Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Eugenic Feminism

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Eugenic Feminism


WP:SYNTH article trying to conflate Eugenics with Feminism on the basis that some early feminists were also eugenicists. It does not follow that there is a sub-category of feminism that is specifically eugenicist. Simonm223 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look at the category tags, you'll note it's under Category:Eugenics not Category:Feminism. This is also why it's called "Eugenic Feminism", not "Feminist Eugenics" (though this is additionally what Caleb Saleeby called it).

(talk) 16:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's a draft. Allow the author time to come up with reliable sources that provide the synthesis.  Synthesis is only forbidden when it is synthesis by original research.  Decline any submission of this draft to article space in its current condition.  Robert McClenon
 * It is a genuine thing that happened in Canada and the United States (though most of the research seems to have been done in Canada), you can look at the references. The University of British Columbia even has a page on it. https://wiki.ubc.ca/Eugenic_Feminism  I'm trying not to synthesize, but also not to create a stub.  Would you please elaborate on what you'd like to see changed, or feel free to edit it.(I think you can do that in draft space, this is my first time using the feature).Ethanpet113 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Ethanpet113 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not disputing that certain early feminists in Canada had eugenicist views. I'm disputing that there is an existing branch of feminist thought called eugenic feminism. I would suggest that a person can be a eugenicist and a feminist in the same way that there are environmentalists who are also fascists. A person can hold two political theories that may be in dissonance. It doesn't mean a cohesive ideology exists. That's why I see this whole article as an exercise in WP:SYNTH with no place in this encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Concerned due to no mention of “femin” at eugenics, or “eugen” at feminism. I.e. it is SYNTH and content forking. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * However, the sourcing is too good for deletion from draftspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the article's title please see the following reference: http://womensuffrage.org/?p=22106 This page was written by Cecily Devereux a PHD she is employed at the University of Alberta and has a PHD from York University(1995) Additionally:

Since completing my PhD at York University in 1995 on late 19th-century English-Canadian poet Isabella Valancy Crawford, I have published and presented work on imperial motherhood, colonial girlhood, eugenic feminism, the figure of the white slave, the imperial idea of the "Indian maiden," hysteria, erotic dancers, Anne of Green Gables, feminist theory in Canada, femininity and comics https://www.ualberta.ca/arts/about/people-collection/cecily-devereux Ethanpet113 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ethanpet113, are you suggesting a COI author?? Still no reason to delete, still advise the author to engage at both articles, eugenics & feminism.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * COI? The cited in question is just reporting, she didn't invent the concept of eugenics,nor did she invent feminism, or women's suffrage. I don't know how you could determine that to be a COI. I'm simply quoting that to rebut that the article is WP:Synthesis with a secondary source, to demonstrate I also did not invent the subject-matter.
 * Not sure if we were disagreeing. I agree, keep. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Allow it to develop. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment is it being tendentiously submitted? Not sure if it will pass WP:XY. AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 18:26, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment It came to my attention because the submitting editor went on a bit of a tagging spree on pages I regularly patrol. I am trying to WP:AGF and assume the individual in question is actually honestly interested in the complex political views of some early North American feminists, but the combination of the behaviour toward extant articles like White Privilege, the claims at Village Pump that editors in sociology-related pages include schizophrenics, and then this? I am concerned. Which is why I nominated for MfD. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your concern has been noted. I enjoy both counter-culture, and empirical research which conflicts with more sociology than I wish it would.  As a member of the skeptics and inclusionist projects, I would think you more open about including this sort of thing.  I'm  new to the tagging system, but trying to evaluate the validity of various statements made in the sociology project as I review the contents. I also feel it statistically unlikely that you arrived here by accident, please insure you aren't WP:HOUNDing me, just because you disagree my interests.  For the record, I started this article, because while I was going through the sociology project I wound up arriving at The Famous Five (Canada), early canadian suffragettes who had eugenic leanings.  Being canadian and being interested in counter culture and the grotesque, I found articles about this notably absent from the wiki, but available at academic sources online, and so took this opportunity to experiment with the new article feature.Ethanpet113 (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You hit multiple pages I was watching with tags and I did due diligence, which led me to this draft. I have no intention of following you around, but I am also not going to stop page-watching articles related to race and gender either so if we cross paths again I do hope you WP:AGF. Simonm223 (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - The debate about whether this is a valid encyclopedic subject should be saved for such a time when it enters the mainspace (if it ever does). If someone believes they can create an encyclopedic entry on a topic, we should not stop them from having a go at it in the draftspace. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 19:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.