Jump to content

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

A note

[edit]

@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•ʔ 19:09, 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]

Poor language but don't know how to fix.

[edit]

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]

“Bertrand Russell” as subject of a sentence

[edit]

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]

Done. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]