Talk:Racial hygiene/Archive 1

Archive 1

Miscellaneous

Gleichschalltung = synchronization

---

Any objections to editing this:

enhanced emphasis on heredity.

Is "enhanced emphasis" not redundant?

Mockingbirdbat 03:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tommy Douglas

Removed again: the point is notability. Other examples are of figures for whom eugenics was an prominent and publicly stated belief during their working careers. With Tommy Douglas, it was the subject of a thesis, but there's no evidence of a later belief in it or statements to that effect. Its sole role seems to be as idee fixe for people who want an excuse for a hostile data point about Douglas. There are far better examples: George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge... Tearlach 14:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Assimilation V.S. Racial Hygene

I am of the opinion that the section on Australia's Assimilation policy does not belong in a page devoted to racial hygiene. The concepts are diametrically opposed. Racial hygienists sought to remove "undesirable" genes from the population by contraception, sterilization and genocide. Australia's policy aimed at cultural assimilation of biracial individuals. They were both racist policies, but of very different kinds.

Seeking to create a cultural hegemony over a genetically heterogeneous population is a policy distinctly different from racial hygiene.

I think it definitely belongs elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eintheyid (talk • contribs) 02:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does no-one here mention Margaret Senger (SP?), founder of Planned Parenthood, nor mention the eugenics movement of the American Left in ca. the 1930's? Could it be that Wikipedia is strongly biased in favor of the political left? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.141.93 (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it be that no reliable sources link her to racial hygene? Please verify your speculation. . dave souza, talk 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the merger discussion?

Please discuss..... dave souza, talk 18:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be on the Eugenics talk page. Feel free to start it. --Scochran4 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No merger discussion, so no tag. . . dave souza, talk 19:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Some sort of "cross reference" between "Hygiene" and "Racial Hygiene"

Hello folks,

I began a detailed "Talk Page" on the Wikipedia article, on the word, "Hygiene". It's, of course, devoted to topics, such as "hand washing", "germ theory", and ways to keep things "clean" in places, such as Homes, Businesses, and Health Care facilities, especially Hospitals. It seems that a short, terse "disambiguation" page appears to be missing. (In fact, there is a rather humorous page, [1], in the talk section of your "Hygiene" page, where I was performing a "ass|u|me" function on myself.  :-)

I'm not aware of how to add that sort of page. Is there a "dis-ambiguous howto" on Wikipedia? I'm too busy to do it now, but would be very happy if someone would jump in, and then "bill me" for needed volunteer services, that can be negotiated, based on my "abilities" (for example, in the topic "Network and Security Administration", an issue that might be up my alley could be how to keep the "same life form" from forever changing his/her login ID's, so the admins think he/she is different. This to keep the same person from vandalizing the same web page over and over, due to differences in opinion on many topics, such as Politics and Religion. I'm sure people have seen the BOFH articles from ages ago...)

Thank you and best regards,

Kenneth Parker, Seattle, WA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea7kenp (talk • contribs) 04:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Polish persecutions - Poles were planned to be expelled from Europe.

Slavic people, mostly Polish, were to be expelled from Europe as well. See: Generalplan Ost - please do not confuse "White" with "Aryan" and "Aryan" with "subhuman" in the Nazi terminology. The marriages between Germans and Poles were strictly forbidden because of the racial hygene of the Germanic race and as we know, Poles were seen as the so called Slavic race. Yatzhek (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

False. Generalplan Ost was a Nazi plan that was not completely to do with extermination but rather resettlement, enslavement and possible extermination. All White Europeans were regarded as "Aryan" under Nazi technology.

After the Polish decrees were enacted the sexual relations between Germans and Polish slave laborers were forbidden as race defilement, this was nothing to do with the Aryan race but to do with the "honor of the German people".

The Nazis never used the term "Slavic race" and knew no such thing existed.--Windows66 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What about the Various genocides on this topic

I argue the Genocide in Rwanda stems from the Belgian colonizers' imposing a segregation between the Hutus from the Tutsi's. one could argue Apartheid stems from Racial Hygene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.81.207 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

How about some neutrality here?

There isn't anything on how important it is today for races to be pure, benefits wise. The article comes off as hostile in tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.144.172 (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this is very POV. I think a tag should be added to the top of the article. 132.198.38.239 (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

POV because it isn't racist enough? Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't be snide, it is offensive and frankly immature. This article is biased against racialism, and leaves the reader with a distinctly negative view of this important scientific development (that being the recognition of the importance of heredity and genetic diversity in human population). 132.198.38.239 (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't being snide, I was asking a serious question. The first IP is unhappy that it doesn't discuss "how important it is today for races to be pure" - "racial purity" is pure racism, and you seem to have agreed with that IP. Dougweller (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Movements outside of Nazi Germany?

The lead alludes to racial hygiene movements of the early 20th century outside of Germany, but the body doesn't discuss such movements. Either the lead should be made more specific or the body should be expanded to include some discussion of related social movements mentioned in the lead. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 16:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Feedback on article edits

Hey Dghosh5, I thought you made some good and necessary additions to this article. I have a few suggestions to improve your additions further. One really easy thing to fix is grammar mistakes and capitalization errors. There are quite a few places where proper nouns aren't capitalized, such as 'Holocaust' and 'Organization' as part of the name World Health Organization. This would make the article look more professional. Secondly, I think the paragraph on origins needs more context. Perhaps you can give a larger picture of the concept of racial hygiene, then delve into specifics of German Social Darwinists and such. This sentence at the end of the paragraph is especially confusing: "British Social Darwinist voiced his opinions on the race problem by saying that diseases such as scrofula and tuberculosis were “our racial friends” because they rid society of the weak of constitution." I am also not sure that the experiments you discuss in the 'Racial Medicine Beyond the Nazis' section are pertinent to the issue of racial hygiene. They are examples of unethical experiments on different races of people, but at least with Tuskegee, I don't think the aim was for racial hygiene. So the section isn't really relevant to the concept of racial hygiene. Thanks! Acewind88 (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Great job with the article. I found it to be a really interesting read and your additions were relevant and imporved the discussion of Racial Hygiene. It is really great overall but I there are just a few very minro grammar typos here and there but overall really great job! Amohan12 (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Expanding page

Hello! I am the student editor for this page and hope to make this more comprehensive and detailed. Let me know if there are any other points i should cover besides the ones mentioned in the comments below! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dghosh5 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, what is a student editor? That role has completely passed me by , it suggests ownership of a page, I think that may not be in line with Wikipedia editorial guidelines especially WP:OWNERSHIP . Hmcst1 (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Racial Hygiene In Germany

This wiki needs some more concrete evidence for some of the statements made and additional information in order to help the flow between points. There could be more information about how the Germans thought racial hygiene to be a scientific field and how they used racial hygiene during WWII. At the end of the first sentence of the third paragraph in the “In Germany” section when the mentally ill are brought up in association with being purged from Europe, I plan to insert information on Hitler’s orders to kill the mentally ill under the cover of euthanasia, which is allowing death in order to avoid suffering or pain. I will then continue with how this mass execution of the mentally ill led to the methods and equipment being used on Jews in WWII to continue onto the next sentence about precursors to the concentration camps with better flow. This includes how the gas chambers and staff that were used to kill the mentally ill were all transferred to concentration camps because the materials and resources needed to efficiently kill an incredibly large number of people already existed and had been proven successful. I will also include how SS soldiers were trained in the research facilities that specialized in racial hygiene research and that these doctors who specialized in racial hygiene studies executed many horrific experiments on the prisoners in concentration camps. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Amanda15151 (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

References

• This looks like a good topic area! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge into eugenics?

Is there a reason not to just merge this article into Eugenics? As far as I can tell, it's just be another (dated) term for eugenics, and while we could theoretically have an article covering it as a term, the current article just replicates the Eugenics article. If it is going to remain as an article, we'd need to completely scour it of any sources that don't use the term "racial hygiene" specifically, since this is only really supportable as a separate article if it's about that specific term and nothing else. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.255.227 (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - the article Eugenics does not currently use the term "racial hygiene". We could add it as a subsection of the "history" section... but perhaps it would make more sense to merge Racial hygiene with History of eugenics. Yaris678 (talk) 14:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Uncomfortable with all this especially the title

I'm not going to try and edit this article , I think it demonstrates that there is a limit to what wikipedia can achieve and this goes beyond that limit. My gut instinct is that it should be deleted. This is a fringe theory (or more accurately an arbitrary collection of fringe theories) , now thoroughly discredited , and should only be covered in wikipedia in the appropriate context. IMO Giving Racial Hygiene it's own wikipedia page gives undue weight to the subject matter by giving it it's own context. It's notable that there are missing citations in the lede , thus the claim that these policies were pursued throughout Europe, North America, and Southern Africa is unsupported.

There is a wikipedia page on Scientific racism shouldn't Racial hygiene be in there ? Perhaps this should be merged. I am certainly no expert on this topic but who is? I'm not suggesting wikipedia should erase history but how we cover it is important , and this article gives the perspective of something discredited that was used for political purposes. I think that is very dangerous, there doesn't seem to be a cohesive reason for what this article is trying to achieve. Much of what is in this article is very interesting, I would never have learned of the Tuskegee experiment if I hadn't come here for example but that could all be covered elsewhere . Could one of the regular editors enlighten me , please what are we trying to achieve with this article ? And how is that distinct from the article on Scientific racism. You simply wouldn't use the term racial hygiene today would you ? Most people I think would deem the words as well as the idea offensive. So shouldn't we find another phrase at least to title this page? Hmcst1 (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I also note there is another page on the Tuskegee syphilis experiment and one on Eugenics Hmcst1 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that it would be possible to write a decent article on "racial hygiene", but the current one falls way short. It may be better just to make it a redirect to scientific racism.

Part of the problem is that there is a big cross-over with eugenics as practised in the early 20th century. We don't want to imply that eugenics = racial hygiene... but for a lot of people in the early 20th century it was hard to differentiate.

The obvious analogy is with breeding animals. People thought that races should be kept separate in the same way that breeders keep pedigree breeds of animals separate. We all know the problems with in-breading in pedigree animals... and nowadays people recognise the problems with treating people in this way... but that's how a lot of people thought in the early 20th century. Not just Nazis. Even many people who didn't like the idea of racial superiority thought that something bad would happen if races were allowed to mix.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Well... I've made a start. We could probably cut out more of the stuff on Nazi eugenics (there is a separate article on that, after all) and expand the work of Alfred Ploetz. Yaris678 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits, as I do not see a consensus here for them. Please explain --- with specificity --- why the material you cut out is "off topic". Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Most of the stuff I removed was about medicine specific to a race, or about doctors who thought medical experimentation on people was OK, because of the their race. These have little to do we "racial hygiene". I also removed some stuff that was about eugenics more generally. As Hmcst1 pointed out, there is already an article on that. If that explanation is not specific enough for you, please read WP:ONUS and start again. Yaris678 (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, are you going to respond to my post? Yaris678 (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am, when I have time to respond cogently. In the meantime, the lack of a response is not an excuse for your edit warring. Remember, there is WP:No deadline. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Please stop accusing me of edit warring. It takes two to tango, and you are the one who isn't discussing the change. Yaris678 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

This (below) is edit warring, as you attempted to restore your changes to the article twice after they were disputed by me. All I did was restore to the status quo ante, as required by WP:BRD. If you'd stop distracting me, you'd probably get a substantive response to your above comment sooner rather than later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• 16:00, 6 December 2017‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,918 bytes) (+8,542)‎ . . (Undid revision 814068896 by Yaris678 (talk) Excuse me, *you're* changing the article from a long-time status quo, therefore *you* have to get a consensus to do so)
• 13:50, 6 December 2017‎ Yaris678 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,376 bytes) (-8,542)‎ . . (Undid revision 814024767 by Beyond My Ken (talk) - No justification for inclusion given on talk page)
• 08:56, 6 December 2017‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,918 bytes) (+8,542)‎ . . (Undid revision 814024179 by Yaris678 (talk) Consider this a response, please. Discuss why it is "off topic" on the talk page.)
• 08:51, 6 December 2017‎ Yaris678 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,376 bytes) (-8,542)‎ . . (Undid revision 814023598 by Beyond My Ken (talk) The stuff I cut out was all massively off topic. I did join the discussion on the talk page 2 days ago. No one responded.)
• 08:47, 6 December 2017‎ Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs)‎ . . (18,918 bytes) (+8,542)‎ . . (Undid revision 814023287 by Yaris678 (talk) No. You can;t do this amount of shearing away without discussing it first and getting a consensu to do it.)
• 08:45, 6 December 2017‎ Yaris678 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,376 bytes) (-8,542)‎ . . (Cut the article down massively. Still needs work.)

To answer your question...

No, your justification for the removal of long-standing material from the article is not nearly specific enough. In fact, it's pretty much just hand-waving. You want to make deep changes in an article? That's fine, that's no problem, but when your changes are disputed by another editor, you need to discuss them -- in detail -- on the talk page, and get a consensus from the editors there to make those changes. There is no WP:ONUS on me to justify leaving the article as it is, the onus is entirely on you to justify the deletions you want to make.

Simply because there is overlap between two articles does not justify removing the material from the more general article, as long as the overlap is not too great, and the general article deals with the issues in a general way. And the material about doctors thinking it was OK to perform experiments on "lesser" human is definitely pertinent to this topic, as an example of how concepts of racial hygiene radiate into other areas.

Now, I'm not saying that I must be absolutely correct about this -- I could very well be wrong, but you have to make a convincing argument about what you think needs to be deleted, with specifics. I don't necessarily disagree that the article could be shaped somewhat, but we need to establish on this page exactly in which ways that needs to happen. So far, that has not occurred.

I kook forward to your argument in favor of your excisions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I see that you still haven't read WP:ONUS. Yaris678 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

And I see that you still haven't provided an argument justifying your edits, so they will continue to be deleted until you do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the deletions; these sections are clearly redundant with Eugenics and aren't really about the term 'racial hygiene' specifically. Beyond that, "no consensus" isn't itself a viable reason for a revert unless you're leaning on previously-stated arguments against the edit you're reverting (and in this case, nobody made any arguments against it until your paragraph much later.) I also think that Yaris678 initial explanation for the deletions was adequate, if brief, and that reverting those deletions with essentially no explanation at all is the main issue here. He probably should have elaborated more before reverting you in turn, but large-scale reverts like yours should generally have an explanation, or at least an associated detailed objection that you can point to so they can address your points; in particular, a revert demanding that he produce consensus, when there had been no previous objections on the talk page (and where his edits can reasonably be construed as trying to address an objection made at length by another editor) seems a bit silly to me. Even if you found his explanations for the deletion inadequate, you needed to voice your objection more clearly so he can formulate a response. He's also right that you need to read WP:ONUS - in the absence of consensus, the default is to exclude. Usually I'd agree that long-standing material can have a degree of presumed consensus, but this article has received very little attention or discussion, and much of that includes objections of various types; it's at least worth stopping and discussing rather than reverting to include based on that limited history. But, to get back on topic - my feeling is that any source or section that doesn't use the term "racial hygiene" specifically is off-topic for this article, since this is logically an article about that term in particular. ---Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• The section on "modern racial medicine" really ought to go at the very least, as it invites a huge can of WP:SYN worms by associating some truly horrible practices with modern medical genetics that happen to coincide with race. I'd almost expect this article to start linking to medical genetics of Jews and discussing genetic conditions common to Ashkenazi Jews. No, I think Aquillion has it right here, this is an article about the phrase "racial hygiene" and the concept where that phrase was used. Everything else is WP:COATRACKing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Aquillion and Mendaliv: Thank you for providing the argument and justification that has been missing. Aqquillion, I disagree that Yaris687's statement was sufficient, as is shown by the completeness of your own explanation. Consensus is clearly in favor of the changes -- and perhaps others -- so I leave it to others to make those changes, with no dispute from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "modern racial medicine" should go, but some other parts, and especially those related to Nazi should stay. My very best wishes (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Section headings

Let us discuss the section headings. The history is:

• Sections headings were added by BeŻet and PaleoNeonate.
• I removed them stating "The start of the first section is not about Nazi Germany. The next section is about the status after WWII, but just saying "Status" implies it is current."
• Beyond My Ken undid my change, stating ""I don't lke them" is not sufficient, Discuss on talk page, please"

I am happy to discuss it here. I don't have strong objections to there being sections headings. I just think that they should not be misleading. As I said in my edit summary "The start of the first section is not about Nazi Germany. The next section is about the status after WWII, but just saying "Status" implies it is current."

Yaris678 (talk) 07:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about them, but when I saw that the last paragraph seemed out of the scope of the new "Nazi Germany" section and about post-war, I split it with the "Status" title. Perhaps that the "Nazi Germany" subtitle could be "Germany", although it would not reflect current Germany... —PaleoNeonate – 07:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please review my latest change. I have the impression that with these, more material could be added in the development and scientific status sections as necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 08:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the last heading. Yaris678 (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems fine to me, another idea I had was "Post-war". We could return to "Scientific status" if we expanded the section with modern research that contradicts scientific racism and Race (human categorization), etc. —PaleoNeonate – 18:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Adding New Information

Hello! I plan to expand this page by adding information to a few sections. I believe this article could use some clarification on topics including: the belief of Nazi racial hygiene, how it was created and how it was meant to help the Nazi's. I will define many terms used in Nazi language and terms that pertain to racial hygiene. Some of the terms I will define are: racial hygiene, racial pollution, the Final Solution and racial pollution. I will also state how these terms were used in the Nazis' beliefs and life. I will add more information about the three programs that were the results of racial hygiene and state what the programs were about and how they led to the idea of the Final Solution and the killings of Jews, homosexuals, Communists, Gypsies, Slavs and war prisoners. Those three programs are: the Sterilization Law, the Nuremberg Laws and the euthanasia operation. Lastly, I will add information about the human experiments and how scientists including Josef Mengele used prisoners from concentration camps as their test subjects. I will be adding the source "Nazi Doctors, Racial Medicine, and Human Experimentation" written by Robert N. Proctor, which can be found in the book, "The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code:Human Rights in Human Experimentation" written by George Annas and Micheal Grodin. Robert N. Proctor is a Professor of the History of Science at Stanford University. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Gabby628 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Watch out for writing errors – know the difference between Nazis, Nazi’s, and Nazis’. “Racial pollution” – repetition. Since you're suggesting a fairly substantive addition, please make sure the data you add fits in organically with the information that is already there. There already is information on various issues you raise, e.g. the Holocaust, so please make sure you take that into account.Chapmansh (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd go a little further than Chapmansh. @Gabby628:, the subject of this article is a controversial and sensitive one, and it therefore would be best to get a consensus here on this talk page for any changes you plan before you add them to the article. Please post any specific changes you plan to make here so that they can be evaluated. I'm not talking about broad generalities such as your comment above, but instead the actual words and paragraphs you want to add or change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixing ping @Gabby628: - please see previous comment from me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken, I am Gabby628's instructor - whose additions are part of a college class assignment. Gabby628 will provide more detail in the next few hours, on what they plan to add. The assignment of making the actual edits is due tomorrow. Thanks.Chapmansh (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Chapmansh: Please make it clear to Gabby628 that their contributions will not be evaluated by other Wikipedians by a different standard than any other edit to the encyclopedia simply because it is part of a class project. I would still advise, given the controversial and complex nature of the subject, that they post their proposed change to this talk page first, and not add it directly to the article. This, of course, is not required, but I highly recommend it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Hello. I plan to add the following information to under the development section.

During the end of the nineteenth century,German racial hygienists like Alfred Ploetz and Wilhelm Schallmayer regarded certain people as inferior, and opposed their ability to procreate. These theorists believed that all human behaviors, including crime, alcoholism, and divorce, were caused by genetics. Scientific institutes in Nazi Germany during the 1930's and 1940's studied genetics, created genetic registries, and researched twins. Nazi scientists also studied blood, and developed theories on the supposed racial specificity of blood types, with the goal of distinguishing an "Aryan" from a Jewish person by examining their blood. In the 1930's, Josef Mengele, a doctor in the Nazi ranks, provided human remains taken from Auschwitz - blood, limbs and other body parts - to be studied at the institutes. Harnessing racial hygiene as justification, the scientists used prisoners from Auschwitz and other concentration camps as test subjects for their human experiments. I plan to add the following information to the section Nazi Germany, under a new paragraph about the Sterilization Law. Theories on racial hygiene led to an elaborate sterilization program, with the goal of eliminating what the Nazis regarded as diseases harmful to the human race. Sterilized individuals, reasoned the Nazis, would not pass on their diseases to their children. The Sterilization Law, passed on July 14,1933, also known as the Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring, called for the sterilization of any person who had a genetically determined illness. The Sterilization Law was created by some of Germany's top racial hygienists, including: Fritz Lenz, Alfred Ploetz, Ernst Rudin, Heinrich Himmler, Gerhard Wagner and Fritz Thyssen. Robert N. Proctor has shown that the list of illnesses targeted included "feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, manic depression, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, genetic blindness, and "severe alcoholism."" The estimated number of citizens who were sterilized in Nazi Germany ranges from 350,00 to 400,000. As a result of the Sterilization Law, sterilization medicine and research soon became one of the largest medical industries.

Gabby628 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Were are your sources? None of this can possibly be added without citations from reliable sources to support every fact presented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have missed entirely the point here. You were to post the changes here and get a consensus for the, before you added them to the article. Instead you did both things simultaneuously. Please don;t do this again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2018 (UTC)