Talk:Eugenics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleEugenics was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 9, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 28, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article


Resident evil mentioned in opening paragraph, but not in the popular culture section.[edit]

I would like to point out that the opening paragraph for this article mentions the video game series Resident evil, but the "In popular culture" section does not. I wish for this inconsistency to be resolved, but I do not know the depth to go into without getting off topic. I leave this as something for wikipedians to discuss. 98.181.69.7 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "In Popular Culture" section, nor does there need to be. It's not an inconsistency. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar[edit]

"... Lee urged highly educated women to have more children, claiming that "social delinquents" would dominate unless their fertility rate increased" Come again?? On what way would the increased fertility rate of these "social delinquents" decrease their dominance? Perhaps: "Lee urged highly educated women to have more children to counteract the domination of "social delinquents"" - or similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed edits[edit]

I invite Biohistorian15 to discuss their preferred edits here. In my view, removing "Nazi eugenics", "Bibliography of genocide studies", and "Outline of genocide studies" from the See also and describing Eugenics as a "field of study" represent a substantive POV-shift which would require consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I was just thinking about opening a thread myself. Maybe I am mistaken but please explain which of the following assumptions was in error:
(1) A point that already has a whole eponymous section with reference a la "main article: ..." below the heading does not need to be brought up in the "see also" section
(2) If two topics are not (non-controversially) the same - considering e.g. positive eugenics most prominently (!) -, one does not reference a separate bibliography from the already expansive one in the main article. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I see my error in both cases and retract my comments. I'll self-revert. Thanks for unpacking this for me. Generalrelative (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you! Sorry for the accusation in that case. Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No stress. In actual fact I was being far too hasty. Generalrelative (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exempt/Recover certain threads from "Lowercase sigmabot III" Archiving?[edit]

Some discussions (e.g. whether eugenics is supposed to be called "pseudoscientific" or not etc. ...) have opened up multiple times and are arguably not fully resolved. Would it be possible to keep a lot of these on the talk page indefinitely, and if so how? Biohistorian15 (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest bringing this to WP:FTN to see if there is wider community interest in reevaluating the longstanding language. Not sure it makes sense to selectively keep certain threads from being archived. Generalrelative (talk) 08:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. If discussions go idle, they can be archived. If the question isn't fully resolved and it becomes important to resolve it, we can go through WP:DR or create an WP:RFC to deal with it then. Otherwise, there's no reason to have those discussions just permanently pinned here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]