Talk:New eugenics

message: According to a Wikipedia rule of thumb: 1) if something is in See also, try to incorporate it into main body 2) if something is in main body, it should not be in see also and therefore 3) good articles have no See also sections. --Loremaster 20:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About See also

message: The statement
 The term "liberal eugenics" does not necessarily indicate that its proponents are social liberals in the modern sense [...]
does not really make sense: There is no reason why a liberal should automatically be a social liberal, nor am I aware of a significant change in meaning of ``social liberal over time. If we remove the word ``social, OTOH, the sentence has some amount of sense, but stumbles on the implied claim that the modern sense of ``liberal is the same as ``social liberal. (While mostly true in the US, this is not generally true globally, and is also historically highly misleading.)
For want of knowledge of the original intention, I prefer not to edit the text myself, but I strongly suggest that it be reformulated or removed.
88.77.177.21 (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read the archived dicussions of this talk page to understand the original intention... --Loremaster (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd formulation 

message: For the first line of this article, only 1 of the 5 sources actually uses "liberal eugenics" as a term and attempts to define it and speak to it. All of the other sources merely talk about eugenics and/or liberal political theory with regards to its implementation and practice. None of them use the phrase "liberal eugenics" with the exception of Nicholas Agar who seems to be the one who coined the term. A google search of "liberal eugenics" yields basically a bunch of hits that eventually refer back to Agar. I suggest that these other sources be removed, since they don't actually speak to "liberal eugenics" at all and only speak to eugenics in general, while some of them make an attempt to associate it with liberal political theory. I'll wait a while for a chance of discussion before removing the irrelevant sources.-Scoobydunk (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources defining liberal eugenics 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-mandatory-genetic-testing-isn-t-eugenics-it-s-smart-science
*:Triggered by \bopposingviews\.com\b on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Per concerns expressed above, and particularly the sourcing claim in the intro, I've culled everything that's uncited or only cited to something that doesn't use the term "liberal eugenics" - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's gotten somewhere. I have added some wording to the lead to explain the theory more clearly and also did some clean up. I don't think this article is anywhere near deletion now. You we're right about that source of course. AlwaysUnite (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I must note I fully support your attempt to clean this up, even if I reversed bits :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Some of that, which removed sourced material using one of the alternative terms, will need to be undone, because they're all within the current scope of the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  15:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup