Talk:Diana Fleischman

Getting married

... to Geoffrey Miller.[1]. Too soon to add? —Srid^🍁 17:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Support for eugenics

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)

Thanks for raising this. On your first point of the term "eugenics," I think it is apparent from the Wikipedia page Eugenics that it does not refer to all types of embryo selection or genetic adjustment of human populations. It also has strong connotations, such as Nazis and discrimination, so it should probably not be used as a descriptor for Fleischman's views unless she identifies herself as a eugenicist or a sufficient number of WP:Reliable Sources identify her as one.

On your second point of notability of specific statements, Wikipedia doesn't have a WP:Notability policy for the content within an article. There are relevant policies, such as the WP:Reliability of the statement and the WP:Weight it is given in the overall article. Statements directly from the subject, such as a tweet, are usually considered reliable as long as they are personal claims such as viewpoints of the subject. I think Weight is a more challenging criteria here. This is a short article, only 15 sentences. Do a few tweets from the subject deserve 1/16th of the article? I am personally hesitant. Perhaps if someone added a longer Views section to the article, most of which covers her academic work or topics she has written about at length. In that case, I think one sentence about embryo selection would be appropriate. This is just my opinion. You'll find a lot of opinions on Wikipedia, and we try to discuss on the Talk page to share and think through this kind of issue. I'm glad you're here thinking critically about the encyclopedia! Jmill1806 (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

It was more a symptom of the phenomena of woke activists using wikipedia to defame centrist, the unwoke, and conservatives. It has been a sickening turn of events from a cult-like group of people. Of course the word eugenics should not be used in this article. A real solution would be to simply quote what she has said in context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Academicskeptic9 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability

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)

Hello Academicskeptic9, welcome to Wikipedia! This is a great question, and the notability of people and organizations is frequently debated on this website. There is a wide discussion of notability standards on WP:N, a narrower discussion of standards for people on WP:BIO, and an even narrower discussion on academics on WP:PROF. In my time, I think WP:BIO has the most commonly referenced standard of WP:BASIC, which says, "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources," but you just need to meet "any one" of the notability criteria. An academic can be notable just by being the chief editor at a major journal.

I agree with you that many significant academics do not have Wikipedia pages, probably many more notable than Fleischman. Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and there are still many pages that need to be made. The number grows every year too! If you have a particular academic in mind, you could create the page. I could read over your draft to make sure it's publishable. Many volunteer editors are eager to help newcomers get their feet wet. Jmill1806 (talk) 20:43, 15 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)