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.
Eugenics is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
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
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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion 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.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
Text or other creative content from Eugenics was copied or moved into History of eugenics with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour.
Josh Dzieza (4 September 2025). "Wikipedia is resilient because it is boring". The Verge. Retrieved 5 September 2025. A 2019 study published in Nature found that Wikipedia's most polarizing articles — eugenics, global warming, Leonardo DiCaprio — are the highest quality, because each side keeps adding citations in support of their views. Wikipedia: a machine for turning conflict into bibliographies.
Request for New Consensus: Restoring academic consensus on the pseudoscientific and ideological nature of eugenics
Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion
Despite this clear majority view, the term "pseudoscientific" was prematurely watered down in the lead sentence to appease a singular, narrow objection raised by User:Zenomonoz, who argued that the term was "too broad" due to modern bioethical debates. To quote
ple solution is that editors shouldn't be determining what is or isn't eugenics, and we just reflect perspectives from the reliable sources... Most WP:RS are going to discuss historical forms of eugenics like racial superiority."
I agree with that quote, but ironic as it is, the current lead does exactly the opposite: it over-indexes on niche modern nuances to dilute the characterization of its historical reality. According to WP:NPOV, Wikipedia's voice must reflect the weight of mainstream academic consensus. If the overwhelming majority of contemporary historians and philosophers of science categorize classical eugenics as a pseudoscientific ideological system of structural oppression and state racism, removing those central identifiers to accommodate minor or non-coercive definitions grants those minor perspectives unearned validity.
Using historical, non-neutral precedents—such as past editorials in journals like Nature—to imply that eugenics cannot be firmly labeled a pseudoscientific ideology is highly problematic. It is equivalent to arguing that because certain historical eras or groups locally rationalized racism as a legitimate concept, Wikipedia should soften its definitions of racism to remain "neutral."
Both in that archived thread and in subsequent talk page discussions, multiple editors have continuously pushed back against this softening. The complete removal of these vital academic descriptors from the lead sentence was executed without a genuine, balanced editorial consensus. Personal or ideological alignments regarding racialized concepts have no place in shaping an encyclopedia article.
Therefore, I ask the community to establish a new consensus to restore the mainstream academic perspective to the lead, properly defining historical eugenics as the pseudoscientific ideology and system of state racism that reliable sources overwhelmingly show it to be, while leaving modern, non-coercive bioethical nuances appropriately contextualized later in the article rather than weaponized to dilute the introduction.
I did not remove 'pseudoscience' from the lead. A different user has tweaked things since a discussion well over a year ago. This wasn't discussed and I do not support removing the term from the lead so long as it is sufficiently covered in the body and reflects WP:RS.
The body briefly mentions the term pseudoscience on two instances relating to scientific racism. This could be expanded properly.
The point I raised previously was that different bioethics camps have different definitions of eugenics. In Catholic bioethics, all terminations of Down syndrome pregnancies (or other birth defects) are framed as a form of eugenics, even if it is occurring at the individual level. I think it's pretty obvious scientific racism is pseudoscientific.
The page could probably also cover more recent contentious debates. For example, Richard Dawkins has argued eugenics "would work" which was heavily covered in RS.
I think the term "largely discredited" is more solid. I gave a look for example at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on eugenics, and it criticizes eugenics but does not treat it like or call it a pseudo-science. Scientific validity is also debated in the section "Contested scientific status", so describing it as pseudo-scientific in the first sentence takes a stand on what is later presented as debated. Alenoach (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
Thank you both for the constructive responses.
@Zenomonoz: Thank you for clarifying, and I apologize for misattributing the removal to you in my reading of the archive. I am glad we agree that the scientific racism underpinning classical eugenics is indisputably pseudoscientific, and I fully support your suggestion to expand this properly in the body.
@Alenoach: While the Stanford Encyclopedia approaches this from a modern bioethical framework of reproductive liberty, history of science and epistemology handle the historical movement very differently. The overwhelming consensus of mainstream literature characterizes classical eugenics as a pseudoscientific ideology. Because of its massive historical damage and how it has been thoroughly debunked—even by prominent figures within evolutionary theory who exposed its data manipulation—this majoritarian characterization belongs in the lead.
Under WP:DUE, we must give proportional weight to the mainstream historical consensus. The fact that the article already includes a secondary section addressing specific bioethical nuances does not justify allowing a minority perspective to dictate, dilute, or completely eliminate the central and dominant characterization of eugenics from the introduction. Furthermore, the lead currently lacks a clear synthesis of how eugenics operated as the practical, coercive arm of Social Darwinism—a crucial ideological link historically recognized in the history of science.
To move this forward productively, I would like to propose the following options for consideration. While our role as editors is to reflect the literature rather than personal views, I believe we should also take care not to lose sight of the historical gravity that reliable sources consistently attribute to this subject.
Option A:
"Eugenics is a pseudoscientific framework and an ideological system rooted in Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and structural oppression, rather than a legitimate science. Its methodologies relied on flawed statistical premises and the deliberate manipulation of empirical data to justify preconceived socio-political hierarchies.[1][2][3] Masked as objective biological determinism, these pseudoscientific claims provided the rationalization for systematic, state-sponsored atrocities, including widespread legislated forced sterilizations, institutional segregation, and the targeted extermination of psychiatric patients, disabled individuals, and vulnerable people inside state asylums and hospitals throughout the 20th century."[4][5]
Option B:
"Eugenics is a pseudoscientific ideology and a structured mechanism of 'State racism' that weaponized Social Darwinism and biopower to enforce authoritarian population control and elimination.[6][7] Far from operating as an objective discipline, it introduced a biological fragmentation within society under the pretext of genetic purification. This ideological system resulted in severe human rights abuses, utilizing state infrastructure to enforce compulsory sterilization, strict racial segregation, and the systematic murder of institutionalized individuals, psychiatric patients, and those deemed unfit within medical facilities and public asylums."[8][9][10]
What do you think about integrating one of these expanded perspectives to accurately reflect the weight of the historical consensus right from the beginning?
Agree with Asukite. The lead is a summary of the body. Introducing new sources (many of which are decades old) doesn't seem useful. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2026 (UTC)Reply
References
↑Gould, Stephen Jay (1996). The Mismeasure of Man (Revised and Expandeded.). W. W. Norton & Company. pp.176–203. ISBN978-0393314250.
↑Black, Edwin (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. Dialogue Press. pp.35–42. ISBN978-0974381824.
↑Schneider, William H. (2002). Quality and Quantity: The Quest for Biological Regeneration in Twentieth-Century France. Cambridge University Press. pp.82–88. ISBN978-0521525459.
↑Barkan, Elazar (1992). The Retreat of Scientific Racism: Changing Concepts of Race in Britain and the United States between the World Wars. Cambridge University Press. pp.3–15. ISBN978-0521458757.
↑Foucault, Michel (2003). "Society Must Be Defended": Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975–1976. Picador. pp.254–258. ISBN978-0312422660.
↑Garrison, Marsha (2014). Law and Bioethics: Intersecting Worlds. Routledge. pp.112–115. ISBN978-0415525916.
↑Burleigh, Michael (2002). Death and Deliverance: 'Euthanasia' in Germany c.1900-1945. Pan Macmillan. pp.45–52. ISBN978-0330488396.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
