Talk:Robert Klark Graham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm no expert on NPOV, but it seems to me that "the atrocities of Adolf Hitler" doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.
- I doubt you can have a POV issue when you're dealing with fact. Krupo 03:28, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
- The term "atrocities" is used to describe the policies of Hitler and the Nazi regime in the articles Nazism, European Theatre of World War II, and Warsaw Uprising, to name a few. The definition of "atrocious" as given by Merriam-Webster is "extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel" and "appalling, horrifying." I can think of no better word to describe the policies of the Nazi regime. In the interest of mediation, I'll change "Adolf Hitler" to "Nazism." --Fastfission 03:21, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
-
- god f-ing neo-nazi idiots... go spraypaint a swastika somewhere. But thats not why I was posting. I just thought that I should mention that the criteria for acceptance to the sperm bank doesn't really seem nearly as exacting for women as it does for men. I would change it, but leaving it the way it is would probably be a better way to inform of the dichotomy between the sexes' prerequisites. It is economic viability that was sought however (as opposed to the highest IQ possible) and so I see why this happened. Stupid eugenists. They are admittedly smarter than those who followed them though (in a kind of nietzscheian way). Damn Nazis. (Oh, and when I refer to Nazis, it is regarding the first post, not Fastfission.)Flying Hamster 08:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The term "Nazism" isn't scientific. "Would one also talk about i.e. "the atrocities of Churchill" etc.?! Nevertheless the way you respond to the subject shows that no sober debate is possible about what National Socialists did or didn't during WW2. That says it all on how reliable information on that subject is.
- Uh huh. Give me a break. --Fastfission 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
- The term "Nazism" isn't scientific. "Would one also talk about i.e. "the atrocities of Churchill" etc.?! Nevertheless the way you respond to the subject shows that no sober debate is possible about what National Socialists did or didn't during WW2. That says it all on how reliable information on that subject is.
- god f-ing neo-nazi idiots... go spraypaint a swastika somewhere. But thats not why I was posting. I just thought that I should mention that the criteria for acceptance to the sperm bank doesn't really seem nearly as exacting for women as it does for men. I would change it, but leaving it the way it is would probably be a better way to inform of the dichotomy between the sexes' prerequisites. It is economic viability that was sought however (as opposed to the highest IQ possible) and so I see why this happened. Stupid eugenists. They are admittedly smarter than those who followed them though (in a kind of nietzscheian way). Damn Nazis. (Oh, and when I refer to Nazis, it is regarding the first post, not Fastfission.)Flying Hamster 08:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] The number of kids ...
is 218 according to this article; 215 as per William Shockley. Tintin (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intelligence requirements
Can someone site where this line came from ?
"These criteria were numerous and exacting: for example, male donors were required to have an IQ above 180, while female recipients were required to be married and well-to-do."
I read one of the articles that said one of the offspring had an IQ of 180 but nothing about a numerical requirement to join.
- That seems extremely unlikely - I don't think more than 0.001 of the population have an IQ that high. Robmods 20:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
