Talk:William Beveridge

What is the difference between squalor and want ??. Do they both mean poverty??. Thanks in advance.

Having only read some of Full Employment in a Free Society, "want" is lack of life necessities (food, shelter, fuel, so on) and is what the unemployment insurance should help secure every person is free of on the personal plan. Squalor is overcrowding, bad health, lousy housing, and reads like bad infrastructure and poor planning on a macro-level. Or something like that ;) Poulsen 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

There should be a disambiguation page distinguishing this William Beveridge from the other William Beveridge who was a bishop in the Church of England. Obviously Bishop Beveridge also needs his own page.--132.206.203.3 20:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)cpReply

This article about Baron Beveridge is shabby at best. I will try to systematically update it over the next few days. Mornington 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some days ago, I added "eugenicist" to the introduction of William Beveridge along with "progressive" and "social reformer", which unfortunately started an edit war with User:DuncanHill. I have now gained more familiarity with editing Wikipedia, so I'm raising it here.

In the article section about eugenics, it is stated that "Beveridge was a member of the Eugenics Society, which promoted the study of methods to 'improve' the human race by controlling reproduction.[15][16][17] In 1909, he proposed that men who could not work should be supported by the state "but with complete and permanent loss of all citizen rights – including not only the franchise but civil freedom and fatherhood..."On the day the House of Commons met to debate the Beveridge Report in 1943, its author slipped out of the gallery early in the evening to address a meeting of the Eugenics Society at the Mansion House. ... His report he was keen to reassure them, was eugenic in intent and would prove so in effect."

While I think it is disputed whether someone trying to have people unable to work stripped of their rights can rightly be called a progressive, I understand the criteria were of course different in 1909. However, the eugenics movement was a significant part of the first half of the 20th century, and Beveridge seems to have been a strong architect and/or proponent of said movement. I think, to create a more balanced article, that we should mention eugenics in the introduction. It is not adding new information - simply highlighting an important fact. --Cat Elevator (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I think introducing it in the lead amounts to undue weight. It is not as a eugenicist that Beveridge is notable - had he just been a member of the society and not the social and welfare reformer that he was, we probably wouldn't have an article on him. It's entirely proper that it is covered in the body of the article - but to put it in the lead implies, wrongly in my belief, that this is what he is known for. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

But does the fact that he would not be notable solely as an eugenicist mean that it is not an important fact to mention? It is not putting it in the lead alone, only after "progressive and social reformer". As he left the debate regarding his own report early "to address a meeting of the Eugenics Society" held together with his general views on eugenics, including his own claim that the report was "eugenic in intent", eugenics seem to have been such an important part of his thought that it deserves to be mentioned. --Cat Elevator (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

As for the report being "eugenic in intent", that's both obviously true and entirely uncontentious - it was intended to improve the health and welfare of the nation. People living in squalor, disease, and poverty, have unhealthy stunted children, whereas those who are properly housed and fed, and who have good health care, have healthy children. As to the Dennis Sewell article used to support your claims, Sewell is rabidly right-wing, and cannot possibly be regarded as a reliable source for any claim of the notability of Beveridge's position on eugenics. Frankly, unless we can get better sourcing we ought to think about trimming what we have. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

"People living in squalor, disease, and poverty, have unhealthy stunted children, whereas those who are properly housed and fed, and who have good health care, have healthy children." Are you also a proponent of eugenics? The idea that various groups of people should not have children (and that poverty is genetic) is eugenics at its core.

I easily found two more sources:

The Guardian The Conversation

And, this is not a valid source for Wikipedia, but not only right-wing commentators consider William Beveridge a eugenicist/eugenics sympathizer - could writing the latter be a compromise?:

Socialist Project about eugenics and William Beveridge --Cat Elevator (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm a proponent of giving people decent housing, food, and healthcare, so they can make what they will of their lives. Are you a proponent of condemning people to starve in slums? DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Of course not - I am not against the welfare state, I just think William Beveridge's commitment to eugenics seems significant enough to be mentioned in the intro. Let's not discuss politics, though - that was also why I, in my last message, posted a link to a socialist mention of William Beveridge and eugenics. --Cat Elevator (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also not a reliable source. I'm happy not to discuss our personal politics here, I was simply answering your question to me. I do have Jose Harris's William Beveridge - A Biography to hand, and cannot find any mention of eugenics or of the Eugenics Society in the index, but I'll see what I can find in the text. This may take me some time, as I have a number of other calls on my time over the coming week or so. It would be good for us to allow others to have their say here. DuncanHill (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

It would be great if a third part could weigh in. I didn't mention a socialist source as reliable, but to clarify that not only right-wing commentators mention eugenics in this matter.--Cat Elevator (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

• I think it's pretty clear that he was a eugenicist (we already have a sourced section, and I see no dispute over that). The question for us is whether this warrants mention in the lead. "Eugenicist" is a fairly hostile description these days, but far less so in the early 20th century, and most European intellectuals of that time could be described as one, to at least some extent – an extent which would be eyebrow-raising today.

For Beveridge, I think we should have this in the lead. The point is that his report favoured a eugenic [sic] intervention, by not flat-rating child benefit (and that's back as policy today). IMHO, this makes him a "lead-worthy" eugenicist, not merely a section in the body.

Was this actually a "eugenic" action? Or rather a class-based one? As with so much British eugenics of that period, there is a non-genetic and arguably non-eugenic conclusion drawn, linking social class to worth. This is moving away from a more medical or genetic eugenics. Yet this might make him an inaccurate eugenicist, but it's still, according to the mores of the time, a eugenic basis for action. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply