Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:43, 20 May 2008

Dysgenics (people)

Dysgenics (people) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Obvious POV fork and recreation of text deleted through consensus Ramdrake (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This article was created strictly as a POV-fork to avoid the deletion of the content at the original Dysgenics article, now Dysgenics (biology). It promotes a WP:FRINGE view held by a very few people as if it were mainstream science and is thus also misleading. Also, it reprises material deleted through RfC consensus here, obviously to try to escape talk page consensus. The user who created this page has also been warned numerous times for edit warring and tendentious editing.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The article was created as a legitimate content fork of the Dysgenics article because there was controversy amongst the editors over whether the article should be about dysgenics in the biological sense or in the human population sense. The Dysgenics article has now been forked into the articles Dysgenics (biology) and Dysgenics (people). There was some discussion of moving the human population information to the Eugenics article but I started a new article because there is enough information in the Eugenics article as it is. You should take claims of POV-forking with a grain of salt. The legitimacy of the RfC on the Dysgenics article was compromised when the editor who started the RfC and his buddy kept changing the article to their preferred version after the RfC had begun; however, one idea that emerged was to have the article be about dysgenics in the biological sense, and that is why the article name was changed to "Dysgenics (biology)". Editing had begun on that article to remove the information that was not about dysgenics in the biological sense but further cleanup is needed. Here is a Google Scholar search on "dysgenics" for the past 10 years . --Jagz (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This doesn't change the fact that there was consensus that the content you restored was WP:FRINGE, and based upon a vanishingly small number of references all put forward by a couple of WP:FRINGE researchers. As such, there are also legitimate concerns of WP:NOTABILITY when basing an article on such a restricted number of references. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that it is an obvious POV-fork meant solely to circumvent the result of an RfC (linked to above) with which you disagree.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ramdrake, did you forget about your edit here? --Jagz (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: POV fork of Dysgenics. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: POV fork of Dysgenics, which itself was largely a POV fork of Eugenics. Other related articles include Richard Lynn, Pioneer Fund, Race and intelligence, The Bell Curve and other similar articles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If this article gets deleted, then you still have the problem of what to do with the human population dysgenics information. There is really not room in the Eugenics article. --Jagz (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it then, I'll find it humorous. --Jagz (talk) 05:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to Eugenics. Obvious POV-fork. There was no consensus for the creation of such an article on the dysgenics talk page. Alun (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Just undo the split and let us get back to discussing the merge at talk:eugenics. Richard001 (talk) 07:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Ramdrake is incorrect in stating that the text was deleted through consensus, which was never reached. The text was deleted through edit warring, bullying, and other obstructive behavior by Wobble (Alun), Wsiegmund, Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, and a couple of less active meat puppets. These users seem to think that wikipedia is a democracy where majority rule decides. --Zero g (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Let me get this straight: Jagz and yourself, who have both been called several times SPAs are genuine editors, while the six or more editors who all disagree with you are all meatpuppets of each other, right? I thought so...--Ramdrake (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The obstructive behavior is time consuming. --Jagz (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I find your comment here, "it is obvious to me that they are pushing an agenda of covert deprecation of Black people", to be highly questionable. Is this your motive for engaging in obstructive behavior on Misplaced Pages? --Jagz (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jagz, I was neither talking with you or about you at this point. I was saying what I think of researchers such as Rushton and Lynn, and why I object to the unquestioning promotion of their views. I don't see how that could be construed as disruptive, except to the promotion of their views.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it is all just part of a covert government conspiracy involving the CIA and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. --Jagz (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I suggest everyone focus on the merits of this AfD discussion and stop making comments aboout the other contributors. We do not want this to turn into a fingerpointing contest full of insults. Dreadstar † 01:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious POV fork. 69.105.124.201 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This seems to be split in POV not is the sense of pro vs. con, but rather distinguishes between dysgenics as an evolutionary/biological concept and dysgenics as a social/political/cultural phenomena. The article is well referenced, there are a number of cultural references suggesting that this is not a fringe subject. Malthusianism is no less controversial and that article is far less well referenced. Neither article militates for acceptance of any conclusion and both cite critical opinions. Both contribute to understanding of popular and persistent political and philosophical ideas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.35.117 (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I think that what's being mostly objected to is that most proponents of dysgenics are independently known for their very controversial views on the classification of humanity (see Lynn's IQ and the Wealth of Nations and Rushton's Race, Evolution and Behavior), and that the predicted phenomenon is indeed not occuring (IQ measurements are rising instead of falling). This is why the whole concept is most of the time considered "fringe".--Ramdrake (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Our purpose here is not to shield people from controversial views; let's leave that to fascist governments. There can be a number of factors involved in short-term and long-term IQ changes. --Jagz (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this encyclopaedia, of any encyclopaedia, is to present views according to their importance. To deliberately give more importance to a view than it has in the real world, or to present it as mainstream when it is being championed by a vanishingly small number of researchers, when it is widely contested and when evidence doesn't even support it (all true in the case of Dysgenics (people)) is misleading and thoroughly unencyclopaedic.--Ramdrake (talk) 12:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Science and technology)
• AfD debates