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. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I see additions and deletions of article content going back and forth here. What sources are each of you relying on as you decide what emphasis is due on different aspects of the topic of eugenics? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The need to follow Wikipedia guidelines, avoid ambiguities, over-wordyness, and duplications should guide additions and deletions. The "Meanings and Types" heading is the most disorganized part of the article and needs the most editing. It has a mixture of topics that should be in the "History" heading or the "Criticism" heading. Why we have a "Criticism" and "Critics" heading also does not makes sense to me. A good guide for including topics on eugenics is the Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics. The book does not include many genetic issues other 21st century writers are discussing, but it shows the need to include many different aspects of eugenics. Publiceditz (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I looked up information about that book, and that does look like a good source. (Moreover, it is a source I could readily obtain from a nearby library.) I hope other editors will join in the discussion here about what sources are good for this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I should ask again about good general sources that are as broad in scope as this article is itself, as some of the recent edits now refer to issues that are primarily issues of due weight in use of sources. I just obtained some sources from libraries where I live in the last week. I'd be glad to hear of suggestions of good sources on eugenics as a general worldwide topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I strongly support editorial judgment that keeps "in popular culture" cruft out of an article like this article about a serious topic. Inserting such content should not be on the basis of a Wikipedia essay that represents the point of view of just a few Wikipedians about how to edit the encyclopedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I also support the removal of trivia from this article.- MrX 01:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The entire section was an unsourced "indiscriminate collections of trivia or cruft." Removal was appropriate. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I see. Indeed, they were all unsourced. However, I would not use the word indiscriminate, since all those examples of fiction included the idea of eugenics and some kind of implementations of eugenics were essential to their plots. Anyway, I agree about the lack of sources. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
This was the case in ancient Rome too, and in some parts of Africa twins were put to death, if you read Achebe's Things Fall Apart, but these ancient practices weren't eugenics in the modern sense unless we have a source to say so. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but the sources and quotes provided do not establish that "(Rawls') Original position (...) has been used as an argument for eugenics". All they show is that Rawls happened to mention genetics a few times and possibly believed that if it were possible to cure diseases by some genetic engineering then it might be a good idea. Not the same thing as "eugenics". This is WP:SYNTH and original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't you read them at all? Not original research. If I was writing my own theories here, that would be original research. But that is not the case. I even added the extensions to the quotes, just for you, so that you could find the bits from the sources. I noticed that you have been happily deleting several kilobytes of text and references that others have produced. Think about that. ——Nikolas Ojala (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest other editors to see what we are discussing about. It is all about these two edits: (1) and (2). Volunteer Marek argues that they are examples of original research and synthesis. I disagree. Because they are not my theories, they are not original research. Referring to a single source would be enough, but I used more just because there are more than one. I did not mean to synthesize anything – and I did not synthesize. ––Nikolas Ojala (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I did read them. They don't support the text being included. You (or whoever) is putting their own interpretation/spin on the fact that Rawls happened to mention genetics a few times, and that there are a few sources out there which discuss what he said. There's nothing in those sources which supports the idea that Rawls or his theory of justice supported Eugenics.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This a quote from the abstract of the referenced article, published by the Baylor College of Medicine. The article explicitly states that Rawls beliefs could be used to support eugenics. This is valid material to include in the ethics sections, and it should be restored. Purpletangerine (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This analysis also illustrates how simple deviations from first principles in Rawls's formulation could countenance eugenic applications of genetic technologies.
I support a rollback to before User:Volunteer Marek made the many deletions, starting on 15:34, 29 November 2014 as an unregistered IP address. The kilobytes of text that were deleted were supported by references, and deserve a consensus before they are deleted. This article has many sentences that are not supported by references, but it appears User:Volunteer Marek deletions were focused on material, even referenced, that Volunteer Marek found disagreeable. Volunteer Marek deleted the entire subheading on pleiotropic genes without giving an explanation, even though it had many references. Volunteer Marek deleted the opinions of Geoffrey Miller without giving an explanation. Volunteer Marek deleted almost everything in the Ethics heading and gave a vague explanation. Volunteer Marek deleted a lot from Lynn by calling him POV. I am not a fan on Lynn, but that is a misstatement of the meaning of POV. POV refers to a wikipedia editor who shows their bias. Additionally, you can use the "neutrality disputed" Template:POV if you feel the source or the editor has a bias and a counterargument has not yet been added to the disputed opinion. Volunteer Marek also made other edits by rephrasing sentences. A topic like eugenics will always have contradicting opinions, the goal should be to reference all of the opinions to stay neutral. I expect for a neutral article on eugenics to be full of arguments and counterarguments. Deleting everything a person finds disagreeable is not the answer. If Volunteer Marek has disagreements with the article then please first tag the disputed material with the appropriate template or first discuss in the the talk page before making a series of deletions that are difficult to revert. Purpletangerine (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek is generally a very conscientious editor, so I think going forward from the current version is okay. This article surely does need a lot of work, but I hope he will continue to participate in watching and revising the article, as I recall (from my watchlist over the years) that he has followed these issues more closely and for longer than I have. As I have been gathering sources, I'll be able to check independently what each editor is doing here. Thanks for opening discussion about this on the article talk page and thanks for mentioning this discussion on my user talk page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC).
I did not make any edits as an unregistered IP address (at least I don't think so). The edit by the IP is what made this article pop up on my watch list. I came here, I saw all the unsourced junk and OR, I removed it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
But looking at the IP's edit again, I do think that was a good edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I've also put the part Pleiotropic genes back in. That part's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
To my knowledge all of the deleted material had references. Thank you for restoring the the section on pleiotropic genes.Purpletangerine (talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)