Talk:Dysgenics/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Is the current article giving too much weight to fringe science?

I am opening a content RfC in the hopes it will settle the current revert warring by giving a wider community input, so a consensus can be derived as to whether this article is giving too much weight to a subject which might otherwise be considered WP:FRINGE; on the other side, is it being too critical of what is or could be a legitimate endeavour of science?--Ramdrake (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. The article gives far to much weight to these fringe povs. From my search of the biological sciences literature the main use of dysgenic is the selective breeding of strains of organisms that produce non-viable offspring for scientific study.[1] [2] Alun (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Encarta gives a very similar definition, except instead of non-viable offsprings, it talks about offspring with reduced survivability. The whole claptrap about differential reproduction rates of the "less intelligent", isn't dysgenic, because more offspring actually means increased chances for survival.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an biological science encyclopedia. --Jagz (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I am not even sure this article should exist. "Disgenic" is a word, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The concept, as an opposite of eugenics, is best discussed in the Eugenics article and is definitely too fringe a scientific view (if even that, it is more science fiction) to have let alone dominate an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Meat puppetry isn't going to solve this dispute. --Zero g (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, WP:AGF. Several admins can certify to the fact that Slrubenstein, Alun and myself are three very different individuals. I would ask that you please retract your unfounded accusations, lest you show you are acting in bad faith.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Meat puppetry isn't the same as sock puppetry. I can't but assume you've invited these users [3] [4] to help you push your pov, given the recent edit warring by these users. This is very unhelpful and obstructive behavior. --Zero g (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I told Alun nothing about the RfC, and I just mentioned the RfC to Slrubenstein, without any suggestion as to what he should comment, and without any obligation for him to comment. Also, please be very careful of unfounded meatpuppetry accusations, as your behaviour and that of User:Jagz also look very similar to meatpuppetry.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from your known buddies are not very convincing. --Jagz (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that now that the page is protected, we should wait for more comments from other editors.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is somewhat of a sham since after it started, Wobble and Ramdrake kept changing the version of the article. --Jagz (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The version now protected is more critical of fringe science. If this version is still found to be too fringy, then indeed your favourite version was way too fringy. Please don't try to short-circuit dispute resolution processes by discrediting this RfC.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So if the RfC says this article does not give too much weight to fringe science, then your preferred version is okay; however, if the RfC says it does give too much weight, you can continue making more edits? --Jagz (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have modified the question so that editors are also if the article is too critical. So, either way, we'll get an answer.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of a pov cabal on the 'fringy-ness' of an article is pointless. Without proper sources stating that mainstream science considers the research junk/fringe science the edit cannot stay. --Zero g (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a factual basis for the alleged "fringy-ness" in the first place? --Jagz (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should ask, because I've already supplied sources twice: here and here. Now, either read them through, or if you can't be bothered, please stop disrupting the talk page with your uncivil comments.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

All I found at the links you provided above was dead links. --Jagz (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Funny, they work for me. [5][6] You'll have to excuse me if I don't believe your excuse at all. Or maybe you just don't have an Adobe Reader installed?--Ramdrake (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a policy of not excusing people who call me a liar. --Jagz (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The first link is from bioethics scholar Paul A. Lombardo. Not exactly an authoritative source when it comes to the scientific mainstream opinion. He also doesn't make a compelling argument. He shows that the pioneer fund primarily sponsors eugenic and racial research (nothing new there), but doesn't disprove the actual science carried out by pioneer fundees. He claims the science is bad and ideology driven, which doesn't warrant stating such as a fact as the article does currently. It should be stated as an opinion in a criticism section in the article. --Zero g (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment from uninvolved user. Wikipedia emphatically does have to cover biological topics thoroughly. The article should explain clearly how this term is used by biologists, if it is. If it is only used by some researchers in the social sciences, or if some researchers in the social sciences use it in a particular sense, then that should be made clear. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Above, Wobble (Alun), notes that "'Population Genetics: A Concise Guide' by John H. Gillespie doesn't mention dysgenics a single time." "The History and Geography of Human Genes", a reference cited by population genetics, includes no mention of dysgenics in the index, nor are works authored by Vining, Lynn, or Van Court referenced (Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza: The History and Geography of Human Genes: (Abridged paperback edition) Princeton University Press, ISBN 0691029059). I wonder what other titles, one might consult to investigate the use of the term in the biological sciences? The journals "Intelligence" and "Social Biology" appear to both publish papers on sociology, despite the use of the word "biology" in the title of the latter. The editors of "Social Biology" are "Tim Heaton, Department of Sociology, Brigham Young University, Ken R. Smith, Professor of Human Development & Family Studies, The University of Utah". Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate the biological meaning of dysgenics a year ago, but it was reverted by Wsiegmund or maybe one of the other guys that was on his pov team back then. The pov at the time was that dysgenics wasn't a scientific term, hence they tried to remove all references to the term. If I recall correctly the validity of dysgenics as used in biology was 'heavily disputed' or something. --Zero g (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the term used was obsolete.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at some abstracts of recent papers in biology. I found that "dysgenic" is used regularly, but "dysgenics" isn't. "Dysgenic" seems to be used in two senses: 1) the result of genetic damage, e.g. "dysgenic cell" 2) tending towards a negative effect on the gene pool, e.g. "tree-cutting strategies having a dysgenic effect on the forest". 1) is more frequent. My conclusion is that WP should have an article on "dysgenic" as a biological concept, while "dysgenics" is simply the opposite of "eugenics" so that "dysgenics" should be a redirect to eugenics. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Dysgenics should be a redirect to eugenics, and Dysgenic should be about use of the word in biological sciences. That's a perfect solution. Alun (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:CABAL. "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Support for the wording of the lede, that dysgenics "is generally considered a fringe or even a junk science concept" may be found in the lack of an entry for the term in three relevant science dictionary/encyclopedias. Above, references supplied by Alun and Wsiegmund indicate no use of the term in population genetics. These references demonstrate that it has little or no employment in the modern sciences of genetics, evolution, biology or population genetics.

• Robert C. King, William D. Stansfield, Pamela K. Mulligan: A dictionary of genetics Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006., ISBN 978-0-19-530762-7
• Stanley A. Rice, Massimo Pigliucci (Foreword): Encyclopedia of Evolution (Science Encyclopedia) Checkmark Books, ISBN 978-0-8160-7121-0
• Oxford University Press: A dictionary of biology Oxford University Press, 2004., ISBN 978-0198609179

Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Look at the bottom of the page. Hamilton ("considered one of the greatest evolutionary theorists of the 20th century") was really interested in this topic. [7] So, was Shockley. --Legalleft (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This topic is dysgenics: "[a] System of breeding or selection that is genetically deleterious or disadvantageous." It's used by biologists who selectively breed organisms that are biologically compromised, usually strains are crossed that produce very sickly offspring, that can then be studies to determine what causes this effect.[8] Many of the articles focus on dysgenic myotubes in mice, these muscles don't contract properly due to a recessive mutation (mdg) in the gene for the skeletal muscle dihydropyridine receptor.[9] The dysgenic mice must be homozygous for this mutation, or their muscles would contract normally (simple Mendelian genetics, the WT gene is dominant, so a single copy will produce normal offspring). The reason the myotubes are dysgenic is because the mice are deliberately bred to have this phenotype, i.e. the cross is dysgenic. Selection is not natural, it is artificial. That is what dysgenic means, it means artificial selection for a trait that produces what would normally be non-viable offspring. As we can see PubMed Central has 101 articles refering to dysgenic myotubes.[10] The other main model organisms used in the papers I found are from the genus Drosophila, another common organism that geneticists use. There are 192 papers that use the term dysgenic for Drosophila crosses,[11] and these tend to discuss the occurrence of transposable elements in the Drosophila genome. There is little evidence in PubMed Central of use of the term dysgenic in relation to humans, indeed it is preposterous to use the term in relation to humans because scientists don't do selective breeding on humans. What we appear to have here is a group of social scientists who are claiming that modern social conditions are providing an environment they claim is similar to a "dysgenic" one, in that these social scientists believe that somehow modern society is selecting for "disadvantageous" genes. The problem is that there is no evidence for this, there is certainly no scientific evidence and their claims for dysgenics are built upon a house of cards, as they only make sense when a whole host of mostly dubious assumptions are accepted. As John R. Wilmoth states in his review of Lynn's claptrap "as with many arguments about natural selection, (and natural fertility for that matter) the notion of what is 'natural' is advanced without critical comment".[12] The most absurd of their assumptions is that in the past "intelligent" people produced more offspring and that there was "natural selection" against "unintelligent" people. I can't help but find this assumption at best fatuous. What is the evidence for this? They also assume that up untill recently humans lived in a "natural" selective environment, but this is clearly daft, humans have lived in social groups for hundreds of millennia, and the social-cultural norms of different groups have been varied. Now presumably some cultures ate some points in time really did value clever people, but obviously this was not a constant. As I pointed out above, during the middle ages in Europe most clever people were sent off to monasteries and convents, effectively removing then from the gene pool, while rampantly violent and avaricious petty tyrants were rewarded with kingdoms and baronies, it was the rather stupid aristocrats that had the greatest reproductive success at this time, and one only needs to look at the product of centuries of inbreeding in the aristocratic "best" (as in highest social status and richest) in Europe to know that most of these people could hardly be considered the intellectual crème de la crème, although from what Lynn believes then the aristocrats of Europe should be the cleverest people in the world.

What this article needs to do, if it needs to exist at all, is to explain what dysgenics is, i.e. it needs to discuss the artificial selective breeding of laboratory strains of model organisms. If we need to comment on the right-wing propaganda of a few pseudoscintific fascists then we need to explain that they have appropriated this word, and that their use of it is not a standard scientific usage. They have not shown that either their assumptions about the past are valid, nor that modern social tends are dysgenic. This is a politically motivated point of view, it has little or nothing to do with science, these are biological determinists in the same image as those of a century ago, their real goal is to pretend that right-wing political ideology has some sort of support in "science". Their real goal is the dismemberment of the welfare state, it has nothing to do with science though, it is political ideology with enough of a veneer of pseudoscience to fool the gullible, present company not excepted. Alun (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Shockley and Hamilton are both in the current version. Schockley had no training and did no research in the biological sciences. Hamilton's review comes during a time near the end of his life when he was advocating an oral polio vaccine-AIDS link, another fringe theory although admittedly it may not have been quite so obviously so at the time. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"fool the gullible" -- clever, but irrelevant. I've never read Lynn's book, but I've read Hamilton's comments on dysgenics in Narrow Roads. I think he's probably wrong, but he's not alone in his views, which is the criteria for notability. The existence of such prominent proponents adds weight above and beyond the normal head counting procedures being suggested -- even if they were probably a little nuts. Moral outrage and personal incredulity are not appropriate criteria for judging notability. If a topic warrants multiple publications in scholarly venues, then it warrants a wikipedia article about it, whatever the title of that article might need to be. --Legalleft (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, dysgenics in this sense is used in a handful of publications, by less than a hanful of researchers. However, this word (and dysgenic) are used thousands of times in the context of biology, to denote the breeding for deleterious mutations. We can possibly repatriate some of the stuff (condensed and summarized) in the R&I article, but Dab is absolutely right that having all this tripe here is absolute, undue weight.--Ramdrake (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Those two concepts seems sufficiently unrelated that they warrant two separate articles, by whatever titles. Dysgenics, afaik, has little to do with R&I, and doesn't warrant space there. It would make more sense as part of the eugenics article, but there it would also be drowned out by more important aspects of that topic. I happen to think dysgenics is a silly concern compared to all the other things one could be concerned about, but as I pointed out, prominent people thought differently and wrote scholarly articles about it, so let it have an article. --Legalleft (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Where have you shown that "prominent people" (and how is prominence important, as opposed to say expertise?) have written scholarly articles? You've given a single review of a single book. If anything it just reinforces that this is a fringe subject. When deciding if something is fringe or not the relevant criterion is whether is is a theory that enjoys acceptance by at significant minority of expert opinion. Here we seem to have a single book and a review of said bookj as the entire evidence you provide. A google search for "dysgenics" doesn't provide any google scholar articles suggestions, and produces little that can be considered a reliable source. Indeed most of it just references blogs, chatrooms and Lynn's book, it's liitle more than a list of extreme right wing crackpot sites, after all the fifth result for me was a site called "biblebelievers". A search of google scholar itself shows just how fringe this concept is, as dab points out there are a mere 303 results, but take a closer look and it's the same individuals, Lynn, Shockley and Hamilton over and over again, with a significant minority of the results from the first couple of pages simply reviews of Lynn's book and several others citations. Many of the results are from nearly a century ago. Making a case that this is not fringe means showing that at least a significant minority of scientists in relevant fields of research support dysgenics as an idea. The relevant field of science would be biology, but we don't get biologists, but rather psychologists. The really daft thing is that they seem to be able to interpret an increase in IQ scores as evidence that people are getting less intelligent. Now in my experience scientific theories are models that scientists use to understand how the universe works, so for a model to gain widespread support at the very least the available observed evidence should support the model. When the model predicts an exact opposite result to what we observe, then the model is unlikely to be taken seriously. In this case we have a model that predicts that IQ scores will go down, when in fact observed IQ scores go up. Any rational scientists will abandon a model that doesn't produce sensible results, but in this case the people spreading this nonsense do not, they try to factor in a fudge factor. I've been around science for long enough to know that when a theory needs to be invested with more and more bizarre manipulation to produce a sensible result, then it is likely that the theory is just plain wrong. I suggest that the dearth of evidence that this is not fringe is due to the fact that the evidence does not support the theory, so most scientists don't support it. As such the theory is indeed fringe. Seriously three or four prominent people supporting this theory is not only not evidence that this is not fringe, it is absolute evidence that this is fringe. Again let's look at PubMed Central, 5 articles listed for dysgenics, that's pathetic by any standard.[13] On the other hand if we search for "intelligence" (it seems like a relevant search subject) on PubMed Central we get 19488 articles.[14] If we search for "protein" we get 563933 articles,[15] and even if we search for something as obscure as "bacteriophage" we get 47219 papers.[16] Surely this is strong evidence that this is fringe and that there is little or no research ongoing into human "dysgenics" compared to the level of research generally undertaken in the biological sciences. Alun (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My reading of WP:FRINGE is that a few prominent secondary proponents are sufficient to establish the notability of a topic; if that's not correct, then please let me know. As to the secular rise in IQ scores, the issue is much more complicated than your description allows -- IQ test results are multidimensional, and it's possible for differences in overall scores to change for different reasons. In fact, the IQ score changes that have been observed over time have a particular pattern to them which suggests that they are quite different than was first appreciated (that is, they do not resemble the pattern of individual differences). An IQ decrease due to differential fertility would look quite different in terms of the multidimensional view of IQ test results (they should resemble individual differences). Like I said, I think this is hardly the most important topic, but I found the NLSY analyses interesting -- that is until descriptions of them were deleted from the article. What's the point of making it difficult for people to learn about this topic? --Legalleft (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondarily, pubmed is not a suitable citation source for psychology -- search the psychinfo or isi instead. Second, scientific disciplines have different rates of publication and citation -- biomedicine is far ahead on that curve compared to other disciplines. --Legalleft (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the topic is not necessarily in dispute. A fringe theory can be notable, but it should be described as fringe and it should be made clear that it is not a consensus theory in science.

We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view...ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus...In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents...Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written.[17]

As I said, you can blather all you like about the fact that IQ scores are going up, but essentially it shows the fallacy of the "theory". A theory must explain what we observe in nature, if it does not then it is not going to get widespread consensus. The supporters of a theory can introduce all sorts of sophistry into an explanation as to why the theory doesn't work, but the fundamental fact of it's not explaining what we observe will always deteract from it's acceptance. All theories are dependent to a certain extent upon the asumptions made by scientists, but the assumptions made by people supporting dysgenics in the human population are wild and not supported by any evidence. We just cannot know how IQ affected the rates of fertility in times for which we have no records. Besides all that, dysgenic is a term used in biology, if one wants to make claims about genetics, then the place to look is in biological sciences. We have far more evidence that the term dysgenic is used in biology for the selective breeding of deliterious phenotypes in laboratory animals than we do for any othe ruse of the term. It's certainly not a case of stopping people learning about dysgenics, it's about including an accurate description of what it is. So the best way to go is to redirect "dysgenics" to the article "eugenics" and to have a discussion about dysgenic crosses in laboratory breeding in a specific article called "dysgenic" or "dysgenic breeding". This article has until recently been little more that the far right wing propaganda by the usual suspects, it's ideology masquerading as "science", and not even very convincing science at that. As I said only the terminally gullible would ever swallow this tripe. But as they say, there's one born every minute. Alun (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Secondarily, pubmed is not a suitable citation source for psychology

Fair enough, if this article were about psychology then you might have a point, but we are not talking about psychology. The last time I checked dysgenics, however one uses the term, is not a branch of psychology. Even if one accepts the nonsense that dysgenics is the "weakening" of human populations due to modern social/medical advances, it is still not a branch of psychology. However one thinks of dysgenics it is about artificial as opposed to natural selection and these are in the realm of the biological sciences and not psychology. Therefore the use of PubMed Central is perfectly relevant to the subject at hand, which is not psychology. On the other hand PubMed Central gives a total of 34747 hits for a search of "psychology",[18] 7860 for natural selection,[19] and 15426 for artificial selection.[20] Let's keep it relevant, the issue is not psychology and is not relevant to psychology. Alun (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you consider your opinion on matters to be unquestionably correct. --Jagz (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

See these articles on dysgenics first [21], then decide. --Jagz (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Something interesting about dysgenics

In the same vein as Wobble's search, I looked up the definition of dysgenics. Here is what MS Encarta has to say about it (emphasis mine):

study of deterioration over generations: the study of factors relating to or causing a decrease in the survival of the genetically well-adapted members of a line of descent

Now, it seems a bit silly to then discuss differential birth rates especially when those of "lower intelligence" actually have more offspring, therefore, according to the very definition of dysgenics, have more chances of having surviving offspring. I believe this just goes to show that this whole article is skewed.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice argument, but original research. Various sources on dysgenics disagree. --Zero g (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This abstract (by the author) is from a recent article:

"In the period before the onset of demographic transition from large to small families, when fertility rates were positively associated with income levels, Malthusian pressure gave an evolutionary advantage to individuals whose characteristics were positively correlated with child quality and hence higher IQ, increasing in such a way the frequency of underlying genes in the population. As the fraction of individuals of higher quality increased, technological progress intensified. Positive feedback between technological progress and the level of education reinforced the growth process, setting the stage for an industrial revolution that facilitated an endogenous take-off from the Malthusian trap. The population density rose and with it social and political friction, especially important at the top of the social pyramid. Thus, from a certain turning point of history, the well-to-do have fewer children than the poor. Once the economic environment improves sufficiently, the evolutionary pressure weakens, and on the basis of spreading egalitarian ideology and general suffrage the quantity of people gains dominance over quality. At present, we have already reached the phase of global human capital deterioration as the necessary prerequisite for a global collapse by which the overpopulated earth will probably decimate those of mediocre IQ." ["The Population Cycle Drives Human History -- from a Eugenic Phase into a Dysgenic Phase and Eventual Collapse", Volkmar Weiss, Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies, Fall 2007, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p327-358]

--Jagz (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is difficult to take seriously a work that cites Patrick Buchanan, a journalist and former US presidential candidate, as an authority on fertility. "It is not only the industrialized countries of Europe and Asia, but also the white populations of North America, Australia and South Africa, that have for decades been falling short of the magical number of 2.0 offspring per woman (Buchanan, 2002).[22] Later, the author says, "If we assume that man was enabled by hundreds of thousands of years of the evolution of his brain to think logically, to be imaginative and creative, even to work scientifically (Mokyr, 2005), in order to improve the natural conditions of his life in several large steps (Boserup, 1981); and that this had the consequence — in particular after the step of industrialization — of his excessive (in the 20th Century, even explosive) propagation; then such a development from the point of view of the maltreated earth must be seen as an error that has to be corrected. The earth is weary of the many humans and has the task, in order to protect itself against contamination, climatic change and exploitation of all its resources, to destroy the majority of humans within a short period. This will happen in the Great Chaos." This strikes me as teleological speculation, not serious scholarship. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• "In the period before the onset of demographic transition from large to small families, when fertility rates were positively associated with income levels, Malthusian pressure gave an evolutionary advantage to individuals whose characteristics were positively correlated with child quality and hence higher IQ, increasing in such a way the frequency of underlying genes in the population.

I've read some gibberish in my time, but this makes no sense. If the claim is that the children of wealthy people were more likely to survive than the children of poor people, then this may be true. But what has this got to do with genes? The children of the wealthy were more likely to survive not because they had better genes, but because they had better nutrition and care. One selective pressure on children before the advent of modern medicine would of course have been the survival of serious life threatening illness, the children of the wealthy were no more likely to survive than the children of the poor due to "intelligence", nor due to medicine, as it was incompetent for all. As for the claim that fertility rates were positively associated with income levels, is there any reason to accept this? In Victorian/Edwardian times it was poor families that had huge numbers of children and not rich families. But the point is not fertility is it? Fertility is a red herring, a person can sire a hundred children and be very fertile, but if all of these children die in infancy, then they have not contributed to the gene pool at all. One of my grandmothers had eleven siblings, and the other had nine siblings, this was common in late Victorian/Edwardian times, but neither of these women came from wealthy families, certainly in the west this was the period of greatest population growth and the largest family sizes. Put it like this, the children of wealthy people were more likely to survive because they have better nutrition (an environmental factor), which will give them a better chance of surviving life threatening illness. The fact that relatively speaking the children of wealthy people are more likely to survive to adulthood therefore has little to do with "intelligence". On the other hand this does not show that more children from wealthy families overall survived, only that a greater proportion survived, poor people have always produced more offspring than rich people, therefore although the infant mortality rate may be higher due to a poorer ability to fight childhood illness, they are likely to overall produce more children because more are born, one needs to take a look at relative survival rates into adulthood as well as relative birth rates. But no one knows what the relative differential birth rates was between wealth and poor people in the past. What is the evidence that either (a) wealthy people were more "intelligent" in the past or (b) that they produced more children that survived into adulthood. Survival to adulthood in the past had nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with luck. If selection occurred then it is likely to be the selection of those individuals with better immune systems and not those with greater "intelligence". Still the quote made me laugh because it was obviously written by someone who is completely incompetent to make claims about natural selection. How can anyone with any real intelligence swallow this guff? Are people rally so gullible? Alun (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"the quantity of people gains dominance over quality". What a chilling statement. Since when do human beings come in different qualities? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Comes from the determinist philosophy that people aren't born equal. The privileged (in money, in intelligence) are deemed to be of "better quality". "Dysgenics", according to some editors here, is the study of how these privileged will be overcome by the great unwashed masses, leading to the "dumbing down" of humanity and the eventual collapse of civilization. (heavy sarcasm) --Ramdrake (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite, it's pure right wing ideology and nothing to do with science. How is science supposed to measure the "quality" of human beings? Any "qualitative" criterion must be subjective. It is absurd to claim that humans can determine the environmental "fitness" of a group, only nature can do this by natural selection, and natural selection will always be dependent upon environment. It's reminiscent of Michael Young's book "The Rise of the Meritocracy", a dystopian view of the future where social worth was decided by an arbitrary measure. Alun (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How about making this article into a start-class article about lethal (and other deleterious) mutations in organisms, such as Alun suggested, and move much of the rest over to Eugenics, which at least makes it clear it's not about biological science, but about a social philisophy?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The biological aspect could be covered in an existing article too. --Jagz (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Alun and Ramdrake's ideas are good - just go ahead and make the changes. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia administrators can issue such edicts? --Jagz (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 18:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with this subject - it's not one in common discussion in the sorts of evolutionary biology circles I am part of. The only comparable subject would be this, ecological or evolutionary traps; but this isn't exactly analogous. The discussion in the article centers on selective influence on IQ, which is fraught with all sorts of problems. I haven't read all of the huge discussion above, but my first impression is that this isn't really the provenance of biologists or people who actually study the evolutionary question with any rigor, and falls more into the ken of Bell Curve-style racists. Graft | talk 22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Itsmejudith's 11:28, 30 April 2008 in the preceding section is very sensible and has broad support - we should just go with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT --Jagz (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary defined dysgenics as the "study" of the accumulation and perpetuation of defective genes and traits in a population, race, or species. The article states it as a "system of breeding". Wouldn't all molecular medicine and searching for gene mutations responsible for diseases like sickle cell, cystic fibrosis, etc. be dysgenic studies? Even certain forms of cancer are heritable so the defective genes are perpetuated. Clearly this is not an article related to "biological dysgenics" but "dysgenics" as it relates only to differential fertility, the flynn effect, and intelligence. This really is just an "Intelligence" article offshoot, and perhaps it would be best just to entertain the subject there and add a paragraph to that article rather than an independent article. The problem I see with the subject in general is that it is consumed with non sequiturs. The mention of the deductions of lead poisoning and then biological evidence to the contrary for example. The same with the measuring the "trait" of intelligence by cognitive tests and then drawing biological conclusions about a population when no genotypes were examined, no intelligence genes identified, nor shifts in alleles in populations. Eugenics and Dysgenics are related to selecting for favorable or deleterous "traits" which relates to "genes" which haven't been identified or measured. It is further muddied with the notion of phenotypic and genotypic influences on intelligence so a distinction between dysgenic heritable and environmental phenotype aren't even addressed. The later wouldn't be dysgenic if it is not heritable and breedable and just environment and epigenetic. GetAgrippa (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very useful comment. And it seems to me that a strong and well-informed, unbiased consensus has emerged that was concisely articulated by Itsmejudith and that incorporates the points made by Alun, Ramdrake, Wsiegmund, Graft, and GetAgrippa. I think Ramdrake first initiated the drive to make this article comply with NPOV and FRINGE; would he be willing to draw on the comments of the preceding other editors to redraft this article? Slrubenstein | Talk 08:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll give it a shot. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

enough with the WP:UNDUE

Google scholars gives me 910 hits for "genetic deterioration" and only 303 hits for "dysgenics"

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

the top hits do not discuss human populations at all, but wolves, mice and what have you. Hence I strongly suggest the following:

1. move this to genetic deterioration
2. remove the undue focus on human populations let alone the ridiculous focus on human IQ in particular. How on earth did this article become hostage to the stupid "race and intelligence" dispute? You want to have a row over race and intelligene? Kindly have it at Talk:Race and intelligence.

dab (𒁳) 18:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm growing weary of all the WP:UNDUE claptrap as well. --Jagz (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

so... if there are no further comments, shall we unprotect it and implement the move? --dab (𒁳) 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given a shot at rebalancing the article away from WP:UNDUE and trying to make it more NPOV. If anybody can go over it and adjust (more info is needed on dysgenics as relates to animal studies, for example), it would be appreciated.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be trying to push ingrained social philosophies. --Jagz (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it still needs to be balanced with more data from actual laboratory studies on dysgenics (biology), but at least it's not pushing a discredited right-wing ideology.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Why not just put the human dysgenics information into the eugenics article. This article is a jumble of information now. --Jagz (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that is exactly the place it should go. This was suggested above by Itsmejudith,[23] and SLR and myself both thought it was a good idea. Are we going to get a consensus that the place for fringe science is in an article about a fringe science, like the eugenics article? Alun (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

General references

I finished moving the general references into footnotes as applicable. I deleted Oded since it doesn't appear to mention the article topic and I wasn't sure how it pertains to the article. I won't object to it being cited as a footnote to support relevant content, however.

• Galor, Oded and Omer Moav: Natural selection and the origin of economic growth. Quarterly Review of Economics 117 (2002) 1133-1191. [24]

Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Improving the article

I restored some relevant sourced information. The section about the Flynn effect was inappropriate because it cited a journalist named Steven Connor and a 1996 Sunday Times article hosted on a dubious website. (http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/late/dysg_sc.html) We should use peer-reviewed sources.

I added Coleman's criticism of Preston's and Campbell's article. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2781580 Rubidium37 (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The content you restored was removed through a consensus which included a RfC with several editors' responses. The consensus was that much of the content was pushing a WP:FRINGE view held by a very small group of researchers. You may ask to see if consensus has changed, but until you prove that it has indeed changed, please do not restore the material deleted from prior consensus. Thanks.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some recent articles on "dysgenics": [25] --Jagz (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed material cannot be WP:FRINGE. Your argument is silly. I see no evidence of a consensus on this talk page. Furthermore, you just deleted totally new sourced information without explanation. Coleman's views are relevant. Jagz, do you agree that my version is better? Rubidium37 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is better. --Jagz (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringe isn't defined on the criterion of whether something has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Fringe is defined relative to mainstream science, and I can link you to references that say these theories are highly disputed and way out of mainstream science.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." - WP:V

Peer-reviewed sources are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Rubidium37 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I read the Coleman paper and it isn't a very convincing bit of work. He assumes that the mean of the IQ distribution of children is that of the parents, a dubious assumption, in my opinion. I think that the fact that this topic is discussed in the psychological literature, rather than that of population genetics, indicates just how fringe this research is. Lynn appears to multiply the differential fertility of the highest and lowest cohort times the IQ difference of the two to infer IQ depression per generation. The point of citing Preston and Campbell is to offer readers some insight into this extremely dubious methodology. Adding Coleman would tend to negate that effort. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rubidium37 (talk · contribs) is a WP:SPA, whose first edit on May 14 consisted of adding content to Race and Intelligence citing "The Bell Curve" and Rushton. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

External links?

Hey all, I just came across an interesting article discussing race and intelligence and how those terms are described. I thought it might be a nice addition to the article, but I notice there's no External Links section. I know the article is in contention, so I didn't want to add one without discussion. Here's the link, if anyone is curious: http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/tpm_race.html. Cheers --Pariah (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles on "dysgenics"

Here are some articles on "dysgenics" from the past 10 years.[26] --Jagz (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted this same link not very long ago. You will observe that a significant number of these hits are related to a single book written by Richard Lynn. This is hardly evidence of any mainstream anthropological or socialogical thought on this subject, and there are few articles by geneticists. When we look at PubMed Central, where geneticists do actually publish, the overwhelming number of articles relate to research into fruit flies and mice. As such this article should concentrate on where the majority of the research is done. [27] Alun (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you did post the same link but please note that my link is to Google Scholar, not just a regular Google search. --Jagz (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the term 'dysgenics' really used for fruit flies and mice? I see only 'dysgenesis' being used in one paper. Richard001 (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, my link was to google scholar as well, otherwise it would not have been of much use. Have you looked at the results for google scholar? They primarily relate to a very few publications. Yes Richard it is used, the term "disgenic cross" is used in the majority of the papers listed in PubMed central. Alun (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So if the non-fruit-fly and non-mice information doesn't belong in this article and there is not sufficient space in the Eugenics article, where do you suggest that it go? --Jagz (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Either remove it as WP:UNDUE weight, or make a section for it in the Fringe science article, properly summarized first, of course.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Ramdrake, my question was directed at Alun though. --Jagz (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I have added your suggestion for adding a section on dysgenics to the "Fringe science" article here: [28]. --Jagz (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

anthropomorphic bias

There appears to be some sensitivity with respect to this topic, which I think is due to an anthropomorphic bias. Dysgenics is a research topic in biology; the anthropological and sociocultural aspects are not central to the topic. The concerns listed in the heading paragraph belong lower in the text, as they apply only to the aspect of the term relating to homo sapiens.

(and I want to add)

The concept of dysgenics itself is really only at home in a discussion of genotype. Direct anthropomorphic considerations (of the sociopolitical aspects outlined in the article) are very crude constructions which do not hew to the precise biological use of the term. I think one danger is that, by focusing on the easily politicized extension of the term, we risk conflating an important biological concept with indirect sociological constructions. Next thing you know, biologists innocently researching fruit flies get implicated in fascism, eugenics, and gas chambers. So I agree that we need to make very careful use of these terms. These concepts, while connected to a degree, should be covered carefully. 137.186.41.143 (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Bad article

This has got to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. The article starts out as if it is going to be an article about dysgenics in a biological sense as discussed on the Talk page and then goes into an unbalanced, POV, and discontinuous discussion of dysgenics in a human population sense. --Jagz (talk) 11:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's because we haven't had time to finish revamping the article with proper dysgenic studies. I merely removed the most egregiously misleading content.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The editors may not have had time to finish but they have had time to start. --Jagz (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that you've done much to improve it.--Ramdrake (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you really have a Ph.D.? Please give me the year you graduated and the school so I can verify it. --Jagz (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you've been around long enough to know better, but, if not, please review WP:CIVIL. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The article clearly sucks. --Jagz (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, I have asked you before to stop making personal comments regarding the qualifications of other editors. This amounts to little more than trolling, there is no requirement for anyone to have any sort of qualification to edit Wikipedia, that's why it's the encyclopaedia anyone can edit. There are, however policy requirements, that editors support their edits with reliable sources. Regardless of how you behave, you do not have any authority whatsoever here to make demands of other editors. Given your past record of disruption and poor editing, it ill behoves you to complain that any article you are involved with is of poor quality. Surely you understand that the quality of the article reflects as much, if not more, on you than anyone. Alun (talk) 10:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Expand scope of article

Suggest that the article scope be expanded to include a discussion of human population dysgenics topics other than IQ, such as:

Throughout our evolution, the weak and diseased died young and didn't pass on their genes. Now, because of modern medicine, people with numerous genetic diseases live long enough to reproduce and transmit defective genes to their children. (Examples: cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, diabetes, pyloric stenosis, various heart defects, thalassemia, phenylketonuria, and sickle cell anemia.) The incidence of many of these disorders is doubling or tripling each generation. No one would deny sufferers treatment, but it's important to realize that, as a result of it, our genetic potential for robust good health is declining. Life-long care will require ever-increasing expenditures. Furthermore, while sufferers are grateful for medical advances, most would nevertheless be quick to point out that the quality of their lives would be far better if they'd never inherited a disease in the first place.[29]

--Jagz (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your citation of the book review does not satisfy my reading of WP:RS. The version in the link is unpublished other than at eugenics.net. The author is a collaborator of Lynn, the author of the reviewed book. She is apparently a social scientist, not a geneticist. If the ultimate source of the passage you quote is "Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations" by Richard Lynn, it does not qualify as a reliable source, either, as I have pointed out earlier on these pages. Moreover, the allegation that the incidence of the disorders listed is increasing is uncited and contradicted by the Hardy-Weinberg principle unless one posits an unlikely level of disturbance to that equilibrium. The statement that the "incidence of many of these disorders is doubling or tripling each generation", is so remarkable that it should be easy to find review articles in the journals "Science", "Nature", "The New England Journal of Medicine" and other journals of comparable quality, if it were true. I think you'll find that this statement is unsupported by mainstream medical or genetic research. I don't think it belongs in the article. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, as someone with a PhD in this topic, I can tell you unequivocally that your assertion is absolutely junk science. Even if it were true that the incidence of genetic diseases was doubling or tripling, which I would doubt is true for diseases that aren't under balancing selection (like sickle-cell anemia or thalessemia, for which mitigating the negatives shifts an equilibrium between positive and negative selection), the impact on our long-term genetic health is negligible, because selection is far more efficient than you imagine. Graft | talk 19:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You'll notice that I never made an assertion, only a suggestion on a topic. I never even suggested what specific verbiage should be put in the article. The "doubling or tripling" wording does seem ludicrous. Isn't the article supposed to be a mix of fringe and legitimate science? --Jagz (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You suggested text be included that is fundamentally false. Under no circumstances should we include such text and present it as true, as your above paragraph does. The genetic health of our population cannot decline as a result of treating disease. Graft | talk 03:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Be honest, guys. Richard Lynn, in his field, has an enviable publication record. He is not a geneticist, and folks in genetics would condemn everyone who works with statistical data on phenotypes as "junk science". As one of the few reputable scientists who have written extensively on dysgenics, Lynn deserves to be considered in this article, regardless of the nasty things he is considered guilty of saying.

Let me also add that medicine has recently made enormous strides (antibiotics have been around only since the 1940s), and it seems presumptuous to make assertions about "equilibrium" in populations of relatively long-lived humans.

My recommendation for this article is to go back to Ronald Fisher's view, and consider dysgenic population change as that in which the most "socially fit" are the least "biologically fit". With this formulation, one can easily bring in the critiques about class and ethnic bias, as well as the current view by Lynn, etc. that IQ is a good operational measure of social fitness. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the editorial consensus here is that it is appropriate to include a discussion of Lynn's views that is cited properly (WP:RS), does not give them undue weight, and includes those of his detractors also cited properly. However, the question before us is whether the article should be expanded in the manner suggested by Jagz based on the quotation that he cites. I don't concur. It isn't clear that quoted material is from Lynn or the reviewer, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source, and, as I have pointed out earlier in this discussion, the reviewed book is not a reliable source since it is out of print and unavailable in some major research libraries. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "verifiable," not "reliable" (the original text would of course be a reliable source about the original text). The book is prohibitively expensive, but it's not hard to obtain--anyone with access to a university interlibrary loan service can get it. Let me add that a book review is a pretty solid secondary source: one can both learn about the book and gauge the reaction of competent authorities. Lynn's Dysgenics got a lot of reviews, including a very long one from W. D. Hamilton (HAMILTON, W. D. 2000. “A review of Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations.” Annals of Human Genetics 64:363-374.). A good article can be written by consulting these reviews: indeed, if we include the views of Lynn's "detractors," we must by necessity allow book reviews, since the best articulated critiques of Lynn's work can be found there.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why use as a source "Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations", published in 1996, a book that cannot be found in major research libraries? Hamilton is already cited. Lynn's paper in Intelligence is cited. He has published many papers that appear in ISI listed journals and he has published books that are in-print. Since he has continued to write on the same topic, the only value of "Dysgenics..." is in a discussion of the history of his thought. I think that is beyond the scope of this article.

The Van Court review, as it appears in the web link, does not satisfy the criterion of WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Only an abbreviated version of the review appeared in the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies.

That begs the question of why one would cite the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies on the incidence of genetic diseases. I'm not familiar with that journal, but I would have thought that the New England Journal of Medicine or other journals in the medical sciences or genetics would be a better source for such content.--Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would not object to the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies but others might; like Mankind Quarterly it is openly at war with political correctness. You will not find anything in the New England Journal of Medicine on dysgenics. Surely you know that. If one wants a full scholarly treatment of the topic, one must still rely on Lynn. A book published in 1996 can still be cited.

W.D. Hamilton is indeed cited. But he appears to be cited as a source for objections to the idea of dysgenics. In fact, his review was overwhelmingly positive and his criticisms constructive.

Is anyone happy with the article as currently written? Is there any chance of making this a decent article? I can help a little, but I'm not interested in fighting any ideological battles. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Restore original content

A lot of properly sourced content has been removed during the past month, the introduction is POV and isn't backed up by a good source, and the criticism section is poor and in the current state of the article gives undue weight.

I'd also like to point out that there is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. [30] Hence I suggest restoring the deleted sourced content and sticking to sourced content.

As it is there is no consensus for the current article, as has been indicated by several editors, so I hope to restore most of the removed content without starting another disruptive edit war. --Zero g (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The content was removed as per WP:UNDUE, and after an RfC where the majority of editors voiced an opinion that that content was indeed WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. You are free to open a new RfC to see if opinions have changed, but please don't restore unilaterally content which was removed through consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide links to the previous consensus? Thanks, Elonka 21:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's right here on the page: here, hereand here. Sorry if it spans three sections, but you will see that although there is no unanimity, there is clear consensus (unanimity minus 2, I believe; that would be a 7-2 spread) that this article should be about dysgenics as envisioned in the study of deleterious mutations rather than the hypothetical reduction of IQ due to lower-class people often having more children that the people from the upper classes.--Ramdrake (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In the RfC section it is shown that your main supporters entered the editing dispute through canvassing which is shown in the following links: [31] [32]. From what I've gathered canvassing is frowned down upon in the Wikipedia community.

The comment by User:Itsmejudith is neutral and he suggests incorporating a section about the usage of the term dysgenics in biology.

So that leaves User:Ramdrake, User:Wsiegmund, User:Wobble, and User:Slrubenstein to support the fringe/undue RfC. While it's opposed by User:Zero_g, User:Jagz, and User:Legalleft.

All in all, taking the canvassing into account, I don't see how this RfC can in any way be a valid argument for the removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style. Especially given the fact that most of the article is still about dysgenics as used in population genetics.

I would suggest to restore the original content and nominate the article for deletion arguing that dysgenics as used in population genetics is too irrelevant to be included. If and after the article has been deleted a new article could be created about dysgenics as it applies to biology. --Zero g (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting User:Graft, User:DBachmann and User:GetAgrippa. User:Itsmejudith suggested that "Dysgenics" (in its people application) be redirected to Eugenics. Also, please note that I didn't ask Alun to intervene in the RfC, and while I pointed the RfC to Slrubenstein, I didn't suggest any specific course of action. I didn't even suggest he should comment. All in all, the consensus exists, despite your denial. However, you are entirely free to ask whether the consensus may have changed.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither User:Graft, User:DBachmann nor User:GetAgrippa participated in the RfC, nor did they in any way support the deletion of the population genetics section.

Also, no consensus was reached in the RfC with three users disagreeing, so the RfC is null and void. Could an admin please clarify the concept of consensus on Wikipedia to Ramdrake?

Given you seem to be wanting to include users to the consensus that didn't directly participate in the RfC, User:Harkenbane, User:Rubidium37, User:Richard001, User:MoritzB, and User:Raborg have indicated in the past that this article being about population genetics is relevant. --Zero g (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how an RfC is "null and void" because certain editors didn't participate. The way that Wikipedia works, decisions are made by those who show up. Editors come and go, consensus can change. However, what I would like to get away from here, is a sense that an RfC is a "vote", because it's not. Ideally, editors can keep discussing things, to try and find a compromise. Sometimes the decision about what can go into an article does come down to a binary "One group says yes, one groups says no", but in most of the cases I've seen, there's a way to include both viewpoints in the proper proportion. As long as someone has information that is reliably sourced, and it is presented in a neutral way so as not to give undue weight to the current thinking on the subject, it is okay to include. On a quick glance through the article, I'd also be careful of pop culture trivia sections, which are generally discouraged (see WP:TRIVIA). Just because someone wrote a song about a concept, does not necessarily make the concept notable. However, if a reliable source discusses the song and its relation to the concept, then that might be okay to include. In the example of the Korn song, do we have such a reliable published source, that says, "This song discusses dysgenics"? If so, that source should be added. If not, the song should be removed. --Elonka 16:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the entirety of the Oxford English Dictionary's entry for dysgenic:

Exerting a detrimental effect on the race, tending towards racial degeneration, spec. opposed to eugenic. Hence dysgenically adv.

1915 W. R. INGE Outspoken Ess. (1919) 41 Its [sc. frequent war's] dysgenic effect, by eliminating the strongest and healthiest of the population, while leaving the weaklings at home to be the fathers of the next generation. 1922 Edin. Rev. July 46 Encouraging the dysgenic art of fortune-hunting. 1926 Spectator 1 May 804/2 Conceptive control has been an almost entirely harmful or dysgenic factor. 1928 G. B. SHAW Intell. Woman's Guide Socialism xxxviii. 150 Division of society into classes, with the resultant dysgenic restrictions on marriage. 1934 C. P. BLACKER Chances of Morbid Inheritance iv. 122 If our propaganda succeeds another barrier against dysgenic marriages will have gone. 1937 A. HUXLEY Ends & Means viii. 79 A residual population, dysgenically selected for its lack of spirit and intellectual gifts. Ibid. ix. 90 So far as individuals are concerned, war selects dysgenically. 1971 Daily Tel. 5 Oct. 14/2 The ‘two child family’ or ‘Zero Population Growth’..have the merit that they are less dysgenic than is the present irresponsible propagation.

There are no meanings of dysgenic referring to "the study of deleterious mutations." The word is only used in the sense of the opposite of eugenic. I have to support Zero g on this one.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an actual scientific definition "System of breeding or selection that is genetically deleterious or disadvantageous." [33] and there are numerous examples given in PubMed Central for the use of dysgenic for animal breeding experiments.[34] When did the OED become a reliable source for science? Alun (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how a specialized biology dictionary spending 1 line on the word dysgenic has precedence over 40 links, spanning a century of the term dysgenic being used in relation to population genetics, and even a book dedicated to the subject. [35] --Zero g (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The "also-bought" section of Amazon.com isn't really a search engine.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I am still coming up to speed on this dispute, so please forgive me if I ask questions which have already been dealt with. The first things that come to mind though are: (1) Has this article been through an AfD? and (2) For those who disagree about the article's current content, have they ever tried creating a subpage or sandbox version, to show what they're talking about? Thanks, Elonka 00:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

A fork of this article was created and AfD'ed here. To the best of my knowledge, this is pretty close to the shape of the article that those disagreeing with current consensus would like to see. At the very least, it contained the material that Zero g is proposing to restore. I am not aware of any other AfD on this article.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've taken a look at the state of the article before it was deleted, and see that it had only been around for a few days. Zero g, do you feel that it was "done"? If you want, I could restore a version of it into a subpage of your userspace, where you could expand and source it properly at your own leisure, and then it might be easier to point at specific sections which you feel would be useful to merge into the current article. Or, you could create a copy of the current Dysgenics article in your userspace, and again expand it with anything you wanted, to show what you were talking about. It could not of course be maintained as a fork in your userspace indefinitely, but it might be a good temporary solution. --Elonka 00:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The article has actually been steadily growing for two years, you probably saw the history of the article in the middle of a revert war. A somewhat well rounded version of the article is available here: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Dysgenic

Please see The Marching Morons, the cult movie Idiocracy, and Evolution (Korn_song)[36] to see why a verbose and well referenced section on intelligence is noteworthy in this field because of the attention it continues to receive in the popular media. --Zero g (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To go back to Ramdrake's point: "The study of deleterious mutations" is something quite different from a "system of breeding or selection that is genetically deleterious or disadvantageous." The source of genomic change in the latter is the "system of breeding or selection", not "mutations." I agree completely with the definition: dysgenics examines a "system of breeding or selection." So I don't think we have a conflict on this point.

As for the Oxford English Dictionary--WP:NAME requires that the subject of this article reflect the common usage of the word dysgenics. The OED is a good place to get a sense of the common usage. Your source confirmed the common usage.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually as far as I can see there is no real conflict here. I agree with Anton, the definition from Newcastle University, that dysgenic is a "System of breeding or selection that is genetically deleterious or disadvantageous" is perfectly compliant with use of the word for any population where natural selection has been replaced by artificial selection that is considered deleterious. Indeed isn't that exactly what Galton was specifically claiming? Isn't it exactly what Richard Lynn is claiming? That the human population is deteriorating because there is no "weeding out" of deleterious elements from the population? The argument that Galton and Lynn's hypothesis is pseudoscience does not derive from their application of the term dysgenesis (which is correct), but derives from the fact that their view of what is natural selection in the human population has not been quantified, and the fact that there is no direct evidence to support the thesis, indeed the direct evidence contradicts their hypothesis. There is no reason for the term to be restricted to human "intelligence" dysgenesis, we have plenty of evidence that the term is applied to organisms reared in the laboratory as well as having been applied to the human population, and use of the term in both cases is consistent with it's definition in the lead. Merriam Webster give the definition the study of the accumulation and perpetuation of defective genes and traits in a population, race, or species, which is again compatible with all uses of the word given in the lead.

In response to Zero g I can only repeat that I have given evidence from PubMed Central that the term dysgenesis is used extensively in the study of various laboratory bread organisms, I've posted this link to a PubMed central search on this talk page three or four times now, and the results haven't changed, there are 471 uses of the word in this free online library. Indeed i restricted my search to PubMed central because this only published articles that are free access, so anyone can go and read these articles. [37] Furthermore the citing of Lynn's book is all very well, but a google search of "dysgenics" produces results that are either related to this single book, or are thoroughly unreliable sources (such as blogs [38] or religious sites [39]) indicating that it is something of a fringe theory, at least for human populations. A google scholar search is similarly scanty, with the same two or three authors recurring again and again, mostly just reviewing Lynn's book of a decade ago.[40] Which brings me to another point, this article is not about Richard Lynn's book, the book can be cited and used, as can criticism of his book, but we can't take a single source and write the whole article from it, that is a breach of the neutrality policy.

I really don't see any problem here. This article should be a reasonable and fair account of how dysgenesis is understood. As such we need to move away from a single narrow use of the word (ie it's use in the context of the "intellectual weakening" of our species) and have a comprehensive article. This is not to say that we should not include this point of view, of course we should, but we should not make this article about that subject, that's not neutral. Furthermore the over use of antibiotics by humans could be viewed as a dysgenic environment for humans, I've heard the claim (on "The Guardian" "Science Weekly" podcast) that these are weakening our immune system because we can now survive bacterial infections that our immune systems cannot fight. Indeed one could view the dysgenic environment of antibiotic use in humans as an eugenic environment for infectious organisms such as MRSA. Alun (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Dysgenics (People) however was put up for deletion for being a pov fork. I still propose restoring the old article and putting up a new AfD if editors feel confident that Dysgenics as applied to population genetics isn't Wiki worthy.

Alternatively I propose a Dysgenics (Biology) fork where Ramdrake and Wobble can work on the term as used in biology, given their apparent interest in editing such an article. That way both articles can peacefully co-exist. --Zero g (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:POVFORK. We should avoid creating a separate article just to provide an alternate point of view. Instead, both points of view should be included in the same article. Now, if there is so much information that an article is getting too long, then it can be split, per WP:SUMMARY. But if the desire to create a fork is "just to avoid edit wars", then that's a bad idea. --Elonka 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

PubMed central search for "dysgenics" gives five hits.[41] The earliest is 1923 and the latest is 1975. It gives 16379 for "dysgenesis".[42] It should be observed that "dysgenic" is an adjective, (e.g. a dysgenic population, a dysgenic cross), but dysgenesis is a noun, (e.g. the dysgenesis is cause by genetic factors), but these words seem to have somewhat different uses, though sometimes they are used interchangeably (for example Joseph L. Graves uses these words interchangeably in his book "The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium".

• Dysgenics/Dysgenic: the study of the operation of factors causing degeneration in the type of offspring produced [43][44]
• Dysgenesis: infertility between hybrids [45]: Defective development.[46]

Alun (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Alun. It seems that we can agree on a lot of things. One point probably bears stressing. We cannot speak of dysgenic change via natural selection: from the perspective of natural selection, genomic change is only toward the direction of greater fitness within the environment. It is only when humans impose their values to judge some genomic changes as undesirable that we can speak of dysgenic change--change where natural selection moves the genome in a direction humans don't like. Thus, it usually only makes sense to speak of dysgenic change in human populations or in populations where humans have an interest in maintaining or enhancing certain traits (such as domesticated species).

To get to what I believe is the heart of the matter: Richard Lynn's book should not be the central focus of the article, but it needs to be fully and impartially discussed (I think I could summarize its argument in about a paragraph). Web of Science shows 41 citations, a respectable number. It received positive reviews from highly respected biologists (W.D. Hamilton 2000. “A review of Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations.” Annals of Human Genetics 64:363-374) and anthropologists (Henry Harpending 1997. “Review: Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 72:502-503). I've seen here comments that the book is too old: the book is 12 years old, but unfortunately nothing has come along to replace it yet. I've also seen comments that the book is impossible to find: I can get the book any time I want through interlibrary loan, and so can faculty and students at almost any university in the U.S., as well as public library patrons in most big cities.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe too we can agree on some things. While what you say holds true for humans, "undesirable change" being a matter of values in the human species, dysgenic studies have also been performed on laboratory animals (mostly mice and flies - don't think we'd want to call them "domesticated", really), these crossing were done deliberately by humans to express what are undeniably deleterious mutations (at least in the current environment). That's the only caveat I wanted to stress on that front.

Also, I don't oppose a short discussion of Lynn's book, as long as it is put in proper context (that the hypothesis has few adherents, and that observation doesn't bear out the hypothesis, in that IQs are rising, not falling worldwide). As long as the section is kept suitably short (so as to avoid WP:UNDUE) and that it is made clear that this hypothesis isn't really considered mainstream science, I have few objections indeed. What I objected to was essentially the whole article being devoted to differential fertility studies in order to support Lynn's dysgenics hypothesis. That's both WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

In your argumentation you ignore the attention the subject of a declining genotypic intelligence has received in the popular media. If you read up on the topic you should also know that there is a difference between genotypic IQ (as influenced by genes) and phenotypic IQ (as influenced by the environment). Genotypic IQ can drop by 3 points (by differential breeding), while phonotypic IQ can increase by 9 points (through better nutrition and environment), showing a netto gain of 6 IQ points, but this doesn't invalidate the concept of a declining genotypic IQ. Please familiarize yourself with the subject matter.

Given the popularity of Idiocracy I think a decent portion of the article being devoted to the scientific research in this area is far from WP:UNDUE. Just because there have only been a handful of studies doesn't mean they aren't noteworthy. As far as I can see there is only one line in the article that WP:SYN would apply to and that can be dealt with easily.

I also don't see how a book or site not mentioning dysgenics can somehow be a valid argument. Lets focus on the relevant material that does exist. --Zero g (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent). Yes Anton, I entirely agree. It seems clear to me that when we discuss dysgenics we are not referring to selection in a natural environment, it's always artificial selection. The question of Lynn's book is therefore relevant with respect to his claim that modern human societies are not "natural" and that therefore selection is artificial and claimed by Lynn to be deleterious. Lynn's book is clearly relevant, though I don't think we should labour the point I do think a clear analysis of his main points is in order, and of course a criticism of his analysis is required as well, for example what is a natural environment for modern humans? I think a discussion of human dysgenesis in the context of a broader discussion of the subject is relevant. Whether humans actually are undergoing dysgenesis is not really the point of the article, and we should not make it such (and if the article were to leave the reader with the impression that this is somehow an academic consensus or "fact" then the article could not be considered neutral), the point of the article is to discuss dysgenesis and to give all relevant points of view. What I do want to avoid is a situation where the article discusses dysgenesis as if it is only relevant to humans and only relevant to "intelligence". I also want to make sure that we are explicit about dysgenesis is human populations being something of a fringe point of view (though certainly notable and worthy of inclusion). Remember in the context of Wikipedia fringe only means that it does not have an academic consensus supporting it, for example evolution has consensus support, as does the Recent African Origin hypothesis (and there are plenty of multiregionalists still out there), human dysgenics cannot be considered a consensus theory. As long as we provide all points of view, including appropriate criticisms of human dysgenics then I'll be happy. Essentially I think we are agreeing Anton. Alun (talk) 15:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the research into human intelligence should be included, and naturally you are free to provide sources critical of this research. So far one source has been provided and added to the article in a POV manner, and sourced counter-criticism of that single source has been removed in the latest edit war. Unless you can provide a source that states that mainstream scientific consensus is that dysgenics in humans does not exist I suggest you drop the efforts to install this POV into the article because it will only result in edit warring and disruption, besides violating Wikipedia regulations.

While the dysgenic decline in IQ research dominates the old article, I don't think the valid approach is to simply delete it all. Mostly because intelligence is by far the most important (and elusive) human trait. I would suggest adding more content to the article, such as a section about the term as it's used in Biology, and as has been suggested earlier, any research about other traits that are declining, if available. --Zero g (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer Zero g's query, here are two sources that establish that the subject matter isn't mainstream science and indeed quite fringe: [47] and [48]. I would also like to point that this is something like the third time that I supply these references.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this before. The first source by Michael G. Kenny (no idea who he is) attacks the pioneer fund, but in no way calls dysgenics a junk, fringe, or pseudo-scientific concept. While the term dysgenic is used a few times in "scare quotes" the text doesn't seem to support the fringe argument, but feel free to quote from the article if I missed anything.

The second link is by Paul_A._Lombardo and is an emotional work that states that the pioneer fund and associated researchers are horrible people, and that eugenics is bad.

Having a source is one thing, but it must be relevant to the subject matter. The sources however seem valid (imo) for a paragraph about dysgenic rhetoric used as eugenic propaganda. In no way do the sources mention, or represent, scientific consensus about population genetics being a junk or fringe science. --Zero g (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, it's a losing argument to call Lynn's work "junk science" or "fringe." No less a person than W.D. Hamilton spoke approvingly of his work. The sources you cited just don't have the credibility to topple Hamilton's approval. One is a law review: law reviews are not peer reviewed, they are editor-reviewed, and the editors are law students. We can have a good article, placing Lynn's work in its proper perspective, without overstating anything.

I would like for more people to respond before doing anything, but it seems that we have agreement on adding a section on Richard Lynn's work. Once we have some concrete text to discuss, it may be easier to find common ground.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton reviewed Lynn near the end of his life when he also supported the OPV AIDS hypothesis, another fringe theory. (Please see Aids Theory vs. Lawsuit.) His book review does not make Lynn's work mainstream.

"Dysgenics" is little used in population genetics or the study of human genetic variation. Indeed, I was unable to find any use of the term in the references that I consulted (John H. Gillespie: Population genetics: a concise guide Baltimore, Md. : Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004., ISBN 978-0801880094 and the seminal work by L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza: The history and geography of human genes Princeton, New Jersey. : Princeton University Press, 1996., ISBN 0691029059) Those references are in the current version of the article.[49] Recently, "dysgenics" has been used by Richard Lynn, a retired psychologist, and his collaborators. Lynn has been criticised by a fellow psychologist, Leon Kaman, in a Scientific American (February 1995, vol. 272) book review, to wit, "Lynn's distortions and misrepresentations of the data constitute a truly venomous racism, combined with scandalous disregard for scientific objectivity. Lynn is widely known among academics to be an associate editor of the racist journal "Mankind Quarterly" and a major recipient of financial support from the nativist, eugenically oriented Pioneer Fund." His research has been largely ignored by the general scientific community. It has received more attention from white supremacists, politicians seeking to reduce or eliminate programs that help poor people, and filmmakers. I think material on Lynn's research is best added to Richard Lynn. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Anton, you need to understand what "fringe" means in terms of Wkipedia, the fact that W.D.Hamilton supported Lynn's book is not evidence that this is not a fringe theory. There are numerous supporters of the multiregional hypothesis, it's a far more supported hypothesis than Lynn's dysgenic hypothesis, but it's still fringe. Fringe in tho context of Wikipedia simply means that a theory does not represent an academic consensus, essentially a fringe theory is any theory that is not generally accepted by the academic community.(see WP:FRINGE and Scientific consensus) Here's an example, the Big Bang theory is a mainstream theory because a consensus of astronomers support it, but the Steady state theory is a fringe theory, even though it had the support of one of the most eminent astronomers of the 20th century, Fred Hoyle. When was the last time you heard an astronomer talk about steady state theory as if it were the way most astronomers understand the universe? There is certainly no evidence that human dysgenesis is a generally accepted theory by a majority of scientists, therefore it is a fringe theory. Calling a theory a fringe theory does not imply that it is wrong, or that it should not be included in the article. The criterion for inclusion in the article is notability. The notability of dysgenesis is a bit problematic, I read yesterday that Shockley coined the term in the 1960's as a specific antonym of eugenic, though I'm not sure this is correct. It is not really a commonly used term, and certainly not commonly used in relation to humans (as evidenced by the fact that we are really talking about a single source, Lynn's book), so one might claim that it is something of a neologism. Considering we have a few research papers that use the term I think it's fair to say that it's notable enough for a shortish Wikipedia article. We can certainly cite Lynn's book, but this article is not about Lynn's book and we need to understand that we are not here to promote Lynn's ideas. Furthermore I think one would have great difficulty providing evidence that Lynn's book is notable enough by itself to warrant an article of it's own. I would not like to see tis article turn into a defence of Richard Lynn's book, nor would I like to see it become a place where people just include reams data that supports only a single point of view. We're writing an encyclopaedia here, and not a review article. All we need to do is to give an overview of the main themes of the theory of human dysgenesis and cite it with reliable sources, we don't need to labour the point by the inclusion of every single datum that supports a given point of view. For example if Lynn says that he believes that "intelligence" is primarily "heritable" and that the higher birth rate amongst lower intelligence people is leading to a lowering of intelligence in a specific part of the world, then we say that, we don't need to go into great detail about his methods, or his analysis, we just need to say what his theory is. Conversely with criticism of Lynn, all we need to do is give the point of view that no one knows what a "natural" environment is for humans. We are not here to prove or to disprove any point of view, and if any particular editor is trying to do this, then it should be regarded as pov-pushing. There are to many entrenched attitudes on many of these articles, and I have been one, now I want to find common ground by searching for what we can agree on. Alun (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The analogy with the multiregional hypothesis seems pretty good. Nowhere in that article does the word "fringe" or "junk science" appear, and it shouldn't here either. It's presumptuous to think that any one of us (myself included) is a better judge of what is good science than W.D. Hamilton or Henry Harpending.

The "Leon Kaman" reference didn't exist, or I couldn't find it. Perhaps you can provide a link or at least an issue (there are six issues in that volume) and page number. It's important for the article to find well-respected people, competent to judge Lynn's work, who are able to point out what's wrong with it.

You guys write very long messages. It would make it easier for me if they were a bit more concise. Thanks!--Anthon.Eff (talk) 15:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see Leon J. Kamin, Scientific American, February 1995, Volume 272 Number 2 Pages 99-103.[50] OPV AIDS hypothesis, an article about another fringe theory supported by Hamilton, includes the following statement in the lede: "A substantial volume of published scientific data contradict the OPV AIDS hypothesis; as a result, the mainstream scientific community regards the hypothesis as unsupported, unlikely, or disproven." Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Walter. And the polio/AIDS stuff is very interesting--looks like Nature and Science published research on it as late as 2001. I took a look on Google Scholar at Kamin's work. Turns out he co-authored a bunch of stuff with Richard Lewontin. If you enjoy this kind of thing, here is a book review where Richard Dawkins mocks this left wing of evolutionary biology [51]. But I'd say Kamin's opinion is definitely worth mentioning. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)