Talk:Dysgenesis

Issues with the current article

The Drosophila source is about hybrid dysgenesis and is used incorrectly.
The source by Graves, J. L. is the only source incorrectly using the term dysgenesis where dysgenics should be used, possibly because of his previous work with Drosophila.

The article should reflect that the usage of dysgenesis as a synonym for dysgenics is incorrect and has only been used in that fashion by one person. --Zero g (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid dysgenesis is a type of dysgenesis, and should therefore be mentioned.

Dysgenics is the study of dysgenesis. The two terms are thus associated. No source has been supplied to demonstrate that the two terms shouldn't be associated. The source by Graves would in fact be a source to confirm that the two terms are associated.

These points have already been discussed.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zero g, Graves uses the term dysgenesis to describe the intellectual weakening of a population because people with lower "intelligence" have a higher fertility rate. He's a reliable source so we can use this source in Wikipedia. Your contention that he is incorrect is irrelevant, you do not constitute a reliable source, you need to find a reliable source that specifically claims that Graves' use of the word is incorrect, otherwise you are simply claiming that we shouldn't use him as a source, and to do that you need to demonstrate that he is not a reliable source. Furthermore you are incorrect to claim that Graves should have used the term dysgenics, dysgenics means something different, it is the study of the weakening of populations, it is not a synonym for dysgenesis as Graves uses the term. Just as biology is the "study of living things", we would not claim that biology is a synonym for "living things". Dysgenics is the study of dysgenesis. We have relaible sources to support both of these claims in the article. None of the sources we have that define dysgenics claim that it is the weakening of populations, only that it is the study of population weakening. I think you need to make a better case than to smímply claim that in your opinion Graves has misused the term. Your claims only carry as much weight as your sources on Wikipedia. As such I suggest you find some sources to support your claims. Thanks. Alun (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are many terms that have different meanings to different people. In my background, dysgenesis is used to describe a process by which normal morphogenesis of bodily structures is disturbed. That is of course a medical definition, and there may be other uses in other fields. I personally don't know any medical professionals that use the term "dysgenesis" to refer to the gradual weakening of a population due to accumulation of mutations or any other deleterious effects (cultural/sociological/etc.). I think that Zero_g is arguing for a more clear distinction between these very different connotations. Medical geneticist (talk) 13:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue is that there is only one source that uses dysgenesis where dysgenics should have been used, and that was by an author who had previously studied biological dysgenesis - so I assume it was a honest mistake on his part when he used dysgenetic rather than dysgenic. The second source seems to be about breeding mice that develop conditions useful to organ development research - which I think clearly falls in the dysgenesis field.

Alun's argumentation and motivation complete eludes me, other than the previously vaguely expressed intentions to erase the dysgenics article and replace it with dysgenesis related content, apparently due to the belief that dysgenic research is too crazy and fringy to be suitable to be covered in Wikipedia.

Anyways, if you can find a good source feel free to add a reference that indicates the usage of 'dysgenesis' in medicine! --Zero g (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your issue over a "single source" is a non-issue, we have a reliable source that clearly defines dysgenesis this way. When you find an erratum for the book that supports what you are saying then I'll accept it. Until then you need to understand that your personal opinions about Graves use of the word are irrelevant to Wikipedia content. Wikipedia does not publish material based on the "assumptions" of it's editors, it publishes work that has been verified from reliable sources. The criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. By the way we already state clearly that disgenesis is used in medicine, hence the disambiguation to agenesis. User:Medical geneticist has pointed out that this term may well be used by different disciplines in a different way, this does indeed appear to be the case, as such this page is a disambiguation page, this is the whole point of a disambiguation page, to disambiguate between different uses of the same word or phrase. I fail to see any difficulty here, I've used reliable sources to support my edits, my motivation is the creation of a reliable encyclopaedia based on verifiable reliable sources, not the creation of articles based on the opinion of an editor that a specific source is "wrong". If Graves' use of the word is disputed, then find a source that says this, then put it in the article, it's that simple. Alun (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stub or disambig

This article currently seems to be straddling the line between being a stub or a disambiguation page. If the latter, then per WP:MOSDAB it should be thinned down considerably to just provide links for navigation. If it's a stub, then it should have a proper lead explaining what dysgenesis is. I tried converting it to a stub, but was reverted. So, should we try disambig next? --El on ka 22:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the revert... I admit to being somewhat ignorant about MOSDAB (had to click the link to see what that was). I would agree to thinning down so that it looks more like a disambiguation page. Would that entail creating a new entry for dysgenesis (malformation) and a redirect from dysgenesis (population genetics) to dysgenics? --- Medical geneticist (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll freely admit I don't know that much about the topic... My own participation is more for the formatting aspect, since I routinely help out at Category:Disambiguation pages in need of cleanup. To turn this article into a disambig page, we'd want to provide navigation to any pages that might reasonably be intended if someone had linked Dysgenesis when they should have linked to something more precise. So my question would be: How many articles currently existing, might be on such a list? --El on ka 05:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I took a whack at it. Feel free to adjust the formatting if need be. Those three uses (in that order) seem to be the most common. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks! --El on ka 17:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]