The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Eugenics 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.
Eugenics is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
Text and/or other creative content from Eugenics was copied or moved into History of eugenics with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
@2a00:23c8:b318:3d01:ed8a:26f9:b6af:3f5b, I saw your edit and reverted it (per wp:BRD). My opinion is that removing the mention of mass murder from the sentence is not appropriate. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ19:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The only reason I hadn't reverted already was because I am on mobile at the moment. That would impact the NPOV pretty seriously. Simonm223 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a big time wiki editor, I just noticed that in the "objections to scientific validity" section of the article there's this sentence, "Such cases in which, furthermore, even individual organisms' massive suffering or even death due to the odd 25 percent of homozygotes ineliminable by natural section under a Mendelian pattern of inheritance may be justified for the greater ecological good that is conspecifics incur a greater so-called heterozygote advantage in turn," which reads like gibberish. I'm fairly sure there's a rule against jargon? Or at least some conditions to explain it. There are even some gramatical problems I have with the sentence, such as the superfluous use of 'furthermore', the repetition of 'even', it's multiple clauses... Overall, the language here is really strange, and I don't know enough about the topic or wikipedia's rules to change it myself. Salvador the stupid (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Salvador, it looks like it was an attempt to paraphrase the following: The ‘‘optimum’’ that evolution selects is one in which, by chance, some individuals will be born homozygous for the gene, resulting in sickle-cell anemia, a potentially fatal blood disease. The ‘‘ideal optimum’’—everybody being heterozygous for the gene—is unattainable by natural selection because of Mendelian inheritance, which gives each child born to heterozygote parents a 25 per cent chance of being born homozygous for the sickle-cell allele. It is legible, if jargonistic, in the context of the sentence immediately before it. Simonm223 (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it. The use of editorializing padding was a dead giveaway that this was part of a massive expansion from an editor who has since been blocked for both disruptive editing and sock puppetry. That editor has a habit of picking sentences they personally find relevant, then verbosely paraphrasing that sentence inin a new context. This is not a good approach anywhere, but especially in an article as bloated as this one. If this one single sentence in one chapter of Philosophical Issues in Pharmaceutics. Philosophy and Medicine is significant, it should at minimum be better summarized, likely with with in-text attribution to Bostrom & Sandberg. Better yet, an WP:IS explaining why it is significant should be cited. Grayfell (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the “Contested Ethical Status” section, in the “Contested Ethical Opposition” subsection, in the first paragraph, the comma after “Bertrand Russell” should be removed. This change would make it clear that “Bertrand Russell” is the subject of the sentence and not an appositive phrase. Charley Carter (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the first sentence of this page is clipped by google AI as a result. as such, the fact it reads “Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.” frames this in a rather positive light given its association with the holocaust.
However, when I read the lead I am concerned that it is biased overall, not just in summation by Google. The lede entirely lacks mention of the pseudoscientific underpinnings of the movement. CFCF (talk) 10:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yall were right on w the actual problem - google made it clear to me w the results but it rly was the way that the first sentence of this article did not reference eugenics’ pseudoscientific nature or its link to the nazis 2604:3D08:2475:C200:D41:4E92:1E95:2665 (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not gonna fuss, but I'm not super comfortable with us adjusting to google as a matter of practice. That seems to have a vaguely dystopian feeling. GMGtalk12:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but in this case my point was that regardless of what google chooses to pick - the lede omitted valuable information. The fact that google-services pick the first sentence is a very minor point. CFCF (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I am sensitive to your point GMG but also agree with CFCF. The lede was missing an up-top reference to Eugenics being pseudoscientific despite the body making that abundantly clear. It really should be a first-sentence sort of thing regardless of Google presentation. That it will also improve the accuracy of what Google presents is an added benefit rather than a reason for acting in and of itself. Simonm223 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yall were right on w the actual problem - google made it clear to me w the results but it rly was the way that the first sentence of this article did not reference eugenics’ pseudoscientific nature or its link to the nazis 2604:3D08:2475:C200:D41:4E92:1E95:2665 (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
