Talk:Nazi eugenics

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Skibinsm0505. Peer reviewers: Panellmi6154, Nathan1152.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juan.Villabona001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

i dont understand the picture because i don't understand german. Wackywobert (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nazi propaganda poster: "Weak reproduction in superior beings leads to drop in population quality." Ethnogenic poster on the fall of the birthrate appealing for the nation's consent to mass sterilization, around 1938

If the handicapped (low value) people will have 4 children and high-value 2 children...Xx236 (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The killings took place from September 1939 until the end of the war in 1945; from 275,000 to 300,000[a] people were killed at extermination centres in psychiatric hospitals in Germany and Austria, occupied Poland and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. The 70,000 is based on Western German archives.Xx236 (talk) 13:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

You really need to be clearer in your comments. Are you suggesting new language to replace a current statement in the article? What do you base this statement on -- what are the reliable sources? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have quoted Aktion T4.

This page should be rewritten according to reliable sources. Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have corrected reference 3, it's a picture, no numbers.

References 4 and 6 are obsolete, 1991 and 1988.Xx236 (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Facts don't become obsolete unless there is new research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please read Aktion T4. It describes the new research. Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your edit is wrong. You link a series of picture not connected to the problem, incorrectly described. If you prefer images of victims use https://collections.ushmm.org/search?q=EUTHANASIA%20(PATIENTS/VICTIMS)&search_field=Photo%20/%20Film%20Keyword Xx236 (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I believe, he or she is referring to this cited note from the Action T4 page: "As many as 100,000 people may have been killed directly as part of Action T-4. Mass euthanasia killings were also carried out in the Eastern European countries and territories Nazi Germany conquered during the war. Categories are fluid, and no definitive figure can be assigned but historians put the total number of victims at around 300,000." So for T4 itself, it is estimated at 100k; for all "euthanasia killings", 300k. Kierzek (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

He or she sees also three sources in the infobox.

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/nazi-euthanasie-forscher-oeffnen-inventar-des-schreckens-a-267983.htmlXx236 (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The T4 was officially closed in August 1941, killings were continued in several forms.

70 273 is a number of people killed in gas-chambers in the 6 main killing centers in Germany.

I have explained my position regarding the picture above. Please revert, or change the descrption.Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is still entirely unclear to me what change you're asking for. Can you restate it, please, explicitly and completely in the form of "this text 'XXXXXXX' should be replaced with this text 'YYYYYYY'." Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The only recent changes of the page are your reverts of the picture link. The old link lists a number of pictures, not exactly connected with the subject, so I have replaced it with the exact link. Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please revert your last revert.Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, no. I won't revert it until I understand it, and I simply don't understand what you're getting at. If someone else understands what Xx235 means, and agrees that the change is beneficial to the article, please feel free to revert me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry you don't understand that a link should lead to a described object. I'm sorry that you revert my edits, you don't undertstand. A better solution is to learn to understand. "Close-up of Richard Jenne, the last child killed by the head nurse at the Kaufbeuren-Irsee euthanasia facility". Where do you see the close-up? I obtain a list of thousands of pictures. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's allegedly a close-up of Richard Jenne, killed by a nurse after the war.

"On May 29, 1945, almost a month after the unconditional surrender of Hitler's Thousand Year Reich, which lasted barely a decade, 4-year-old Richard Jenne was administered a lethal injection by a nurse at the children's ward of the Kaufbeuren-Irsee Mental Institution outside Munich." [1]

The link is apparently dead and I'm unable to find the picture. Please remove the link or correct it. Xx236 (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The link is not dead, it opens fine for me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

The link doesn't work for me.

Pleasre describe what you see - the close-up or something different? - The last time I have obtained thousands of Holocaust pictures not exactly connected with the subject.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see a long page of text interspersed with images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see the same as BMK when clicking on the link. Kierzek (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

They keep moving their content around :( I found a direct link. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 05:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Anyone still editing this article? I feel it could be much longer and better and more detailed. Just for comparison, the article on the Nazis' anti-smoking campaign is far more thorough, yet eugenics were much more important for the Nazis. Cleopatran Apocalypse (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Beyond_My_Ken - re the edit involved .... the IP editor is just right.

The cite refers to ideology and politics in Germany, not science or any mention to pseudoscience.

The article describing "social policies" uses a cite referring to racial ideology. Neither "social policy" nor "ideology" has anything to do with science. The cite is not described faking of science, and the cite does not use the word pseudoscience.

I think that's expectable -- why would a serious historical work use a vague pejorative about a different field ?

You can check for yourself at Google books Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews - Peter Longerich - Google Books

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It appears to me that the initial sentence is unsourced, but is justified in the lede as a summary of sourced material which is presented in the body of the article. It is the second sentence which is sourced by the given reference. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Beyond_My_Ken - That would be a decent position except I see no such content in the body to support the first sentence, which is the edit in question, so please specify what you think is supporting that phrasing. (Copy-paste it will do.) There is no use of wording for "pseudoscience" in the body, and nothing is related to some faking of science. There is instead prominent mention of eugenics for what was viewed as hereditary diseases at the time by science based on a program in California, although the poster there is confusing the forced sterilization program with euthanasia. No faking of science involved. There is also prominent mention in the body of the concept of racial hygiene, which is again the social policy referring to a racial ideology. Nothing about science there. So still, while it seems clearly despicable ideology and politics in Germany, it seems not any content or mention of pseudoscience. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The whole damn article describes a pseudoscience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Beyond_My_Ken - The "whole article" is clearly not doing so. The first subsection for example, "Relationship with the U.S. eugenics movement", is history, nothing there. In fact there is *no* section here describing faking of science or use of the word "pseudoscience", it is instead describing eugenics as accepted as science at that time of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The article describes Nazi Germany use of the concepts for political power and a social program of racial purity that was despicable ideology and human rights abuses, but the vague pejorative "pseudoscience" is not the right one for those and doing that does not help the article. Look, WP:BURDEN as part of WP:V policy requires showing explicit support with cites; and the guideline WP:LEAD recommends that the lead be a summary of the most important parts in the body. I don't think that's there and think the IP editor was right and it should be removed -- do you agree or do you have further edits to include that would give directly supporting detail ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The lead sentence Nazi eugenics refers to the social policies of eugenics in Nazi Germany, composed of various pseudoscientific ideas about genetics. is equivalent to writing Nazi eugenics refers to the social policies of eugenics in Nazi Germany, composed of various ideas about genetics which are now considered pseudoscientific.

So I don't see any issue here; the former is just less wordy. --WikiLinuz {talk} 06:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I think this is a question about semantics and implication rather than logic. If pseudoscientific means "at odds with mainstream science" then many of the ideas weren't really pseudoscientific at the time. You have a whole bunch of fairly mainstream scientists at the time (with important concepts in science named after them) expressing similar views. If you take pseudoscientific to mean "theoretical ideas where there was insufficient research extrapolated far beyond they should driven by social forces rather than science" then they were indeed pseudoscientific. Talpedia 18:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia articles are written from a 3rd person POV. Nazi eugenics and scientific racism are pseudoscientific from that POV, therefore we write it as such. --WikiLinuz {talk} 18:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:WikiLinuz -- I will apply the rewording you offered as at least not mangling the chronology, although it still is not supported in the article. (And seems still misguided to portray the Holocaust as a science discussion.) It is poor practice to phrase something in lead that is not in the article, particularly the first line. The policy WP:V states a WP:BURDEN of showing verification in the article, and WP:ONUS for consensus that it deserves mention -- which I think normally winds up showing it is relatively common/major in coverage and not just a remote google find. Also, the MOS:LEAD guideline suggests that lead elements should give a summary of the important parts of the body -- particularly MOS:FIRST and MOS:OPEN recommend the first line just define the topic, not vent a vague pejorative never mentioned again even in concept. It really seems a disservice to not be clear that this was a human rights abuse of corrupt politics and odious social programs -- it's not about the science at all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I mean... you said the statements were about the logically consistency of statements. I gave you an argument why the mightn't be the case - depending on the meaning of the word pseudoscientific. I don't really see the relevance of third person point of view.

Whatever we write should be verifiable and should endeavor to stay close the sources... I'm just saying that we can probably find sources discussing how related ideas were within the scientific mainstream at the time and that you can trace the influence of these ideas on Nazi policy. Talking about something being pseudoscientific while also being mainstream science at the time might misleading. Saying that most of the ideas are false, influenced by racism and now pseudoscientific might be less so. Talpedia 21:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any issues with the current revision (and I'm not planning on restoring the old revision).

Sources do say these ideas are now considered pseudoscientific given advances in science and genetics (see race and genetics), and racial taxonomy was considered "scientific" at that contemporary period (I'm not saying it never was considered scientific); it's just that those techniques are obsolete and most of them are deliberately pseudoscientific to promote Nordicism (writings of non-specialists Nordicism apologists). The aryan race article summarises the concept, mainstream adoption of these concepts among scholars, 19th-century racial anthropology, and state policies based on those concepts. Anyway, since we agree with the current revision let's conclude this discussion here. --WikiLinuz {talk} 22:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply