Talk:Ian Dowbiggin

Quotebox

Please note that the quotebox is uncited because the source is problematic to wikipedia for spam reasons. See history of page for details. ► RATEL ◄ 05:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bookreviews as source?

I have severe problems with bookreviews as source for important statements. Is it possible to replace the reviews of After Marx and Freud, is Darwin next to tumble? and A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America with better sources? It is very difficult to judge if the commentators correctly summarized the contents of the books or that they have twisted a bit. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And you suggest replace them with what? Quotes ate other books, but also book reviews when published in reliable sources (like academic journals, etc.) are also reliable and verifiable references. If you find another book review or quote showing that the other review has "twisted a bit" or even a megabyte, then you are allowed to provide it. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What I ask is: Is it possible to replace the bookreview with a better source. I do not know if there is a better source, but I hope so. No way of removing anything. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

For instance, on reliability of the review, about the linkage between eugencis, darwinism and euthanasia, stated by Dowbiggin, it seems pretty rightfully adjusted as it can be quoted on the self Dowbiggin's book, who explicity says there: euthanasia movement, darwinism and eugenics movement are closely intertwined. A merciful end: the euthanasia movement in modern America Dowbiggin, pag 15 and pag 65 -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

sigh Did you read my question? Did you understand it? I don't think so... Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were able to infere from my answer that it is not necessary to replace the current source as it is a good source, well adjusted, reliable and verifiable. I hope this plain and direct answer will satisfy you and your computer. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I prefer the books as sources over bookreviews. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Gay rights

Somebody is trying to remove "inconvenient" parts of this article. Especially the part about gay rights and his connection to the pro-life movement are regularly removed, although they are properly sourced. To my opinion, those parts should be kept into the article! The contested parts van be found here (pro-life), here (opponent of euthanasia) and here (gay rights).

Connected with this: user "Idowbiggin" (user contributions) and "Witte22" (user contribution) have only edited on Ian Dowbiggin, doing the same type of edits. Sockpuppets???? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's clearly the same person. He does not seem to understand how WP works. You cannot censor material you do not like, or don't want known. Any further reversions of the cited article will lead to a report at a noticeboard.  Jabbsworth  00:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have given Witte22 some explanation on his talkpage. Hope it helps... Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The blocked socks may well have had excellent points at times. I've only spot checked one reference: the one behind Dowbiggin has linked the gay rights movement to abortion rights and said both reflect a "hatred of Christian moral teaching". I am concerned this is inappropriate. And possibly a BLP issue. It could simply be the source's OR that that was Dowbiggin's opinion. Why is the source reliable for academics' views? I don't see why it would be one. Jesanj (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why you think the reporting of an obscure, pro-life academic's views on a pro-life new site is a BLP issue. Use material from the BLP policy to make your point.  Jabbsworth  15:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Because of the bias of the source, they could easily be offering their own biased opinion of what he said. He could very likely not have used that meaning, or would have argued otherwise. I don't need to go to BLP policy. This is common sense in my mind. Go to RSN if you must. Jesanj (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't refactor my comments. I have more sources for that statement, and there are others too. These statements have been carried for 8 years at sites IDowb. himself clearly supports. Additionally, I have found statements hostile to gays in his books. Use Google Scholar.  Jabbsworth  15:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the article should use scholarly sources: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ian_Dowbiggin. Jesanj (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at what he says in The Quest for Mental Health: A Tale of Science, Medicine, Scandal, Sorrow. He implies that the American Psychiatry Association suffered a "serious blow to its reputation" by delisting homosexuality as a mental disorder! he's clearly anti-gay.  Jabbsworth  15:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've just added a source that puts this beyond question [1] I suggest you withdraw the BLP case.  Jabbsworth  15:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• How can you add verify cred. tags after I gave that source? You have to be kidding me!  Jabbsworth  15:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like you added another "source" meaning perhaps the same source just reposed at another bogus website with no editorial oversight or reputation for accuracy. Jesanj (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the RS noticeboard and get a ruling.  Jabbsworth  16:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I will if BLPN says that's where it should be discussed. Jesanj (talk) 16:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ian_Dowbiggin_2 --JN466 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

attempt to bring this BLP in line with policy reverted

[2] was an edit intended to remove argumentative language, and to bring the article in line with WP:BLP. the edit was reverted with the edit summary:

Please use the talkpage first as these alterations are controversial

I consider the edit to have been quite uncontroversial, but am more than willing to see discussion thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I will bring all six major changes here, but give me a bit of time to do that... Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

As none of them, IMO, are "major" except insofar as to comply with Wikipedia policies, I would ask you do so STAT. Collect (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

To do what, STAT??? Not a clue what you mean by that. I have restored the changes in the Anti-Catholicism section, because they turned out to be an improvement, although I had to read it three times to really see what you had done and where the old text went cripple. The half sourced statement at the end is now removed. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It is okay when you call me overly cautious. But with the (battle)history of this article and the battles at related articles, make me appreciate a slow but thorough way of operating manouvering instead of the bold move. It would have been nice when mr. Dowbiggin could participate in the discussion, but unfortunately that is not directly possible. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC) PS. Mr. Dowbiggin could use the mail function...

Euthanasia

There are three major changes in this section. Noting that the article is sensitive and has a history of battles, it seems better to me to discuss them before launching them.

Change 1

Old text

“ Dowbiggin has written extensively on the history of the euthanasia movement, including A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America (2003) and A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and Medicine (2005). His works link Darwinism to the euthanasia movement, and he has argued that "the ideological justification for euthanasia lies not in the advanced medical technologies of the late 20th century, but in the social Darwinism, eugenics, and utilitarianism of the late 19th century", presenting the movement as utilitarian and anticlerical. This focus has been criticised, with Dowbiggin having been accused of overemphasising the relationship between eugenics and euthanasia, and of muddying "important conceptual and practical distinctions" of the different aspects of euthanasia. Meanwhile, the Canadian Historical Association praised A Merciful End as "detached from partisan views." ”

Text after edit Collect

“ Dowbiggin has written on the history of the euthanasia movement, including A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America (2003) and A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and Medicine (2005). His works link Darwinism to the euthanasia movement. Dowbiggin has been accused of overemphasising the relationship between eugenics and euthanasia, and of confusing the different aspects of euthanasia. Meanwhile, the Canadian Historical Association praised A Merciful End as "detached from partisan views." ”

Issue: removal of sourced claims Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No substtance removed at all -- I do not have any idea why this is in any way controversial. Collect (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Change 2

Old text

“ He has spoken against both euthanasia legislation and Darwinism, and has argued that the Netherlands shows how a slippery slope can form, where a "permissive attitude to assisted suicide" can lead to other changes. On Darwinism, Dowbiggin has argued that with the overthrow of the theories of Marx and Freud, Darwinism may be next, and he has asked if Darwinism needs to be replaced with something else. ”

Text after edit Collect

“ He opposes euthanasia legalization, and has said that the Netherlands shows how a slippery slope can form, where a "permissive attitude to assisted suicide" leads to other changes. ”

Issue: removal of sourced claims Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The claim about "Darwinism" and Dowbiggin is not found in the first cite. Nor in the second cite. In fact, it thus is an uncited claim which must be removed. That is a huge no-no on any WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Darwin was in the third references, the one you have cut out in your text... Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But the 3rd ref was not for the sentence where "Darwinism" is pkaced, and combining the two consepts using such disparate references runs afoul of WP:SYNTH. Sorry - the edit was correct. Collect (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Change 3

Old text

“ Dowbiggin has given speeches at a 2005 Canadian pro-life movement conference, and the 2003 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition symposium. In one speech, he stated that euthanasia, eugenics, sex education, population control, gay rights and abortion all have something in common: they are connected by their “fervent dedication to over-turning centuries-old conceptions of life and death.” ”

Text after edit Collect

“ Dowbiggin spoke at a 2005 Canadian pro-life movement conference, and at the 2003 Euthanasia Prevention Coalition symposium. ”

Issue: removal of sourced claims Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Proper edit since it covers the essentials. Iterating material elsewhere in the BLP is not helping the article survive AfD.Collect (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sterilazation

There are two major changes in this section. Noting that the article is sensitive and has a history of battles, it seems better to me to discuss them before launching them.

Change 1

Old text

“ Dowbiggin, who coined the phrase "birth dearth", published the book The Sterilization Movement and Global Fertility in the Twentieth Century in 2008. The book expresses the view that, despite concerns about overpopulation as the human population passes 7 billion, problems of depopulation could rival those of global warming. ”

Text after edit Collect

“ Dowbiggin wrote the book The Sterilization Movement and Global Fertility in the Twentieth Century in 2008. The book says that problems of depopulation could rival those of global warming. ”

Issue: unexplained removal Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The observation "Despite ..." is clearly argumentation, and not part of Dowbiggin's work. The edited version is accurate and succinct and is based on the ref as cited. Collect (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Change 2

Old text

“ A review in the The New England Journal of Medicine, by Carolyn Westhoff, a longtime official of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, , found that Dowbiggin reaches a conclusion that contradicts known data: "Dowbiggin's worry that sterilization is directly responsible for birth rates that are below the replacement rate, which he expresses both in the prologue and in the final chapter of the book, is not supported by the data." On the other hand Ulf Högberg, MD,PhD, in the European Journal of Public Health, argued that "The book is most impressive, finely tuning the history between choice and compulsion of sterilization policy; sometimes it has been a fine line in between, sometimes an abyss of abuse of human rights." ”

Text after edit Collect

“ A review in the The New England Journal of Medicine, by Carolyn Westhoff, a longtime official of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, , said that Dowbiggin reaches a conclusion that "is not supported by the data." Ulf Högberg, MD,PhD, in the European Journal of Public Health, said "The book is most impressive, finely tuning the history between choice and compulsion of sterilization policy; sometimes it has been a fine line in between, sometimes an abyss of abuse of human rights." ”

Issue: unexplained removal Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly proper edit, and removing argumentation not directly in simple source. "On the other hand" "however" "argued" are all words best not used in any NPOV article. Collect (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The way you are cutting the citation removes the context. That is not done. I suggest the following text:

“ A review in the The New England Journal of Medicine, by Carolyn Westhoff, a longtime official of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, , found that Dowbiggin reaches a conclusion that contradicts known data: "Dowbiggin's worry that sterilization is directly responsible for birth rates that are below the replacement rate, (...), is not supported by the data." Ulf Högberg, MD,PhD, in the European Journal of Public Health, argued that "The book is most impressive, finely tuning the history between choice and compulsion of sterilization policy; sometimes it has been a fine line in between, sometimes an abyss of abuse of human rights." ”

Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

And you still use wording such as "argued" which is quite wrong. Edit was and remains proper. Collect (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a sterilization section?

I'm not sure a "sterilization" section should exist. I think a section "eugenics" should exist and it could even discuss sterilization (perhaps even predominantly), but I just think it's too specific of a topic heading. I'm just saying this on the basis of his book titles and this article[3], which said "History professor Ian Dowbiggin, who has written several books on medical history, euthanasia and eugenics..." If someone could demonstrate that the majority of his eugenics publications deal with this subject, I've already changed my opinion. Perhaps a medical history section deserves establishment also. That way we might be more neutral in form. Jesanj (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, he's written an entire book on the subject, just like he has on euthanasia. And both books have received a significant amount of coverage, which is why sterilization got its own section as well. Silverseren^C 00:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It often helps to read the entire article before making comments doesn't it? Nevermind me. Jesanj (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Dowbiggin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120126011340/http://www.rsc.ca/documents/media/Class_of_2011_Citations_ENG.pdf to http://www.rsc.ca/documents/media/Class_of_2011_Citations_ENG.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)