Talk:Dysgenics

Ref quote

Biohistorian15 has twice now removed a quote within a reference on the grounds that it contains incomplete citations.[1][[2] It's unclear to me, even after they cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations in their revert of my revert, that this is disallowed. But even if it is, why not just replace the citations with ellipses? The quote is clearly helpful to the reader. Further, Biohistorian15's suggestion that I put it in my own words makes no sense since this quote is within a reference, and we do not offer paraphrasing within references, only direct quotes. Generalrelative (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I have rewritten dozens of paragraphs I originally wanted to use blockquote on over at the eugenics article for this exact reason. Please do the same. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like you may not even realize that this isn't a blockquote. Have you not even looked at the article? Generalrelative (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would the procedure be different in this case? It might well be true, but I have never seen incomplete APA-style citations being used like this on WP whatsoever. Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Since this appears to be a MOS question, I've started a thread over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note that the matter appears to have been settled over at MOS: in cases like this we simply omit the inline citations and add a note to the ref saying "Citations in original omitted." Generalrelative (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Disputed content (June 2024)

I invite Generalrelative to specify their reasons for disagreeing with the transclusion. One sensible solution might be to add sources relating these phenomena more directly to dysgenics in the respective sections...? Biohistorian15 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, specifying sources relating the transcluded text to eugenics would be necessary for inclusion, per e.g. WP:SYNTH. Simply put, the edit in question looked to me to be indiscriminate and WP:UNDUE, though the WP:NOR angle is also concerning. Generalrelative (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I will re-write the respective sections as to reflect this intuition indeed shared by various researchers.

One question: assuming it were to satisfy these guidelines very well, would you object to an additional transclusion from "fertility and intelligence"? Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The proof will be in the pudding. Any additions to this article that comply with P&G are welcome. Generalrelative (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Choice of main term; narrow vs broad claims

Dysgenics is the decrease in prevalence of traits...

This opening seems to imply, in WP:WIKIVOICE, that an overall decline is occurring:

• By using the definite article the, and
• By invoking reification bias: the tendency to believe that a phenomenon is real if it has been given a name.

I'm not aware of an overall genetic-based decline being established for any trait of interest, and indeed the rest of the article does not treat the implied claim as true.

One possible solution is to lead with the adjective form and narrower claims:

A policy or practice is described as dysgenic if it causes a decrease in prevalence of traits...

For example, a war that kills millions of drafted soldiers might be dysgenic for health if ...

Another possibility is (B) distancing the broad claim using a term that suggests uncertainty:

The dysgenic hypothesis states that humans populations are undergoing a decrease in prevalence of traits...

Proponents of the hypothesis argue that certain societal trends may affect the selection pressures on heritable traits: ...

These could be combined, with each term bolded and defined at a different point in the article.

We should also take care to not imply that several narrow claims automatically add up to the broad claim. The three examples in the article (draftee fatalities and health; fertility and intelligence; neonatal care and genetic disorders) relate to different traits and are far from the only factors influencing the gene pool. Jruderman (talk) 07:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you're using pretty stylish talk quotes, not bad.

Feel free to make it more ambiguous, but I will supplement the article with some 50 sources to the opposite effect in the next days or weeks, so the effort may be moot in the end. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

In any case, I would find "dysgenic hypothesis" objectionable. If e.g. tall people are likely to be drafted, this entails a Darwinian selection against this trait. The real question would be if there are additional variables that may counter-act this kind of dysgenics (relative to some frame). Biohistorian15 (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to correct my previous statement: extensive Wikihounding has made it unlikely that I'll engage with this topic to the extent I originally wanted at this time (or ever). So, just ignore that half of the comments above. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion to pre-empt inevitable dispute

I am not sure if it is notable enough yet, but multiple papers indicate that there may be differing rates of dysgenic fertility between racial groupings. I do not consider this claim to be racist at all; in fact, theoretically, this could well be an issue for anti-racists to address more than anybody else.

Please state your concerns. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

My only concern right now is that you haven't cited these papers yet. We can talk once you do. Generalrelative (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

One crass example: Lynn's eponymous book states this in multiple places e.g.; now, while he is arguably a racist, does this necessarily poison such a paragraph? Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, because Lynn is universally considered to be an unreliable source by serious scholars. Note e.g. that this paper recently needed to be retracted simply because it came to the attention of the journal that it relied in part on his deeply flawed data (background here if you're curious). If we have actual population geneticists in good professional standing making arguments about dysgenic fertility, we can potentially include those in this article, assuming we do so in a manner that is consistent with WP:NPOV. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, sure. Is there some kind of WP-internal ruling on Lynn though? If someone writes a book called "dysgenics" they should certainly be a possible primary source in that discussion. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the most basic common-sense judgement imaginable. We can describe Lynn's views, as we already do in this article, so long as we make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science, as is required by the WP:FRINGE guideline. If you really think you have a chance of using his work in any other way, feel free to bring the matter to WP:RSN. Generalrelative (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I still don't get it. Do I have to describe him as some kind of demonic force multiple times over in one article. How about e.g. pointing to the (supposedly) flawed data you brought up in a note one time.

If you want to include a whole paragraph on what left-wing academics think of him, I will (reasonably) have to dig up favorable reviews too (e.g. W.D. Hamilton's one, cf.: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1046/j.1469-1809.2000.6440363.x) Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

"If you really think you have a chance of using his work in any other way" is btw. just another example of the extremely adversarial language you have been using in every single interaction we've had so far. Biohistorian15 (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

This is no longer a constructive conversation. Take it to a noticeboard. Generalrelative (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Biohistorian15 Please do NOT edit-war. Your reverting of my removal of your favorable coverage of Richard Lynn's POV on dysgenics violated WP:EW. The justification in your edit summary, that "Absolutely unacceptable, we virtually had a conversation about Lynn yesterday", makes no sense. That conversation between you and Generalrelative did not reach an agreement, let alone a consensus of multiple editors, but rather ended abruptly when you gratuitously insulted GR. If you think you'll be able to get a consensus for the edit that I reverted, a policy-compliant way to accomplish that would be to ask about the Lynn source at WP:RSN or WP:FTN. NightHeron (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Generalrelative called including the book "the most basic common-sense judgement imaginable."
• I did not insult anybody, but rather indicated that he had (more or less) insulted me multiple times over; and I will continue stating this fact whenever they do so in future interactions.
• My edit actually made the Lynn paragraph more NPOV/narrow; I will reconsider such a move in the future if it immediately results in large, potentially well-sourced passages being removed.
  • Btw. if any of you two immediately use my honest attempt at finding a consensus here to make Lynn an unreliable/blacklisted source more generally, I think we're really entering thin ice.

Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• GR's next sentence says "so long as we make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science, as is required by the WP:FRINGE guideline", which your edit does not do. The white supremacist theories of Lynn and his ilk, based on faulty data and faulty reasoning, are rejected by mainstream science. This was discussed extensively on Wikipedia in 2020 and again in 2021, resulting in a consensus of editors that WP:FRINGE applies to those sources. NightHeron (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  So what does this mean for the article? It is not "universally rejected"; I have (some) scientific credentials and disagree with this blanket statement. Any concrete suggestions beyond "controversial"? Biohistorian15 (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  How is he not universally rejected? If you think that doesn't apply to him because there are some fringe groups that still accept his work, okay, but GR was referring to "serious scholars" specifically. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I see. So, I assume that refers to people with "critical" pre- and "studies" suffixed to their paycheck?

  In all seriousness: it annoys me that the same handful of editors constantly go from contentious talk page to talk page doing little more than stating "I (dis)agree with X" in complicated, sometimes even borderline Wiki-lawyering ways to shift consensus in their favor.

  Imagine I went to every single talk page relating to race, sex differences, gender etc. and made broad statements there that related little to the actual conversation... Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) This means that it's okay to mention relevant views of Lynn so long as we make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science -- just as a creationist source could be mentioned in an article about evolution, provided that it's made clear that the creationist POV is rejected by modern science. Of course, neither white supremacy nor creationism is "universally rejected". NightHeron (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  However, dysgenics is not the same as race science simpliciter. As such, this ruling should not apply.

  How about we set up a designated controversies/criticism section once I provided the edits I've been "promising". Biohistorian15 (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see why the ruling for Flynn somehow doesn't apply here? It's still about human genetics. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  The consensus on racial pseudoscience certainly applies to Richard Lynn, who for many years presided over the white supremacist journal Mankind Quarterly. He has zero credibility as a scholar. NightHeron (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Zero credibility as a scholar of what? I seriously doubt that Shockley has to be removed from all articles about early computing because he was a racist. Biohistorian15 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  A bad analogy. Shockley won a Nobel Prize for work that had nothing whatsoever to do with his racist views. Richard Lynn's notability comes entirely from his efforts to promote race pseudoscience. NightHeron (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Richard Lynn has credibility regarding the views of Richard Lynn. Other people have credibility regarding whether Lynn's ideas were viewed as complete crackpottery, plausible enough to motivate further research, worrying enough to justify action even in the absence of certainty, or conclusive. We can write this article in a way that gives Lynn's ideas a fair shake while also accurately describing their place within scientific and political thought. Jruderman (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  ^ Precisely this. Generalrelative (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. How about we replace "controversial" by "highly controversial" and add a note with the pdf Generalrelative provided? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Still has the FALSE BALANCE problem. To quote GR, any mention of Lynn's views on this topic needs to "make clear that they are rejected by mainstream science, as is required by the WP:FRINGE guideline". NightHeron (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  "False balance" - as of now the article states dysgenics does not occur. It even cites a passage stating this is so "counterintuitively" without any further clarification. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  This statement is false. I can name you multiple nobelists that have admitted dysgenics is a danger relatively recently. Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  "Mainstream science" on this topic means genetics. The opinions of scientists with no expertise in the field, any more than Shockley had expertise on questions of race, are irrelevant here. NightHeron (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

New source: Sear and Townsend 2023

There's a decent source (Sear and Townsend 2023) that might be included in article. I also added one quote. 51.6.193.169 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

More explanation for last paragraph?

The Niesser source says: "There is no convincing evidence that any dysgenic trend exists. . . . It turns out, counterintuitively, that differential birth rates (for groups scoring high and low on a trait) do not necessarily produce changes in the population mean." I don't have access to the source, but IF the source talks about the reason for population means not changing has to do with regression towards the mean, (which I thought was a well-observed phenomenon in genetics, though I could be wrong) it would be nice to add this explanation to the sentence sourced to Niesser, because I'm the type of person who thinks the encyclopedia is better if people understand WHY some phenomenon is true. ---Avatar317^(talk) 03:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I was able to access the book a few weeks ago using The Wikipedia Library, and you may be able to as well. It's in the APA section.

IIRC, I looked at chapters 13–15 because their titles seemed relevant to the question of dysgenics. One point, directly related to the text quoted in our footnote, immediately made sense to me: looking only at the highest decile and the lowest decile means you're throwing away information about the shape of the graph – and most people are somewhere in the middle! (To add my own synthesis: consider an imaginary country where poor people are having kids and gaining just enough in welfare benefits to stay afloat, rich parents are hiring au pairs, and middle-class couples feel that the escalating costs of housing and childcare will force them to reduce their quality-of-life if they choose to have more children. You'll have some kind of J-shaped curve but you'll be trying to reason based on the slope between the ends.)

Coincidentally, I just did a major revamp of Gini_coefficient#Limitations, much of which is about throwing away information about the shape of a graph.

There was a lot more in Niesser that I didn't understand on first read, which is why I didn't summarize it for the article. Maybe I'll go back sometime, but right now I'm extremely busy trying to shepherd a move discussion related to recent IT outages.

— Jruderman (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"I'm the type of person who thinks the encyclopedia is better if people understand WHY some phenomenon is true."

YES. This is why I advocate for including primary sources in addition to secondary sources. The Niesser-edited volume may actually serve as both – each chapter is essentially a paper by a different author (a primary source), while its inclusion in the book and its summary in the opening supports both notability and interpretation (a secondary source). Jruderman (talk) 04:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

True. I added a "clarification needed" tag that was then immediately removed multiple times over by user:Generalrelative. I don't really understand Niesser's argument either though... Biohistorian15 (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2024 (UTC)