stages. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to just put this out here to be picked apart and better sourced. Here is what I am thinking.  First, the opening now is far too long; it does not summarize.  Second, I am thinking this should be focused mostly on the movement.  There needs to be a section (maybe even an additional separate page) detailing the science of Eugenics that extends even to today.  But the bulk of the article needs to focus on the many details of the social movement.  Also, any references to other opposition movements would be good. With that said, here goes...


 * Eugenics is the “applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a [human] population.” [2] It was a significant social movement in the United States and Europe in late 19th and early 20th centuries started by Francis Galton, who first used the term 1883, based on the work of his cousin Charles Darwin. [Eugenics Archive]


 * The Eugenics movement became widely popular as society looked to science to help solve social problems like poverty and as the field of genetics emerged from the works of August Weismann and Gregor Mendel. By 1900 the United States had begun enacting eugenics laws, and by 1912 the first International Congress of Eugenics met in London with the support of many prominent scientists, politicians, and social activists.  Opposition to the movement came mostly from the Catholic Church though with limited success.  The Eugenics movement ended after WWII when the German eugenics laws eventually were used against the Jews during The Holocaust.
 * --Kris (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Something also needs to be clear is that Galton started a "positive eugenics" movement mainly focussed on encouraging marriage of the "best" social classes, and Davenport and others promoted "negative eugenics" on racial lines with sterilisation laws and laws on immigration. Not as simple as that, but there were several different "movements" rather than one movement. By the way, Galton was Darwin's half-cousin, and we seem to have lost Darwin's very cautious views on the concept: remember, On the Origin of Species does not discuss humanity. Must get back to editing this article sometime. . . dave souza, talk 18:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the specifics on Galton need to be thoroughly discussed in the full article. I wonder how this positive and negative line can so easily be drawn?  It Galton's first use of the word he wrote, "We greatly want a brief word to express the science of improving stock, which is by no means confined to the questions of judicious mating, but which, especially in the case of man, takes cognisance of all influences that tend in however remote a degree to give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have.  The word eugenics would sufficiently express the idea; it is at least a neater word and a more generalised one than viriculture, which I once ventured to use."  But he may have backed away from that as his ideas developed.  See "The Progress of Eugenics" by Saleeby published in 1914 (full text in Google Books).  It appears he defined "positive" and "negative" eugenics, as well as "preventative", in this work (see p. 20), and does imply that Galton would approve of SOME FORMS of mating discouragements.  Perhaps how much discouragement is where there was controversy within the movement? --Kris (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It will be a lot of work, but I think the way to go is chronological. Because most of what we have here is history of science, and history generally. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree on chronology. But I hesitate about putting a lot of detail about scientific development of modern eugenics because 1) that would make this very long, 2) two distinct articles could easily be made, and 3) some scientists whose work was important to the movement were themselves neutral to it.  Mendel is certainly a good example. I don't know about Weismann, and other than Darwin mentioning to Galton that he liked the idea I don't know of him being significantly involved with it.--Kris (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tweaked this a little to broaden it:

''Eugenics is the “applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a [human] population.” [2] It was a significant International social movement in late 19th and early 20th centuries started by Francis Galton, who first used the term 1883, based on the work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin. [Eugenics Archive]''

''The Eugenics movement became widely popular as society looked to science to help solve social problems and as the field of genetics emerged from the works of August Weismann and Gregor Mendel. By 1900 the United States had begun enacting eugenics laws, and by 1912 the first International Congress of Eugenics met in London with the support of many prominent scientists, politicians, and social activists. Opposition to the movement came mostly from the Catholic Church and from some within the scientific community, though with limited success. The Eugenics movement ended after WWII when the German eugenics laws eventually were used against the Jews during The Holocaust.''

I think this is a succinct summary with which to open the article that leave plenty of room to expand the information within the article. --Kris (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that "The Eugenics Movement ended after WWII" is simply too blunt. Compulsory sterilisation programmes continued into the 1970s, journals such as "Eugenics Quarterly" continued to be published, and so on. I think a more reasonable statement might be "The Eugenics movement declined in popularity after the Second World War." Dave Earl (talk) 03:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right, I agree; it is even making a bit of a resurgence today. The opening should encompass the full expanse of the topic.--Kris (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Popular culture
I think Frank Herbert's "Dune" is worth mentioning here. Planned breeding was used there over years to breed a single person with godlike abilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.72.34.250 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought, my recollection is that the novel's more about ecology, but we'd need verification from a reliable secondary source explicitly comparing it to eugenics to avoid original research. Also, don't forget that planned breeding of people long predated eugenics, so there's not a clear link. . dave souza, talk 07:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Canada, First Nations
It's an area with a great deal of new information being published now (due to church archives being opened, and court cases opened and closed), but I thought that someone needed to at least create a place-holder in the article for the "eugenic" sterilization of Canada's First Nations.

There's scarcely a sentence on this in the article at present, and hopefully this will be a seed that others will come back and tend to (there's already a prolix academic literature on the subject, and, as of 2012, more coming into print month by month). This also entails links to other wiki pages on forced sterilization in Canada as well as specific provinces. Jep Tong (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

New Article Section: State Eugenics in the 21st Century
This paragraph could be expanded into a new section: "However, developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the end of the 20th century have raised new questions and concerns about what exactly constitutes the meaning of eugenics and what its ethical and moral status is in the modern era."

I suggest the title 'State Eugenics in the 21st Century' to restrict the scope to Governmental organisations. Two examples that could be covered here:

- China's 1 child policy - which is eugenic through the back door as many families have selected for male children. - The UK's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. Clause 14/4/9 (on the use of embryos used in human IVF) states:

“Persons or embryos that are known to have a gene, chromosome or mitochondrion abnormality involving a significant risk that a person with the abnormality will have or develop a serious physical or mental disability, a serious illness or any other serious medical condition must not be preferred to those that are not known to have such an abnormality.”

This was called nakedly eugenic by some media commenters.

Bonus extra: according to this article, 10 US states still had eugenic laws in 2007, even though they are no longer used: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/07/09/prsa0709.htm 21:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedTomato (talk • contribs)

Criticisms section
I have made some changes to the criticisms section so that people reading the section for information receive information about Eugenics and aren't influenced by a strong anti-eugenics bias.

I think that the neutrallity tag over the section should now be removed but I'm not exactly sure, any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemappelleungarcon (talk • contribs) 13:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed the neutrallity sign as it doesn't seem to be too much of an issue any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemappelleungarcon (talk • contribs) 14:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Intro paragraph (if not more) non-NPOV
I just read the opening paragraph and feel it gives the impression that it's merely a harmless philosophy to improve society; it sounds like it was written by an idealist for a recruiting pamphlet. (I was disturbed enough to stop and write this.) For example, it doesn't indicate that it has a strong history of the 'undesirable' traits being socially rather than objectively determined, being harmful to individuals, corrupted/abused as a social tool, ineffective at actually changing things for the better, and so forth. Obviously details belong in the later sections, but the negative facets should be raised alongside the others. —Xyzzy☥Avatar (talk) 01:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Too few caveats
There are a mere 4 caveats in the following sentence: "Eugenicists advocate[1] specific policies that (if successful[2]) they believe[3] will lead to a perceived[4] improvement of the human gene pool."

People might actually start to think that humans are influenced by genes. I propose a more neutral wording, e.g., "So-called eugenicists advocate policies that, if successful or even possible, they believe will supposedly lead to a perceived improvement of the alleged human gene pool."

-- Y.G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.113.81 (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Eugenics - fiction vs reality
I find this article to not be very useful. History - It seems to dwell on the historical social movements of the first half of the 20th Century. With the continuing decrease in the cost of genetic analysis (DNA), as well as the enormous increase in our understanding of the relative contributions of environment and genes to character traits, modern eugenics must be regarded differently than that of 1910. Incest - Is it or is it not true that most "scientific" justifications for prohibitions of incestuous marriage rely (predominantly) on eugenics arguments? So, is it or is it not true that most countries recognize the need for some eugenics? Seems to me it is true, but if not, someone needs to explain why not. Definition - Is personal selection of a spouse based on phenotype eugenics? Is the income tax marriage deduction eugenics? Disparate impact laws? At what point does individual or group selection become eugenics? Health - It seems to me that this article intentionally avoids discussion of the adverse health effects of "bad genes". They are enormous. Economics - Especially missing is any discussion on the economic benefits and costs of both genetic "defects" and eugenics. Normative - This article clearly wants to make all eugenics normative. It is not the case. There are rational objective arguments for certain eugenics policies. Technology - This article also avoids the changing definitions of genetic defect. Eyeglass usage is a case in point. As technology changes the calculus of what is an acceptable social cost and what is not changes. No discussion of that. Sex - why isn't sex selection (and infanticide) covered as being eugenic in nature? That's all that occurs to me right now...72.172.11.228 (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions of reliable sources that will improve the article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Eugenics article can become better by use of more current sources
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically 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 genetics 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, how I edit) 04:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
Waters2100 made edits to the history section which misrepresented a source. (When? When was the time and date I supposedly added this source? I looked through the article history, and I did not see this source added by me. Waters2100 (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC))  Contrary to what he has written in the text, Waters2100 did not use a Yale University Press book as a source but instead a short opinion piece, based on extracts from that book. The book is written by a historian of science and contains a history of eugenics, with comments on modern genetic advances and the genome project. Its content was misreresented in the article as "21st century history" with a few randomly picked sentences from the opinion piece. Certainly a separate section on modern genetic methods and their relation to eugenics might be helpful in the article if written in a balanced way using representative secondary sources. Waters2100 also appears to have edited logged off using the anonymous IP 173.227.98.2. They blanked content on eugenics in Nazi Germany with no proper justification. That blanking looked like vandalism. The content on Germany is very well-sourced and written about in numerous text books, several of which already appear in the references. Oscillating between a registered account and an anonymous IP is not advised, particularly if the IPs edits are essentially vandalism (blanking). I have removed the "21st century history" section as part of the WP:BRD cycle, since as written it was not concerned with history but an essay-like account of current progress in genetics. The book is certainly a useful source and should be be added to the references. The material in it can be used in the article, but that should be done in a more careful and systematic way, rather than cherry-picking sentences out of context from an opinion piece. I have no idea why material on eugenics in pre-war and wartime Germany was blanked, particularly as there are so many accademic textbooks on that material. Please do not do that again, Waters2100. Please also use this page for discussion (cf the comments by WejiBakikeBianji above), the D bit in WP:BRD. Mathsci (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please refer to reliable sources, Waters2100, in identifying what issues should be most emphasized in this article. Note that I am not the same person as Mathsci--all that he and I have in common is a tendency to look up the reliable sources as we edit articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:06, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I have adjusted the recent additions. 1) removed the Century subheadings because they implied that there was a separate Eugenics movement in the 21st century to that that existed in the last. This is not the case, and now there is IMNSHO a better continuity. 2) edited and adjusted the new paragraph for flow and clarity. The POV that modern genetics is a part of the overall Eugenics continuum is worth airing in the article, but not in undergraduate essay style. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The content was essay-style before and grammatically did not really make much sense. Waters2100 has not responded here. There were inappropriate comments in edit summaries. Mathsci (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of the citation error you are referring to, but an error in citation does not necessarily justify a deletion if the ideas are still accurate and relevant, just correct the citation. Using words like "misrepresented" is just inflammatory and inaccurate. I deleted some of the ideas on Nazi Germany eugenics because Nazi Germany was a relatively small period of time in the eugenics movement, yet over half of the History subsection is on Nazi Germany. I believe this over-emphasis violates wikipedia's neutrality requirement. Waters2100 (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Historical Proportionality versus Historical Significance
Nazi eugenics were not the norm or the majority of eugenics policies throughout history, so this page must only reference Nazi Eugenics in proportion to the degree those views were historically shared by the majority of the eugenicist (which was very little) or influenced the decrease in popularity of eugenics among society, otherwise over-emphasizing Nazi eugenics, when attempting to neutrally explain eugenics, would violate Wikipedia's neutrality requirement. Nazi eugenics are significant in order to understand eugenics; however, there already is a wiki on Nazi Eugenics and the History of eugenics, so references to Nazi eugenics may be more appropriate on those wikis in order to keep this page neutral. Waters2100 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What reliable sources are you suggesting for checking the balance of the article? That's always the key issue: what do reliable sources say? I have a  source list in user space to share with other editors. I am always happy to receive suggestions of new reliable sources.  -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics edited by Alison Bashford, Philippa Levine. This book covers twenty-eight topics in eugenics, but only one of twenty-eight topics covers Germany and eugenics.  I think this book is a good example on how to represent the history of eugenics in a balanced proportion. Waters2100 (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Factors that Influenced Opposition to Eugenics
It must be kept in mind that the horrors of Nazi Germany are not the only factors that influenced the public's growing opposition to coercive state led eugenics. The Civil Rights era created a culture and eventually laws that favored individual rights and human equality at unprecedented levels, and these new values also had an influence in changing the public's support for the coercive state led policies of eugenics. Waters2100 (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

What can be found in reliable sources?


Here is a good example of a book on eugenics from a top academic publisher that has not been used in the article. Waters2100 is arguing that this material should not be included because it is treated elsewhere on wikipedia. The omission of significant material would give a skewed and non-neutral view of the topic. That would seriously mislead the reader. The suggestions of Water2100 seems to be geared to their individual likes or dislikes and not to what can be found in the academic literature. Their unsourced commentary has a narrow focus on the United States. The eugenics movement is intimately tied up with historical events. That is reflected in reliable sources, such as Kuhl's excellent book. Has Waters2100 consulted that book? Mathsci (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the book by Kühl is a good source for international connections in the twentieth century eugenics movement. Here on Wikipedia we have to edit according to what the sources say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics edited by Alison Bashford, Philippa Levine. This book covers twenty-eight topics in eugenics, but only one of twenty-eight topics covers Germany and eugenics. I think this book is a good example on how to represent the history of eugenics in a balanced proportion. Waters2100 (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Eugenics-related policies
In reading this article (for the first time), I wondered about some policies related to marriage. Specifically, I'm thinking of a) blood tests to obtain a marriage license in some US states and b) rules against close family (usually up to or including cousins) marrying. Are either of these related to the eugenics movement? --ESP (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The Massachusetts Supreme Court in Com. v. Smith, 431 Mass. 417, 728 N.E.2d 272 (2000) claimed that incest laws serve other purposes besides eugenics. The Court suggested that incest laws are intended to protect the familial relationships and protect children, whether adopted or biological.

"Limiting “sexual intercourse” in G.L. c. 272, § 17, to penile-vaginal penetration would be appropriate if the sole purpose of the incest prohibition were the prevention of genetic or biological abnormalities in the offspring of incestuous unions. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Smith, 46 Mass.App.Ct. 822, 825 n. 5, 710 N.E.2d 1003 (1999). However, the plain language of the incest statute indicates that its drafters sought to advance purposes different from, and more compelling than, eugenics. For the statute does not define the crime of incest exclusively in terms of sexual intercourse between consanguineous relations, but also criminalizes the intermarriage of persons so related. See G.L. c. 272, § 17. Moreover, the “[p]ersons within the degrees of consanguinity” to whom the statute's prohibitions of intermarriage and sexual intercourse apply are not limited to blood relations, but include also certain affinal kin as well as stepparents. Compare G.L. c. 272, § 17, with G.L. c. 207, §§ 1, 2. The Legislature's purpose in criminalizing incestuous conduct must thus extend beyond the prevention of genetic defects, as this goal would clearly not be advanced by criminalizing marriage itself, without more, between blood relations, and still less by prohibiting coitus between affinal kin who do not share a common bloodline. See Model Penal Code and Commentaries § 230.2 comment 2(b), at 403; comment 3(b), at 412–413 (1980). Indeed, the scope of the incest statute, as it relates to both conduct and persons, strongly suggests that its framers valued and sought to promote the sanctity and integrity of familial relationships, as well as to protect children within the family from sexual impositions by their elders. ''Com. v. Smith'', 431 Mass. 417, 728 N.E.2d 272 (2000).
 * This ruling only applies to Mass, but this opinion may be persuasive in other jurisdictions that have similar incest statutes. In my view this shows us that the legislative intent of the incest law is not eugenic enough to include in the article Waters2100 (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Similar concepts when people are dealing with other species.
(this is about my revert to put back purebred to see-also section.) Yes, article is about humans but see-also section is for similar ideas that cannot fit in the article, we did try eugenics on our species and that was found immoral, but like Mengele doing his experiments in Auschwitz on people we do the same thing on rats or mice. We just call them differently. The same is with eugenics and racial purity, there were times when people tried to do the same for human population what they did with cattle or dogs for thousands of years. I'm not in a position here to say it is good or bad but only to remind that such concepts exist. All the articles on human race/diversity etc are too anthropocentric, but the reality is that we are evolved on this planet from non-human species similar to these we now are vivisecting and we are similar to all the living things so concepts of selection, and purity of breed (bottleneck effect) apply to us as to the other animals and plants. The food that we eat is all being eugenically treated for thousands of years. Again, I know that this article is about humans and should stay that, but there should be side note about similar concepts in biology to show people that our species is not special in this regard. We humans may be special when it comes to moral / ethical judgments about these issues but physically/biologically we are 'the same' (at this level we are talking here) as dogs or cattle. pwjb (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Modern Eugenics
Eugenic Origins In the early 20th Century a group of old, white men, now long dead, got together and thought up Eugenics. The idea was to manipulate who reproduced and who did not. Forced sterilization of the mentally and physically disabled was the most logical l choice for these dumb ass white guys. If you were institutionalized at that time, you had no freedom and no choice to decline. By mid-century the Immorality of the sterilization programs became the greater good, and they were stopped, for the most part, worldwide. One of the greatest moments for the Eugenics movement was the Holocaust of Nazi Germany during World War II. Over 7 million Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Intellectuals and Others were systematically murdered by the Nazis and their allies: The most evil and horrific moment in the History of Mankind. The next area of focus for the Eugenics gang was abortion. If the poor where given free access to abortions, fewer poor babies would be born, the less Welfare would be Paid out. Over 4 million babies have been murdered in the last four decades in the U.S. alone: The second most evil and horrific moment in the History of Mankind. This very successful technique worked well and still works to this day: under the radar of most observers. Almost anyone who believes in Eugenics chooses not to talk about it in mixed company, so it is difficult to know how many old, white men still believe in its merits. But a Hidden Agenda can be just as Effective as an Obvious one, under the circumstances. No matter seemingly benign, any effort to promote Eugenics, like the promotion of contraception in teens, cannot be ignored by us. Eugenic Origins In the early 20th Century a group of old, white men, now long dead, got together and thought up Eugenics. The idea was to manipulate who reproduced and who did not. Forced sterilization of the mentally and physically disabled was the most logical l choice for these dumb ass white guys. If you were institutionalized at that time, you had no freedom and no choice to decline. By mid-century the Immorality of the sterilization programs became the greater good, and they were stopped, for the most part, worldwide. One of the greatest moments for the Eugenics movement was the Holocaust of Nazi Germany during World War II. Over 7 million Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Intellectuals and Others were systematically murdered by the Nazis and their allies: The most evil and horrific moment in the History of Mankind. The next area of focus for the Eugenics gang was abortion. If the poor where given free access to abortions, fewer poor babies would be born, the less Welfare would be Paid out. Over 4 million babies have been murdered in the last four decades in the U.S. alone: The second most evil and horrific moment in the History of Mankind. This very successful technique worked well and still works to this day: under the radar of most observers. Almost anyone who believes in Eugenics chooses not to talk about it in mixed company, so it is difficult to know how many old, white men still believe in its merits. But a Hidden Agenda can be just as Effective as an Obvious one, under the circumstances. No matter seemingly benign, any effort to promote Eugenics, like the promotion of contraception in teens, cannot be ignored by us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.28.192 (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a fundamental flaw in your long paragraph. Eugenics was an invention by Sir Francis Galton and he defined it – not some anonymous group of old white men. When ever someone talks about eugenics, it is about the eugenics which was Galton's idea. However, if one talks about what nazis did, whether they labeled their deeds as "eugenics" or something else, that may be eugenics only so much as it fits in Galton's definition. If they did something else, something that does not follow the definition of eugenics, then is it eugenics or something else? Nikolas Ojala (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Supporters And Critics
On page 105 of the book "Breeding Contempt," Mark A. Largent refers to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia's entry on eugenics. The Google Books copy of the page is unavailable, but the entry is linked to below, and amply quoted here:

"The crux of the eugenic question is in the proposals for segregation and sterilization. Both may be either voluntary or compulsory. The aim is to prevent defectives from propagating their kind. Segregation means not only the separation of defectives from the rest of the community but also separation of the sexes from each other amongst the defectives themselves. Sterilization is a surgical operation by which the subjects are made incapable of procreation... The operation would open the door to immoral practices which would constitute a worse evil than the one avoided. The welfare of the State, if seriously threatened by the degenerate, could be better protected by segregation. Therefore the operation is not permissible, except as a necessary means to bodily health, and consequently except for this necessity may not be performed even with the patient's consent... As for compulsory segregation it seems to be both right and good, provided that all due safeguards are taken in respect of the grades of feebleness. The spirit of the Church is to extend rather than curtail the freedom of the individual. The Catholic conscience guards against the State being unduly exalted at the expense of the family."

Is this detail worth adding to the "Supporters and Critics" section? The idea seems to be widespread that the Catholic Church was always and fully against the idea of eugenics in all its forms, whereas it appears that at least whoever was responsible for this entry in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia favored eugenic segregation.

Here is a link to the relevant entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/16038b.htm

RugTimXII (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Another thing that's not eugenics
&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) People of color were discriminated against through the use of eugenic ideals. Mexican-Americans during the 1900’s were given IQ tests and results were compared to the results of White children. These exams indicated that White children performed better than Mexican-American children. However, the circumstances under which the exams were taken were different between Mexican-American and White children. Unlike White children, Mexican-American children were not native english speakers and had not received the education White children had received before performing the exams. These confounding factors were included as possible reasons to why some performed better than others. This was used as an excuse to maintain segregation and it happened privately within schools. Children of color were segregated because they were deemed inherently inferior and unintelligent through the findings of faulty exams.

A source list that may help
I see that part of the article talk page discussion here is about what the scope of eugenics is as a set of policies and practices or as a social movement. You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, which includes quite a few books about the history of eugenics movements in various places. I have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues from time to time since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations to aid finding good sources as you update articles all over Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who are you talking to?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Some things which aren't eugenics
I removed these as they're not examples of eugenics:

Government aid
The key sentence here is "While not explicit demands for sterilization or extermination, the regulation of anti-fertilization medication in exchange for welfare benefits, and anti-immigration movements can be traced back to motives aligned with eugenics." The material itself says that it's not eugenics. If it's going to be eugenics it has to consciously attempt to influence the reproduction of groups of humans in order to achieve some predesignated effect on the genome. Welfare benefit restrictions just aren't eugenics.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Government aid can be used means of leverage over marginalized groups seeking help. They use this leverage to allocate funds in the name of protection of the State’s financial interests. While not explicit demands for sterilization or extermination, the regulation of anti-fertilization medication in exchange for welfare benefits, and anti-immigration movements can be traced back to motives aligned with eugenics. Scientific publications like The Bell Curve that consider a genetically inherent difference of intelligence and therefore socioeconomic status is used as the justification for prejudices based on race, ability, criminal background, sexuality, mental health, etc.. Government reforms such as these are new ways of eliminating social groups perceived as a liability to society.

Women in slavery
Women in slavery were involuntarily sterilized? That's completely implausible on the face of it. What kind of slavery and when? Secondly, as above, whatever the uneven effect of incarceration on white women in contrast to nonwhite women regarding reproduction, this is not eugenics. Is the theory seriously that the government locks up more black women to effect the human genome? This would need extraordinarily good sourcing.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Women in slavery faced sexual abuse in the form of involuntary sterilization similar to that endured by incarcerated women today. Legislation concerning women’s reproductive rights traditionally protects upper class white women. These women are less likely to be incarcerated which leaves minroity women unprotected because they exist outside the bounds of the law.

Moms on crack
How is this eugenics?
 * Low income mothers with drug addictions, especially crack cocaine, are seen as unfit for motherhood and subjected to surveillance and criminalization under drug laws . They are unable to receive prenatal care and social services from the government. They often avoid filing for care due to the fear of being reported to government officials.

&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Welfare moms
"Eugenics based motives"? This article is about eugenics, not "eugenics based motives."
 * The traditional welfare program AFDC was replaced with TANF in 1996. Under this new program, families only receive increased aid per child to a certain number of children. This program also discourages discourage childbearing among unmarried persons and teenagers. TANF provides money for contraception and sterilization, but not for prenatal care or abortion. These limitations are a means of population control of minorities and low income families, which has eugenic-based motives.

&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There are three main ways by which the methods of eugenics can be applied.
This explanation has been lacking a citation since 2008. It seems a little misguided to go filling in the list with examples of these types of implementation when it's not yet clear that these are in fact the three types. Furthermore I'm worried that the articles that source the newly added examples don't use this same classification, in which case adding the examples to the subheadings would be original research (in the technical sense: WP:OR). Finally, why are they being added in a list format? Contextualized prose would be much better, although I understand that it's harder to write.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The "implementation methods" subcategory violated 5 of Wikipedia's terms and conditions

 * I agree. Everything under "Implementation methods" should be deleted for violating five of Wikipedia's terms and conditions. The paragraphs (1) are original research, (2) lack proper citations, not supported by a consensus of bioethicist or historians, (3) violate the neutrality requirement, (4) use weasel words, and (5) it is improperly placed in the article.


 * The idea of three main categories of eugenics is not supported by any historians and bioethicist, and thus, claiming there are three categories of eugenics and then trying to support this idea with history is original research and violates Wikipedia terms and conditions. Personally deducting a  "meaning" or "type" from the history constitutes as original research.  Furthermore, Even if a bioethicist or historian could be found to validate this three-tiered categorization, it should not be suggested that this three-tiered categorization is supported by all bioethicist and historians, and unfortunately using the subheadings suggests this.  In contrast to the three-tired categorization, some bioethicists suggest that eugenics is implemented more on a sliding scale ranging from coercive to non-coercive, rather than three strict categories.  See. Eugenics and the Ethics of Selective Reproduction


 * The writing style violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirement, and uses weasel words, for example, the editor wrote: "This method has been used in unethical terms by profiling embryos before fertilizing." Who says it is unethical, the weasel? There is also a major factual problem with this sentence.  How can an embryo be profiled before it is fertilized, if an embryo, by definition, can only exist after fertilization.  Is the editor saying that genetic screening is profiling, and if so then why is this always unethical? This writing style violates Wikipedia's neutrality requirement and uses weasel words.


 * Additionally, everything listed under "Implementation methods" is only History and not appropriate under the "Meanings and types" category. Appropriate topics under "Meanings and types" should be opinions from bioethicist and historians on the different definitions or meanings of eugenics and the different types or implementation methods.

For all of the above reasons I believe everything under "Implementation methods" should be deleted. Publiceditz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the controversial links between Eugenics and moder genetics?
I'm not an expert in the area by any means, and I gather that some of the people here are much better informed than I am. Shouldn't there be a section or at least a mention of the contentious ties between eugenics and genetics? I know a lot of academic research has been done on this topic and it seems like it would add a very important section updating this seemingly antiquated idea for the contemporary moment.

A quick book search reveals that its a fecund area of inquiry: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=eugenics%20genetics Biopoliticalaccount (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Merging the critics portion of the "Supporters and critics" heading with the "Criticism" heading
I think the article will be easier to read if we merge the critics portion of the "Supporter and critics" heading under the "Criticism" heading and then have a "Support" and "Criticism" heading. The other option is to have both arguments and counter arguments under the same heading. If you like this option we can have a "Supporters and critics" heading and a "Support and Criticism" heading. What do you think, why or why not?Publiceditz (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

In popular media
I noticed that Boone jenner removed the section with a short summary "trivia removed". That was not his first, by the way. But it is not that simple. Other users have contributed positively by adding relevant facts to the article. Deletions of relevant content should not be passed lightly. I also suggest reading "In popular culture" content. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I strongly support editorial judgment that keeps "in popular culture" cruft out of an article like this article about a serious topic. Inserting such content should not be on the basis of a Wikipedia essay that represents the point of view of just a few Wikipedians about how to edit the encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I also support the removal of trivia from this article.- MrX 01:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The entire section was an unsourced "indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft." Removal was appropriate. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see. Indeed, they were all unsourced. However, I would not use the word indiscriminate, since all those examples of fiction included the idea of eugenics and some kind of implementations of eugenics were essential to their plots. Anyway, I agree about the lack of sources. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Eugenics i ancient Sparta (Greece)
Hello!

It is my impression, that eugenics happend al long time ago i ancient greece.

I learned, that people i Sparta, had their newborn children checked by the elderly i the town, and if the child look sick, the parents had the obligation to the city to kill the child.

I leaned it here:

http://oyc.yale.edu/classics/clcv-205

Professionel Patient (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Professionel Patient


 * This was the case in ancient Rome too, and in some parts of Africa twins were put to death, if you read Achebe's Things Fall Apart, but these ancient practices weren't eugenics in the modern sense unless we have a source to say so. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What sources are people referring to here?
I see additions and deletions of article content going back and forth here. What sources are each of you relying on as you decide what emphasis is due on different aspects of the topic of eugenics? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The need to follow Wikipedia guidelines, avoid ambiguities, over-wordyness, and duplications should guide additions and deletions. The "Meanings and Types" heading is the most disorganized part of the article and needs the most editing.  It has a mixture of topics that should be in the "History" heading or the "Criticism" heading.  Why we have a "Criticism" and "Critics" heading also does not makes sense to me.  A good guide for including topics on eugenics is the Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. The book does not include many genetic issues other 21st century writers are discussing, but it shows the need to include many different aspects of eugenics. Publiceditz (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I looked up information about that book, and that does look like a good source. (Moreover, it is a source I could readily obtain from a nearby library.) I hope other editors will join in the discussion here about what sources are good for this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I should ask again about good general sources that are as broad in scope as this article is itself, as some of the recent edits now refer to issues that are primarily issues of due weight in use of sources. I just obtained some sources from libraries where I live in the last week. I'd be glad to hear of suggestions of good sources on eugenics as a general worldwide topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Rawls and eugenics
I'm sorry but the sources and quotes provided do not establish that "(Rawls') Original position (...) has been used as an argument for eugenics". All they show is that Rawls happened to mention genetics a few times and possibly believed that if it were possible to cure diseases by some genetic engineering then it might be a good idea. Not the same thing as "eugenics". This is WP:SYNTH and original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't you read them at all? Not original research. If I was writing my own theories here, that would be original research. But that is not the case. I even added the extensions to the quotes, just for you, so that you could find the bits from the sources. I noticed that you have been happily deleting several kilobytes of text and references that others have produced. Think about that. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest other editors to see what we are discussing about. It is all about these two edits: (1) and (2). Volunteer Marek argues that they are examples of original research and synthesis. I disagree. Because they are not my theories, they are not original research. Referring to a single source would be enough, but I used more just because there are more than one. I did not mean to synthesize anything – and I did not synthesize. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I did read them. They don't support the text being included. You (or whoever) is putting their own interpretation/spin on the fact that Rawls happened to mention genetics a few times, and that there are a few sources out there which discuss what he said. There's nothing in those sources which supports the idea that Rawls or his theory of justice supported Eugenics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This a quote from the abstract of the referenced article, published by the Baylor College of Medicine. The article explicitly states that Rawls beliefs could be used to support eugenics. This is valid material to include in the ethics sections, and it should be restored. Purpletangerine (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I request a rollback to before the deletions made by User:Volunteer Marek
I support a rollback to before User:Volunteer Marek made the many deletions, starting on 15:34, 29 November 2014‎ as an unregistered IP address. The kilobytes of text that were deleted were supported by references, and deserve a consensus before they are deleted. This article has many sentences that are not supported by references, but it appears User:Volunteer Marek deletions were focused on material, even referenced, that Volunteer Marek found disagreeable. Volunteer Marek deleted the entire subheading on pleiotropic genes without giving an explanation, even though it had many references. Volunteer Marek deleted the opinions of Geoffrey Miller without giving an explanation. Volunteer Marek deleted almost everything in the Ethics heading and gave a vague explanation. Volunteer Marek deleted a lot from Lynn by calling him POV. I am not a fan on Lynn, but that is a misstatement of the meaning of POV. POV refers to a wikipedia editor who shows their bias. Additionally, you can use the "neutrality disputed" Template:POV if you feel the source or the editor has a bias and a counterargument has not yet been added to the disputed opinion. Volunteer Marek also made other edits by rephrasing sentences. A topic like eugenics will always have contradicting opinions, the goal should be to reference all of the opinions to stay neutral. I expect for a neutral article on eugenics to be full of arguments and counterarguments. Deleting everything a person finds disagreeable is not the answer. If Volunteer Marek has disagreements with the article then please first tag the disputed material with the appropriate template or first discuss in the the talk page before making a series of deletions that are difficult to revert. Purpletangerine (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek is generally a very conscientious editor, so I think going forward from the current version is okay. This article surely does need a lot of work, but I hope he will continue to participate in watching and revising the article, as I recall (from my watchlist over the years) that he has followed these issues more closely and for longer than I have. As I have been gathering sources, I'll be able to check independently what each editor is doing here. Thanks for opening discussion about this on the article talk page and thanks for mentioning this discussion on my user talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC).


 * Wikipedia's Wikipedia_talk:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle does not work properly if the user makes multiple deletions because the "revert"part becomes difficult. Volunteer Marek should have made one bold deletion at a time. Purpletangerine (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not make any edits as an unregistered IP address (at least I don't think so). The edit by the IP is what made this article pop up on my watch list. I came here, I saw all the unsourced junk and OR, I removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But looking at the IP's edit again, I do think that was a good edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also put the part Pleiotropic genes back in. That part's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge all of the deleted material had references. Thank you for restoring the the section on pleiotropic genes.Purpletangerine (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

New source for Eugenics/Dysgenics trends
PDF here.74.14.75.158 (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see source from Galton Institute on Eugenics concerning Sir James Barr who was elected Chair of the British Medical Association in 1912. http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0212/Liverpool_Branch.htm Sir James Barr wrote an essay on Eugenics in 1914 in King Alberts Book which was published by the national newspaper the Daily Telegraph. page 177 https://archive.org/stream/kingalbert00teleuoft#page/n225/mode/2up Isthisuseful (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

OTRS Ticket#2015012210014664
Hello editors,

We have an OTRS ticket which claims that we are misrepresenting Hugh LaFollette's views in this article. The information in the ticket says that Hugh LaFollette says that parents need a license to raise children, not that the child shouldn't be born (which is eugenics.) [http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-08/14/time-to-restrict-human-breeding [Wired. It's time to consider restricting human breeding. Zoltan Istvan (August 2014) The Wired article barely mentions it in passing.] So we are depending on Lynn quite a lot to support this content.

I found the original essay by LaFollette on Licensing Parents. The piece doesn't clearly call for children to not be born, so I'm going to remove the content until we come up with either better wording or references that accurately support his views as stated in the article. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 06:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if we should be relying so heavily on Lynn as a source here at all, since his work tends to be controversial. Guettarda (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Suppose that you are were editing an article about subject S and then you found a book that concentrates completely in the subject S. To use that book as a reference would be only natural. Do you agree? Now there is one book about eugenics written by Richard Lynn. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now suppose that that one book on subject S was written by someone who has been demonstrated to routinely and tendentiously misrepresent and cherrypick data and sources...User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not a big loss. Richard Lynn collected few examples of parental licencing, but he did not claim that those examples were originally meant to be used in eugenics. Lynn only analysed them as possible methods and criticised them from the eugenics viewpoint. He also proposed a way to make such a licencing program effective. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

NPOV? Don't make me laugh.
"While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics, culture, and psychology there is at this point no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable."

Who says? There is no source. In fact, there is no source for the whole paragraph this sentence comes from. Why? Because it's pretty obvious from the way this was written that it was added by someone who is strongly anti-eugenics. There are a lot of objective means of determining which "traits" might be ultimately desirable. Considering this is in a section dealing with diseases and mental illnesses, I'd say it's pretty objective to say that being born with, for example, Treacher Collins Syndrome is not a desirable genetic "trait". Wikipedia really seems to have lowered its standards on neutrality, factuality and logic, given what I've seen in the past year.89.176.209.84 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Add a Citation needed tag and move on. The talk page is not your WP:SOAPBOX.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead section needs references
Under Wikipedia editing rules, "controversial subjects may require many citations" in the lead. Eugenics is one of the most controversial bioethics movements in history, so the lead should include references. Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. 64.134.155.118 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Prevention of rare diseases
The article doesn't mention the prevention of rare diseases at all. For example, under current laws found in most countries, it is legal for 2 parents, both having a disease like Cystic fibrosis to have children. With both parents having the disease, there's an almost 100% chance of their child having cystic fibrosis as well. As such there's almost a 100% chance that they condemn their child to have it's lungs transplanted several times during its lifetime.

Even if only one parent has cystic fibrosis, there will still be a 50% chance of the child having cystic fibrosis, and if they even don't have it, but are carrier of the gene, there's still a 25% or so chance of their child having the disease. https://www.rarediseasesnetwork.org/INC/patients/FAQ/index.htm

We should at least mention the positive effect of making it illegal under law for people having rare diseases to reproduce, and perhaps even those that just carry genes of rare diseases. Even sterilization of these people is still not that much to ask I think. KVDP (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What you personally think is fairly irrelevant in the absence of reliable sources that agree with you. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

United Nations International Bioethics Committee
The IBC released this paper. It is only thirty pages long, and it mentions eugenics five times. It is not law, but coming from the UN it may be persuasive in how countries make future laws. I think it is worth summarizing and adding to the article. "Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights" http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233258E.pdf Waters.Justin (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)