Talk:Eugenics - Knowledge (XXG)

1369: 1348: 3215: 1630: 791: 764: 3190: 478: 1124: 1019: 529: 1103: 511: 1967: 3726:. Attempting to avoid conflict and find a compromise is false balance, because Knowledge (XXG) is not a platform for promoting fringe views. Even if a fringe view seems reasonable to some in good faith, it is still a fringe view. The article has already become bloated with 'background', florid filler language, and fringe sources which falsely imply a level of legitimacy which is directly contradicted by reliable sources. I hope it is obvious why this is a problem. 1735: 357: 692: 671: 1602: 1586: 1570: 1009: 988: 321: 851: 1756: 1134: 1857: 2434:. You have apparently been copying links which you haven't bothered to check. Further, your sources do not constantly support the attached claims. As I said, the "Cowan 2009" cite doesn't appear to mention "Medical ethicist Robert Ranisch" at all, but that is the source you used for that summary of his opinion. This kind of sloppiness is common with your edits. Your repeated use of heavy-handed 1836: 248: 904: 1239: 883: 278: 1929: 603: 582: 469: 1229: 1208: 1661: 914: 1472: 1437: 1482: 3798:), but this completely fails to provide any context, much less attribution. This is an extremely poor way of explaining this, and only adds even more bloat to an already bloated article. That is setting aside for the moment the serious issues with the source itself. There are many other examples that could be provided. 2571:

This is a genuinely appreciated effort, but wholly removing a positive mention of eugenics into an article unlikely to get more than 500 30-day views would also be unbalanced. I can find various other sources for calling their program "eugenic", so it is certainly relevant here. I may also expand the

3276:

As is, the section misleads some readers by not providing a rebuttal. Changing "stated" to some other verb would help but only slightly. While the second one uses the verb "attributed" for one claim, it leaves a hidden statement of fact (the success of his children) that rubs me the wrong way in the

3335:

Finally looking at the source, it's not entirely clear what Lee's beliefs were. The 80% quote is about "performance", but the article interprets this without explanation to be just "intelligence", without commenting as to whether it might also be conscientiousness or whatever. Also, it doesn't call

3353:

I'll remove the sentence about Lee's beliefs for now. Ideally a new quote would answer some of the questions that readers might have, such as: was Lee narrowly focused on intelligence or broadly on multiple contributors to educational attainment; was Lee thinking more along the lines of countering

3058:

article could be delineated in some way that keeps it from being a magnet for sections on broad economic policies / narrow medical pursuits / what might be ethically permissible to do with PGD / which logical fallacies everyone else is committing. We could scope this article to a date range, or to

2266:

To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the

3284:

More generally, let's try not to fill the article with claims-by-insinuation, whether it's about hereditarianism or anything else. This goes for the "Darwin–Wedgwood and Huxley families" stuff too. Clearly stated claims are better for the encyclopedia: they can be cited and attributed; they don't

2332:

The people who designed the quasi-mandated genetic screening programs in the Republic of Cyprus succeeded in avoiding all that what was evil in earlier eugenic practices; indeed, the Cypriot version of thalassemia screening is so far removed from eugenics that it should not even be called by the

3345:

by Lewontin, Rose, and Kamin. If the statements are drawn from the book, we could get a more precise understanding of what Lee said by looking at that book. If they're Gould's own statements to add context, it's trickier. Has Gould talked about Singapore in other writing where his statements and

3350:

spelled its doom? Does any of the policy continue to this day? And perhaps not for this section, but do other countries do the same thing but just frame it as "smoothing welfare cliffs" and "extending child benefits into the middle class so struggling families aren't forced to limit their size"?

3850:

Grayfell is right that avoiding false balance is a major concern. My aim is not to dictate which information is included, but to improve the organization of information that is included based on policy and consensus. I don't expect all editor camps to be equally happy, but I do hope that clear

3349:

Btw, for the end of the section, were any conclusions drawn from Singapore's experience? Did the economic policies affect differential birth rates as hoped, and did that in turn make the next generation better in some way (if that can even be calculated)? What specific objections to the policy

2267:

license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Knowledge (XXG) community.

2815:

I think "problematizing" is a reasonable word to use, but would "the collapse of the distinction" be better-suited? I'll think about shortening it, but many of the notes e.g. arguably do address common objections to eugenics (regarding disability rights etc.) which might indicate keeping

2347:

becomes an issue. Simplistically reducing this to an example of good eugenics, completely with details from sources which do not even mention eugenics or mention it only in passing, and also ignoring what sources are specifically saying about this as it relates to eugenics, is completely

2614:

bloat about "the skeptic's chaplain" supported by dubious and primary sources. Be aware that any split will make repairing that damage much harder. There are a lot of examples like this, and I'm not seeing a lot worth preserving. This really looks like it's headed towards a noticeboard.

3481:

without having been checked. Nobody should be citing sources they have not personally verified. If you do not have at least partial access to that source, do not cite it. Further, do not assume that it says anything at all about eugenics unless you can confirm that in some way.

2788:

Maybe we should take some time to come to a consensus about a rough outline for the article, including how much weight we want to dedicate to each major section. By doing this earlier rather than later, we might be able to avoid wasting time writing things that get deleted later.

2720:) contributes to understanding the origins of eugenics. It's three sentences introducing a new term, one sentence that's half relevant, and two sentences about more recent perspectives. Those last two sentences are especially harmful to the flow of this article's history section. 3743:, simply removing, say, dozens of scholarly sources you personally disagree with won't do. If you want to balance it more, how about you extend the "Nazi eugenics" entry that is currently basically a single paragraph and or transclude an improved lede from somewhere like that? 2335:

That was conveniently emphasized in the original. The cite, however, was attached to a mention of a medical ethicist who is not even mentioned in the source. Additionally, one of the links was dead, meaning you didn't bother to check that one, either. With edits like this

3101:

More generally, if you want to scope this article to a date range, hence exclude recent bioethical discussions entirely, this would necessarily make the article 30% more negative. Since this is the main article regarding the concept, that would be a dubious strategy.

3794:" uses editorializing language to say nothing of substance. Who are "proponents of human enhancement"? This introduced a vague opinion in euphemistic language, presents it as significant enough that "it should be noted" (which is specifically cited as an example of 2752:

that ethicists have drawn between acceptable and unacceptable uses of eugenics: "Differing feelings on the use of eugenics to reduce the prevalence of genetic disorders on the one hand, and to push the limits of human ability on the other, mirror the long-standing

2744:

First, I don't know what the section title is trying to communicate with the word "Problematizing". What is being called a problem, in what way, and by whom? Again, since it's just a section title and transclusion, there's nowhere to put a clarification or source.

2286:

Ok, I actually never heard of that before. I'll remove the respective note for now (*nothing that my remaining translation from the German and Greek wiki was absolutely not verbatim), and will consider simply transcluding an updated/relevantly shortened version of

1368: 1347: 3084:

For one, "designer baby" is a POV term and if it is to remain, the debate there should be mostly about fallacies employed in using it, and not in taking an artificial ethical controversy seriously. (*for such a purpose we should point to a different article).

2776:

I'm frustrated with much how effort it takes to review new transclusions compared to how much effort it takes to make them. I know we don't all agree on which narratives the article should highlight, but I want helping with the article to feel less like an

3565:. The review spends a single paragraph discussing Singapore for context of the otherwise unrelated book review. It directly mentions eugenics only once. This source is reliable in some contexts, but for this section of this article, it is extremely flimsy. 2260:

properly source the content you took from within Knowledge (XXG) (including non-English WP articles) to comply with the Creative Commons license. We have to be able to show attribution to maintain the licensing of the original Knowledge (XXG)

3292:

Can we remove the sentence for now and start looking for other information about Lee to replace it? Perhaps some quote that gets at Lee's motivations (rather than his beliefs), or something about how he gathered support for the proposal.

4017: 3272:

80% is probably an overestimate. The part about Lee's children makes it seem like he might not know how to reason about the multiple ways parents influence their children (genes but also rearing, wealth, connections, and more).

2811:

soon to heed these concerns. For now I changed "Darwinian origins" out for "Darwinian backdrop". I'll try finding a source for the established divide ("dysgenics" in the more Darwinian Britain, "degen. theory" everywhere

482: 1050: 3648:

I am optimistic that such an approach can be acceptable to editors in multiple camps: proponents, opponents, and cautious optimists who hope readers will conclude that good things are good and bad things are bad.

4007: 3034:

I am concerned about the divergence in attitude. The articles range from largely negative to largely positive to barely considering themselves part of a controversy at all. Broad consensus seems to be lacking.

166: 3492:

The NatGeo source is quite long, lists an access date of 2009 indicating yet again that it was copy-pasted without verification, and it doesn't appear to mention 'eugenics' once, making its use here likely

3280:

If we add rebuttals, the section turns into "Based on these questionable beliefs, Lee implemented a program...". This would be misleading in another way: these weren't his only motivations for the program.

2438:

language and sloppy use of copy/pasted sources lead to SYNTH. You have already been given significant leeway and have repeatedly damaged articles to promote, either subtly or grossly, a pro-eugenics angle.

4192: 2408:

It makes me quite angry that in the last few days my attempts at being transparent and pre-emptively seeking consensus (both in edit summaries and on talk pages) were meet by people like you who tried to

1419: 841: 653: 2819:"I'm frustrated with much how effort it takes to review new transclusions compared to how much effort it takes to make them." - but it was mostly me though that wrote the original texts too, wasn't it? 4022: 2143:

I disagree with your assessment of the citation, but anyhow: would it help if I moved parts of the quote to a note and solely relied for my clarification on an in-text quote from BNW itself instead?

3644:, by paraphrasing longer quotes, and by relying on links to other wiki articles to provide background. My hope here is that readers will be able to hold two opposing arguments in their mind at once. 2899:... maybe it's clearer to "collapse", "dissolve", "erase", or "reject" the distinction? Or to "question its ethical relevance" when it comes to eugenics, just like we do when it comes to medicine. 3901:. I tried to save it, but it's not worth it. I started to go over it line-by-line trying to fix problems, but there would be nothing left when I was done, so I skipped to the end and deleted it. 4197: 3059:

state mandates, or to "the pseudoscientific parts". Not by taking a definitive stance on what "eugenics" means, just wiki stuff like "This article is about X, for modern medical practices see

4187: 3945:

Many of these other sources do not mention eugenics either, and many of the points are disproportionately summarized to promote a very specific view that is contrary to the mainstream.

2121:

Second, the citation added was a paper whose author asserted their personal opinion and interpretation of the book as part of the CRISPR debates. There is nothing to demonstrate this is

2526:

Ethical theory X would prohibit nearly all forms of eugenics. Proponents of eugenics dispute this ethical theory, citing the fact that it would prohibit the widely accepted methods for

1651: 2322:

when copy/pasting content like this, and you obviously did not do that. And yes, this was absolutely synth and also very selective use of sources. Per one of the copy/pasted sources,

1593: 1451: 1330: 4207: 1085: 4142: 3684:

Background information may include background on scientific concepts, background on ethical principles, and background on non-eugenic practices mentioned in arguments-by-analogy.

3652:

If I maintain interest in this subject long enough, and don't get burned out trying to mediate paragraph-by-paragraph disputes, I may try to do this myself. If I do, I will take

1320: 1717: 4222: 4117: 4072: 3459:. This is a red flag. Rhetorically speaking, is this source reliable, and is it being proportionately summarized, in this article, or was this yet another example of writing 1075: 831: 2713:

Are these statements true? Verifiable? I don't know, but there's nowhere to put a citation or a citation-needed tag when an idea is communicated only through juxtaposition.

860: 774: 327: 1503:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the

4212: 4147: 3402:? I'm leaning toward keeping it here. It would be weird if "whether something is eugenics" depends on whether it's slightly less or slightly more effective than intended. 4267: 3622:

I would like to organize arguments in an encyclopedic way that helps readers form opinions consistent with their own beliefs and principles. To that end, I'm looking to:

239: 3511:

Etc.. This section should be deleted. It could be rewritten from scratch to match reliable sources which specifically contextualize it as a notable example of eugenics.

1707: 4232: 4122: 4092: 4042: 3948:

There is so, so, so much of this junk in the article now, and I expect that more work like this will need to be done to bring the article back to something resembling

643: 2845:

You might want to try finding a more NPOV title for "the threat of perfection" and the "retroactive compansation" quote box... - I can't think of anything personally.

1045: 4202: 3826:

You have not fixed any of those issues, nor indicated that you even understood them, since you have been repeating the same mistakes in recent edits. I have again

807: 160: 4137: 3600:

to clean up this mess, but it's still not great. Again, verify sources and make sure citations are attached to the correct statements. Do not add editorializing.

3472:

In his speeches, Lee urged highly educated women to have more children, claiming that unless their fertility rate increased, "social delinquents" would dominate.

2012:

Otherwise, we might well have to make it a whole subsection for people to link to (as opposed to an anchor with intuitive relevance per the emboldened terms...)

1818: 1683: 1540: 4157: 3346:

citations are more precise? In the absence of finding something more definitive than what's in the book review, I'm less inclined to even have it as a footnote.

1409: 1297: 1252: 1213: 1190: 92: 4217: 3310:

Ok, makes sense. Please (carefully!) remove it for now. But if I find absolutely nothing else to contextualize his policies, we'll have to talk this through.

2748:

Second, six paragraphs laying out the argument in detail may be excessive for the Eugenics article. This could be one or two sentences in a section about the

4227: 4112: 4047: 3580:. This is transparent editorializing and a misrepresentation of the source to imply a political point. This is not appropriate for a Knowledge (XXG) article. 4002: 3336:

Lee "hereditarian", but rather discusses "The fallacies of this and other hereditarian arguments". This makes me more inclined to leave the whole thing out.

1907: 619: 4242: 4167: 4067: 3354:

what he believed to be a dysgenic trend, or was he aiming for something more ambitious; was Lee aiming to increase the overall population at the same time?

2545: 2534: 2527: 2508: 1808: 1530: 298:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. 1609: 1455: 1041: 1032: 993: 970: 4257: 4132: 4082: 2913:"Collapse" is a philo. well-established usage (cf. e.g. "the collapse of fact-value dist." or "modal collapse"), but maybe that's just WP:OR on my part. 2466:

I'd like definitive clarification on your part or I will restore most of the original entry. How about you discuss actual instances of "editorializing"?

1897: 1180: 865: 3987: 1577: 1447: 1385: 798: 769: 746: 3537:

I want to really emphasize that Knowledge (XXG) is not a platform for publishing original research. Our goal for this article is to summarize reliable

1674: 1635: 285: 4247: 4102: 4037: 4032: 2572:

paragraph on nazism. We'd likely have to include an (abbreviated but still comparable!) version of my original section in this article in any case.

960: 3693:

Part of membership in the latter camp is being open to being wrong about which specific things are good or bad, and wanting readers to come to the

2055:

Hm. I don't think it's necessary to boldface those terms. They're italicized in a few spots, but after that it seems fine to just leave them be. —

1784: 1505: 548: 98: 4177: 4057: 4012: 2951:

I'm not sure if I understand you entirely here. You could of course try finding a good argument that somehow (re-)establishes the axis, e.g. in a

1953: 736: 1156: 610: 587: 4262: 4152: 4087: 1873: 383: 4107: 2606:

There are many, many problems with Biohistorian15's recent edits. One example, from the paragraphs above the one you recently edited, is the

3904:

The entire section was written like an argumentative essay, not like an encyclopedia article. Even if I deleted the many, many instances of

3332:

on the phrase "hereditarian beliefs". Like "Lee mentioned an estimate of 80%, at the high end of the ______ consensus estimates as of 2024".

1376: 1353: 1281: 936: 378: 4237: 4162: 4062: 4027: 3675:

article include positive/negative and therapeutic/enhancing. I can think of a few others. We'll see which ones actually come up in sources.

2459:

reason you bothered to specify for your second revert is that I mentioned this potentially being a "slippery slope" (*btw. a claim that is

43: 3784:

It should be noted, however, that not all proponents of human enhancement necessarily find such a net reduction in the diversity of human

712: 4182: 4127: 1763: 1740: 1495: 1442: 544: 539: 516: 4252: 4077: 3004: 2416:

I think independent editors would agree that this is extremely uncivil behavior potentially worthy of some sanctions if it continues.

1277: 3357:

As for my slightly more vague concerns regarding "Darwin–Wedgwood and Huxley families", I'll wait to see if others want to weigh in.

2702:

The combination of section location, section heading, and transcluded text seems to create new claims without stating them outright:

2099:

to please specify their reasons for not including my clarifications about a well-known book that is otherwise easily misinterpreted.

1147: 1108: 374: 301: 289: 112: 4097: 2670:

in general, I think many of the uses on this page aren't great. Below, I'll go into detail about two of the article's eight uses of

1864: 1841: 117: 33: 3576:

from 1984 which says nothing about incentives being reduced a year in the future, and it says nothing whatsoever about this being

4172: 4052: 2522:

to refer to the whole concept, in a way that is both clear and attributable. Some made-up examples just to show you what I mean:

2272:

I won't revert your edit, but you'll likely need to self-revert and then add it back in with the proper attributions in place. —

57: 3448:

problems. It appears that most sources were copied from another article without having been verified. This is not appropriate.

927: 888: 335: 87: 3997: 3992: 3478: 699: 676: 491: 343: 1682:

and related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2041:

To the common distinction between "pos." and "neg. eugenics" as found in the article; it used to be boldface some time ago.

1040:

content on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the

78: 3327: 2538: 2238:

However, I forgot mentioning that I also imported much content from the Eugenics article of two non-English WP articles.

1783:

related articles on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1293: 3746:

Careful and historically accurate perspectives like that would find no backlash by the likes of me at all. But, again,

3123:

It's always an alternative, of course, to have one article where it's very clear what it's positive and negative about.

2896: 181: 2480:

Your apparent inability to understand the many problems your edits have introduced is not an excuse for edit warring.

1244: 1037: 3905: 3795: 3768: 3553: 3527: 3470:

from 1984. This, again, appears to have been added backwards, as it doesn't directly support the attached statement:

3445: 2435: 148: 3964:

might have some insight, but the pro-fringe issues are just one part of a deeper and more fundamental problem here.

2865:

I don't know what "Retroactive compensation" is supposed to mean in this context. Can we just remove the box label?

3060: 3045: 2999: 247: 198: 3126:

If we're allowed to POV-push for anything here, it's for readers to come away informed. My capacity to care about

3016: 368: 356: 307: 122: 3149: 2782: 2740:====Problematizing the therapy-enhancement distinction==== {{excerpt|Philosophy of medicine#Demarcating therapy}} 2709:~ "Early eugenicists were more motivated by concerns about dysgenics than by opportunities for human enhancement" 1024: 3214: 2629:

Sorry, I happen to like Dawkins. How about you remove these few words instead of employing intimidation tactics?

1650: 1629: 258: 3882: 3817: 3754: 3455:? This article appears to be the only time this website is cited anywhere on Knowledge (XXG), both here and at 3421: 3376: 3315: 3233: 3202: 3174: 3107: 2960: 2918: 2884: 2856: 2828: 2641: 2595: 2577: 2471: 2421: 2396: 2300: 2243: 2184: 2148: 2104: 2074: 2046: 2017: 1977: 497: 2327: 439: 420: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 3923:

As one example the context-free mention of Jürgen Habermas having a cleft palette was copied verbatim from

373:, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the 3265: 3116:

That's kind of the point. It's okay if one article is negative and another article is positive if they're

2754: 2405:

About half of your paragraph does not even make sense to me. What did I attach to some "medical ethicist"?

142: 3913: 3657: 3460: 2504: 2069:

Ok, you're probably right. I'll consider creating a new section with terminology/etymology in the future.

339: 68: 1872: