This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
... to Geoffrey Miller. [1]. Too soon to add? — Srid 🍁 17:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Several people have recently edited this article to say that Fleischman supports eugenics and to use this as an excuse to call her a Nazi (of course, these edits have been unsourced and needlessly contentious and so have rightly been reverted as violations of the
WP:BLP policy). She has explicitly supported limited forms of eugenics, broadly defined (she said that embryo selection for increased intelligence would be good even if it were available only to the wealthy at first in
this tweet thread; archive
here), but AFAICT the Nazi accusation is false (her justification is basically altruistic -- that at least some of the beneficiaries of embryo selection for intelligence would make substantial contributions to science/technology and thus make many people's lives better -- and it would be quite incongruous for an animal-inclusive effective altruist to adopt the Nazi principle that less healthy or capable humans' lives don't matter), and the fact that 'eugenics' is an imprecise enough term to include everything from voluntary parental embryo selection to the Nazis' mass murder makes it imprecise and inflammatory enough that this should probably be described in more specific terms if it is to be included in the article. A more suitable description of this topic would probably be something like She supports embryo selection to increase intelligence on the grounds that people thereby made more intelligent would be likely to make beneficial contributions to science and technology.
(accompanied by a citation of the aforementioned tweets) in the Career section. But I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on the notability of specific statements or actions by notable people: would this information qualify as notable enough to include in the article? -
73.195.249.93 (
talk) 19:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
How was notability assessed in this case? It is quite striking how many significant academics do not have wikipedia pages, and some much less influential academics get wiki pages. In any case, I am fine either way, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicskeptic9 ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree, this is not notable. Furthermore her "degrees" aren't actually listed. Evolutionary psychology is not an science, it's generally a field within the humanities, it's made up of opinions from other fields, not facts. Sadly, the claim of "evolutionary" psychology is one that tries to give itself the credibility of evolutionary BIOLOGY, and the public at large is duped. EvoPsych belongs in the same trash bin of history as phrenology. Tallard ( talk) 19:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
... to Geoffrey Miller. [1]. Too soon to add? — Srid 🍁 17:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Several people have recently edited this article to say that Fleischman supports eugenics and to use this as an excuse to call her a Nazi (of course, these edits have been unsourced and needlessly contentious and so have rightly been reverted as violations of the
WP:BLP policy). She has explicitly supported limited forms of eugenics, broadly defined (she said that embryo selection for increased intelligence would be good even if it were available only to the wealthy at first in
this tweet thread; archive
here), but AFAICT the Nazi accusation is false (her justification is basically altruistic -- that at least some of the beneficiaries of embryo selection for intelligence would make substantial contributions to science/technology and thus make many people's lives better -- and it would be quite incongruous for an animal-inclusive effective altruist to adopt the Nazi principle that less healthy or capable humans' lives don't matter), and the fact that 'eugenics' is an imprecise enough term to include everything from voluntary parental embryo selection to the Nazis' mass murder makes it imprecise and inflammatory enough that this should probably be described in more specific terms if it is to be included in the article. A more suitable description of this topic would probably be something like She supports embryo selection to increase intelligence on the grounds that people thereby made more intelligent would be likely to make beneficial contributions to science and technology.
(accompanied by a citation of the aforementioned tweets) in the Career section. But I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on the notability of specific statements or actions by notable people: would this information qualify as notable enough to include in the article? -
73.195.249.93 (
talk) 19:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
How was notability assessed in this case? It is quite striking how many significant academics do not have wikipedia pages, and some much less influential academics get wiki pages. In any case, I am fine either way, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicskeptic9 ( talk • contribs) 08:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree, this is not notable. Furthermore her "degrees" aren't actually listed. Evolutionary psychology is not an science, it's generally a field within the humanities, it's made up of opinions from other fields, not facts. Sadly, the claim of "evolutionary" psychology is one that tries to give itself the credibility of evolutionary BIOLOGY, and the public at large is duped. EvoPsych belongs in the same trash bin of history as phrenology. Tallard ( talk) 19:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)