Talk:Biological determinism

Biological determinism has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 16, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Social and political / Science Mid‑importance

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 articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Social and political philosophy
	Philosophy of science

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Archives

1

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis - Summer Session22

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 August 2022 and 4 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sunsh1n3d011 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sunsh1n3d011 (talk) 07:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book "How Life Works" (2024) worth considering?

A review by scientist Denis Noble of a new book entitled "How Life Works: A User’s Guide to the New Biology" (2024) by Philip Ball (editor of the journal Nature) may be worth considering?^[1] - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Noble, Denis (5 February 2024). "Book Review of "How Life Works: A User's Guide to the New Biology" by Philip Ball, Pan Macmillan (2024) - It's time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life - The view of biology often presented to the public is oversimplified and out of date. Scientists must set the record straight, argues a new book". Nature. 626: 254–255. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00327-x. Archived from the original on 5 February 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2024.

Drbogdan (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

About radical feminist theorization

@Zenomonoz, hello,

I had added a small part of Catharine MacKinnon's theorization here. I noticed that I accidentally cited the 1991 article instead of the 2023 one, (even though they both tackle the issue), what do you suggest I do at this point? There could be some merit in having a separate section for discussions within feminism and what they say about biological determinism, or a separate article even, I agree that having only one person's argument isn't enough.

What do you suggest? Egezort (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that discussions within a discipline that is not biology, feminism, have much direct relevance to a biology article. Perhaps the best thing would be to add a 'See also' link to a feminism article that discusses the matter. On the other hand, a brief statement that radical feminists like MacKinnon have argued that xyx might perhaps fit into the 'Human sexual orientation' section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap,

In that case, there has to be a separation between biological determinism in the positive sciences sense and biological determinism in the social sciences, because the term "biological determinism" is very relevant in social sciences. Some of it has been discussed in Gender essentialism as far as I've seen.

This term has far greater uses than biology and I think the article should reflect that, but I'm open to splitting and linking from here to the other page. Egezort (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An 'As seen by the social sciences' section would make perfect sense here, especially with a 'Main' link to 'Gender essentialism' or whatever. Given that there is already coverage of the social aspects, all we need here is a brief summary, like the lead section of a social article. Splitting the same topic into two is WP:CFORK-ing, a bad idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I'll try working on that! Egezort (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 18:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Biological determinism/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Wolverine XI (talk · contribs) 08:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

refers to the supposedly => to the supposed
- Done.
led to the desire to solve the problem Doesn't sound right
- Edited.
by forcibly reducing breeding by supposedly defective people Better phrasing needed; forcibly and supposedly are the main issues, along with the two "by"
- Edited.
U.S. states brought in laws Brought in? Should be enacted
- Too British for you, probably. Said 'enacted'.
people from southern and eastern Europe to America Should be US for a more global audience
- Edited.
Cite 8 needs page nos.
- Added.
Cite 14 needs page nos.
- Added.
Cite 24 needs page nos.
- Added.
Cite 25 needs page nos.
- Added.

This article is small, so not much to nitpick at. An interesting read and should be promoted in no time. When all is done, I'd appreciate a review of one of my articles in the Biology and medicine section. Best, Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[NAT-20240205-1] Noble, Denis (5 February 2024). "Book Review of "How Life Works: A User's Guide to the New Biology" by Philip Ball, Pan Macmillan (2024) - It's time to admit that genes are not the blueprint for life - The view of biology often presented to the public is oversimplified and out of date. Scientists must set the record straight, argues a new book". Nature. 626: 254–255. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00327-x. Archived from the original on 5 February 2024. Retrieved 5 February 2024.

[1]