Talk:Social darwinism
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
NOTE: this page was moved from Social Darwinism on 26 January 2007, for talk up to December 2006 see Talk:Social Darwinism
Discussions from 2002[edit]
Now, I hate Social Darwinism with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, as it offends both my ethical and scientific sensibilities. However, even I must note that as currently written, this is not very NPOV. It's not fair to turn the article into one long attack on SD and sociobiology. I don't believe most of the sociobiology claims I've seen, and none of the SD, but let's be fair. -- April
You've got a point... I'll think of how to rewrite this. Rcouto
There's already a better starting article at Social Darwinism, and much of this text appears to be copied from John Wilkins' essay in the talk.origins archive, which is copyrighted. So I'm going to delete this, make it redirect to the better article, and then work on that article. --LDC
a comment.[edit]
Hello,
I think the article was well written, and I appreciate its honesty. Having absolutely no idea what social darwinism was before reading the article, I found it informative.
If social darwinism contributed to justifying racist and imperialist behaviors, I think that "telling it like it is" does remain neutral. I hope that if this article is re-written, it includes a large portion of the information that exists already.
mosmic09—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmic09 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 7 February 2007)
- Fear not Mosmic09, what's happened is that the other article has been merged into this one rather than the way suggested above. More later, .. dave souza, talk 07:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Weasel words?[edit]
"Some socialists allege that capitalists used social Darwinism to justify laissez-faire capitalism and social inequality."
-Why only state that "Some socialists" allege so? My EvoPsyc professor is very much a "right winger", and she has alleged that capitalists have used this to justify their deplorable "excesses". Hence, it should not be said ONLY that "some socialists" believe so, but that many others allege so also. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
- While I agree that some non-Socialist, or even anti-Socialist, people agree with the critique, changing it would result in "Some allege that capitalists used ... " which is even more weasle-worded than the current text.
- "Weasle-worded". Is that a word? I guess it is now. :) Justin Eiler 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I changed it a while back to "Some allege that...". I see your point. But it is not the only phrasing alternate "Some socialists.." (aka "Some hippies...":P). Feel free to change it to something better; something without 'some'^_^.
EvoPsyc is of "Jewish origin"???[edit]
"...for example criticisms levelled at evolutionary psychology (which had a conversely, Jewish origin)." -Who the heck wrote the criticism section? How can a science have "Jewish [origins]"? Should sciences, even the origins of them, be attributed to nationalities? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.69.14.35 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
- I've removed the claim (and done a bit of clean up as well) and quite agree that sciences should not be attributed to national or ethnic origin. It could possibly have been a bid to contrast (a putatively Jewish) EvoPsych against (the predominantly German) racialist theories of the early 1900s, or it could have been a derisive slur--or it could have been something else entirely. I don't think there's anyway to determine which, but it's gone now. Justin Eiler 01:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposed move to Social Darwinism[edit]
Having discussed the point here, there seems to be no reason not to move the page back to Social Darwinism to comply with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents section which concludes that "Philosophies, theories, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun:". As Darwinism derives from the proper noun "Darwin" it should always begin with a capital letter, thus Social Darwinism is correct. Anyone differ from this assessment? .. dave souza, talk 15:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- It makes sense to me--I've always wondered why it wasn't capitalized. Justin Eiler 15:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)