User talk:CFCF/Archive 24

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello! I cited a paper by Aron Ambrosiani last time we discussed this.[1] I'd say that is a better source. Again: it was not 'the first institute in the world performing research into "racial biology"' which my source clarifies. This claim that it was the first in the world is what the relevance hinges on. Edaen (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your change to "first government-funded". This is not the claim. There was government-funded race-biolocal research at universities. The claim, by Herman Lundborg himself, was that it was the first independant government-funded institute. It is not correct even in this narrow sense. The Soviet institute was older. Edaen (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC
(edit conflict) — Right, fixed. However other sources claim it is, and the standard on Wikipedia is then to present both views, not remove all mention of something. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
No it is not Wikipedia standard to give opposing sides equal weight when one is clearly wrong. The claim by Lundborg was self-serving and later used by Jan Myrdal to argue that the Swedish public administration was racist to the core. Myrdal's 1972 article is probably at the origin of this narrative.[2] Edaen (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
According to this line on page 4:

Med Lundborg som föreståndare kunde världens första rasbiologiska institut med stöd av allmänna medel slå upp sina portar i januari 1922.

It seems quite clear there is no mention of independence, just that it is a institute which focuses primarily on racial biology. I'd be happy to see sources for the Soviet institute(s) and believe they would be worthy of mention in the article as well. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Lundborg claimed there were 35 institutes. That the Swedish institute, presumably as opposed to all the others, was government funded is of doubtful relevance.
Att förespråkarna för ett rasbiologiskt institut kunde hänvisa till internationella förebilder står alltså klart. Flera debattörer hänvisar till institut i Norge, Tyskland, Schweiz, Storbritannien och USA. Lundborg går till överdrift med sina trettiofem institutioner, men att Sverige inte var först med att institutionalisera rasbiologin är tydligt.
Faktum kvarstår dock: Sverige var först med ett statligt rasbiologiskt institut. Frågan är dock hur mycket det statliga stödet verkligen påverkade rasbiologins vetenskapliga status – ...
When Ambrosiani writes that Sweden was first to institutionalize racial biology, i find it contradicted by the preceeding text and guess it is a nod to the established narrative. Edaen (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
You don't think that you are cherry-picking support for a line you've already decided on? Edaen (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There are discussions on svwp.[3] and borttagen information. Edaen (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
From that talk page:
Weindling har på sid 185 i sin text en tabell över olika eugeniska/rasbiologiska forskningsinstitut i världen, vilket inleds med Eugenics Records Office i London 1905. Andra grundas i Norge 1906, USA 1910 och i Tyskland 1918. Helt statligt finansierade institut finns i Tyskland och i Sovjet (Leningrad), det senare grundat 1921. Uppgiften om att Sverige "var först" är en skrytformulering som återfinns i äldre utgåvor av Nordisk familjebok.
Check Weindling. Edaen (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the sources this time round, I will go through them and see what additions/retractions can be made. To me and I think to many others it seems important to note that the Swedish institute was the first institute legitimized through government funding — this is hardly of doubtful relevance. Neither am I cherry-picking considering I've found this or similar claims in nearly every source I've come across. Are your quotes from the 1972 Myrdal reference? What makes that one exceptionally credible? And if it is so credible, why do newer sources not corroborate its claims? Does it give the names of the Soviet institutes? It seems relevant to mention these as well, and if we have names it is much simpler to find information that could finish this debate. However, regardless if these are older, the fact that the Swedish institute has been claimed to be first is worthy of mention – so far there are no other positions, so it seems accurate to say it is the first. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe the narrative was created by Jan Myrdal. The other sources you have read take, more or less, Myrdal's article as a starting point. The origin of all of those sources are Lundborg himself. Just because a statement is repeated time and again doesn't make it any truer. The institutes offical or preeminent status seems to be dearly wanted but the foundations for the claim are stretced or poorly warranted by the sources. At the time, those lobbying for the institute meant that there were several, both government-funded and not, similar institutes.
Prof. Kristine Bonnevie är en av Norges mest bekanta forskare på ärftlighetsområdet. Hon har personlig professur vid Kristiania universitet och är föreståndare för institutionen för ärftlighetsforskning, ett institut vars motsvarighet Sverge alltjämt väntar på, trots att de vetenskapliga krafterna icke saknas. (Dagens Nyheter 19 maj 1917)
Rasbiologien, stödd på ärftlighetsforskningen, har gjort en så hastig frammarsch och har fört fram en så stark upplysningsproganda att det resulterat just i vad som är nödvändigt, ja, trängande nödvändigt, nämligen forskningsinstitut där frågor som gälla rasens biologiska beskaffenhet och dess vidmakthållande vid hälsa genom rasbiologiska åtgärder utredas och där de biologiska botemedlen utforskas. I Amerika, England, Tyskland, Schweiz och Norge finnas redan dylika institut, där ett intensivt arbete bedrives. Ha vi i vårt land råd att sitta med armarna i kors och låta den viktigaste frågan, nämligen den om folkmaterialets beskaffenhet, vara en fråga som endast angår den som själv har intresse därför? Nils Heribert-Nilsson (Dagens Nyheter 21 oktober 1918)
Universities in Norway and Germany are normally government-funded. In short: the uniqueness is sought after and part of the lobbying against cuts in the funding by the government. This kind of lobbying narratives shouldn't be treated as fact. Today there are established methods to measure academic impact. These methods could be used on historical research and any claim about the institutes scientific standing ought to be based on such a method. Lundborg's own word doesn't count. Edaen (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The Norwegian institute seems to be one of genetics, not racial biology. And being tied to a university is not the same as a independent state institute solely focused on racial biology. If a single DN 1918 paper is all we have we can't cite it, that is the definition of WP:OR. If you wish to question this please refer to a secondary source, and it would be very helpful if you could name any of the foreign institutes so that they could be researched further. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a medical history paper from 2014 that corroborates the idea that the Swedish institute was both unique and important as well as the first in the world: [4]
Frankly I am going to take this more seriously than a 1918 opinion piece. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. So a research paper from 2014 is more credible than a fact that falsifies it? That paper reiterates the same story as som many others. It doesn't make it any truer. I was going to link to an article by the Dagens Nyheter, written with a rather sarcastic tone, from the days when the question was about a reduction of the funding.[5] The institutes uniqueness is part of this struggle for funding. Edaen (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I have provided two sources. The one by Ambrosiani, where the problem is that the author reasons like "on the one hand ... on the other" allowing you to cherry-pick. The problem with the other source is that I don't have access. It has been accessed on Swedish Wikipedia.
Här finns den källa som Sandman2 åberopar. Jag har kollat, den innehåller precis det som Sandman2 säger att den gör. Står däremot inget om att det svenska institutet skulle ha någon särställning, annat än att det senare tjänade som förebild för ett rasbiologiskt Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. Lsj (disk) 12 december 2013 kl. 15.24 (CET)[6]
Edaen (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Since when does an opinion piece constitute fact? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
It is a fact that it is older than the institute. If this is correct: "I Amerika, England, Tyskland, Schweiz och Norge finnas redan dylika institut", then the Swedish institute was not the first. Edaen (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
So? It's still an opinion piece which are not WP:RS regardless when they were published. You have so far shown nothing to indicate that it is true, nor does that statement even begin to discount that SFIR was the first government-run funded institute. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Once more: I have provided two sources. I have also linked to a discussion on svwp where one of these sources was vetted. I you have access to the article please read it. Several questions about defenition were discussed on svwp. Among other things it is not clear why government funded should put the institute in a superior league. Swedish government funded universities are not superior in status relative to American private ones such as Harvard University. The American institute was Eugenics Record Office at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Edaen (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
No-one has said anything about it being superior, but it is the first government funded institute and a quite prominent one at that. However when it comes to public universities the only developed country where private universities aren't considered second rate is the United States, and that is in part because they were/are heavily funded by the government anyway.
Apart from the Grandes écoles in France. No those are apparently pretty much state run… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest using Ambrosiani's article as the foundation for the entrance here including its ambiguity. Edaen (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I did, I used that source to correct the statement. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
And Ambrosiani further refers to [7] which again states that Sweden was first. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Ambrosiani refers to articles by Nilsson-Ehle similar to the one quoted by me in Svenska dagbladet. If being refered by Ambrosiani makes a source legit, then that piece is to. Edaen (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to leave a link here so I can check that out. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The article linked by Ambrosiani in SvD.[8] The article in DN.[9] Edaen (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
For a general background to this idea about Sweden's leading position in eugenics, see this paper by Carl Marklund. I think that the best way for Wikipedia to deal with this kind of camaigns is to be careful with facts. The New York Times article mentioned in the paper is available here. Marklunds paperNYT article
What this is all about:
Mr. Weston fired back for the new year: "That Sweden should be constantly pointing at other peoples' racism and hiding its own is a fact that can only be interpreted in the worst possible way." [New York Times January 2, 1985]
Edaen (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Why is this relevant? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that is obious. The general story, while originally leftist, was taken over by other groups the way Markund tells it. SIFR's status as the world's first of its kind serves to underscore Swedish racism. In some technical interpretation the institute may have been the first. From the point of view of the international history of eugenics, the importance of the Swedish institute pales in comparison to the American Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. This is a way to elevate the Swedish institute to a role it didn't play for motive according to the NYT article. The SIFR's leading position is an important part of that general narrative. Edaen (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Why would that matter? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, we are debating the due weight of the SIFR in the article Scientific racism. I'd say the weight often given to the SIFR's being the first is because of the reasons given above. As it is now, there are three countries mentioned and Sweden is the first. This is way off relative to its real importance. Thereby, unwittingly, it continues the 1980s campaign. Edaen (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

For a balanced description, see Eugenics archive under "Topics" -> "International Eugenics":

Although the term "eugenics" was introduced by Francis Galton in 1883, the first organized eugenics movements emerged in Germany, Britain, and the United States during first decade of the 20th century. Subsequently, other movements were founded in France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, and Japan. During the interwar period (1919-1939) the most prominent international connections were between American and German eugenicists.
The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor, New York became the central clearinghouse [...] each national movement [...]
Eugenicists established an international network [...]
National societies were organized under the banners of international groups,[...] Other influential international eugenicists included Eugen Fischer [...], Herman Lundborg (director of the Swedish State Institute for Race-Biological Investigation in Uppsala, and Alfred Jon Mjöen [...]

As it is now, the weight given to Sweden in the Wikipedia article is simply ridiculous. Edaen (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Originally we were debating whether it was accurate, not if it was due. The weight given to Sweden is minor in that the section is far shorter than the others. I'm surprised at the sudden change of tone, however while not the largest actor — Sweden's role was hardly insignificant, as can be read in the papers I linked. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
In a general sense it is not correct. It isn't even correct in a narrow sense, the Soviet was older. All academic sources are not equal. In this case normally trustworthy sources must be scrutinized. Edaen (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yet you have not shown any source beyond early 20th century opinion pieces stating otherwise. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I have pointed to two sources. I havn't read one of them, but that one was checked by an academic user at svwp. The "opinion piece" was written by Nils Heribert-Nilsson, a botanist and geneticist. The piece was cited by Ambrosiani. Marklund's paper could suffice to include this story in the article about fake news or we could use it as an excercise in how to handle this kind of campaigns. Edaen (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It still doesn't refute anything!? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
It is up to you to prove it. I have given ample support for the position that it is incorrect. Edaen (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[spinal manipulation] meta analysis removal

Under neck pain you removed my meta analysis citing "no it didn't" add your reason. Could you elaborate on how the meta analysis said something different from what I wrote?

This was what I wrote: A 2016 meta-anyalysis concluded "There was moderate level evidence to support the immediate effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation in treating people with cervical radiculopathy."[10]

I have this over in the talk page of spinal manipulation if you'd prefer to talk there. Jmg873 (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

JzG, could you perhaps take this? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Study from China? Exclude on principle. No Chinese study in a recent very large meta analysis found a single treatment that was rated as ineffective. Bias and outright fraud are endemic in Chinese medical research. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Would you be so kind as to link that meta?Jmg873 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Already done on Talk. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-03

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

Wikidata weekly summary #243