Talk:Darwin Awards: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:31, 27 February 2006

Latest revision as of 02:56, 13 August 2025

(350 intermediate revisions by 90 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{talk header}}

I think this page has been greatly outpaced by [[Darwin Award]]. Should this become a redirect page?

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=

{{WikiProject Awards|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Comedy|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Internet|importance=mid}}

}}

{{Connected contributor|Wendy Wendy|Northcutt, Wendy}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis

|archiveprefix=Talk:Darwin Awards/Archive

|format= %%i

|age=2160

|maxarchsize=150000

|numberstart=1

|archivebox=yes

|box-advert=yes

}}

== Eugenics and pseudoscience ==

I take that back. =) However, I would have liked for it to be discussed before DavidLevinson redirected it.

The section on [[Darwin Awards#Reception]] directly contradicts the article on [[race and IQ]]. It seems that there have been some especially ghoulish eugenicists who've been editing this article. --[[User:Svennik|Svennik]] ([[User talk:Svennik|talk]]) 01:09, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

==Website ad or cultural phenomenon==

== Is having an article on this even ethical? ==

I don't really think it's appropriate to make this article be worded like one particular site created the term and is the experts on them, as they just rode a wave that was already in creation. We can link to the site as a main example, but this article reads more like a promotional service for one site that claimed to be the official one instead of discussing the topic itself more evenly. [[User:DreamGuy|DreamGuy]] 23:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

What is the policy on weird, freakish, ghoulish cr*p like this anyway? I appreciate that there should be an article on this topic because it's notable [[psychopaths|among some people]]; but can it be toned down to be less nonchalant or even celebratory? Aren't we supposed to be an ultimately decent community? Many questions. --[[User:Svennik|Svennik]] ([[User talk:Svennik|talk]]) 01:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. It reads as if Ms. Northcutt wrote this page herself.[[User:216.120.133.250|216.120.133.250]] 14:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

: To be clear: Why don't we have a section similar to [[Darwin Awards#Rules]], but for some popular [[revenge porn]] website? It's an equal level of voyeurism that appeals to an equal sort of [[piece of shit|creature of the night]]. --[[User:Svennik|Svennik]] ([[User talk:Svennik|talk]]) 01:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

== Comments/edits on "Reception" ==

==Nature vs nurture==

In the section "Reception", right before the sentences in question: {{Blockquote |text=[[Geology|Geologist]] and [[Science communication|science communicator]] [[Sharon A. Hill]] has criticized the Darwin Awards on both scientific and ethical grounds, claiming that no genetic traits impact personal intelligence or good judgment to be targeted by [[natural selection]], and calling them an example of "ignorance" and "heartlessness".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-07-03 |title=Why the Darwin Awards Should Die |url=https://sharonahill.com/2017/07/03/why-the-darwin-awards-should-die/ |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211220144554/https://sharonahill.com/2017/07/03/why-the-darwin-awards-should-die/ |archive-date=2021-12-20 |access-date=2022-02-08 |website=Sharon A. Hill |language=en-US}}</ref>}}

I removed the reference to nature vs. nuture, because the way it was presented, it was logically wrong. It said that Darwin Awards must assume that genetics affect intelligence MORE than environment. This is wrong, as natural selection can still work as long as their is ANY variation in intelligence due to genetics. (and of course there is, if not, intelligence could not have evolved in the first place....still, though, I left the sentence about the assumption)

Then these sentences were removed: {{Blockquote |text=However, studies have found hundreds of genes that influence intelligence and the majority of twin studies have found that the [[heritability of IQ]] due to genetic variation is greater than 57% and potentially up to 80%.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bouchard Jr. |first1=Thomas J. |last2=McGue |first2=Matt |date=2003 |title=Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/neu.10160 |journal=Journal of Neurobiology |language=en |volume=54 |issue=1 |pages=4–45 |doi=10.1002/neu.10160 |pmid=12486697 |issn=1097-4695|url-access=subscription }}</ref> A large study found direct links between genetics and risky behavior.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://health.ucsd.edu/news/press-releases/2019-01-14-large-study-identifies-genetic-variants-linked-to-risk-tolerance-risky-behaviors/ |title=Large Study Identifies Genetic Variants Linked to Risk Tolerance and Risky Behaviors}}</ref>}}

==More men than women?==

I've noticed that there are only few female Darwinists. Why is that? Maybe it's due to the reason, that nobody cares that much about the death of a female human and nobody records the cases of stupid female self-killing...

I think this a worthwhile and sourced addition to "Reception" and should remain. The claim of no link between genes and intelligence and/or behavior is made by a geologist. The claims they are linked are in peer reviewed journals. Futhermore, I think the statement attributed to Sharon Hill ("no genetic traits impact personal intelligence or good judgment to be targeted by natural selection" are not supported by the reference. In that she explains they genes are just one factor among many, such as environment, as opposed to "no impact". [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 01:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

[[User:Robbrown|Robbrown]] 20:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

:I believe those excerpts fall under [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] simply because none of the sources mention the Darwin Award's nor Hill's critique. The purpose of the section is to expose relevant opinions on the Darwin Awards, not discuss genetics. It's not Wikipedia's job to correct Hill simply because that's outside the scope of the section and the article as a whole. '''[[User:DannyC55|DannyC55]]''' ([[User talk:DannyC55|Talk]]) 01:09, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

==Missing History?==

:: Upon further review, I think you are right. I will remove these comments, but I will correct the summary of Hill's quote. [[User:LouScheffer|LouScheffer]] ([[User talk:LouScheffer|talk]]) 18:32, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I think that there must be a great deal of the history of the Darwin Awards missing from this entry. The first mention of the Awards in Google's Usenet archive is from [http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7343%40Shasta.ARPA&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain August 1985] and implies that that they had been awarded in the past. Does anyone know where they started and what happened between 1985 and 1993?

:::Great, it's nicely worded now. '''[[User:DannyC55|DannyC55]]''' ([[User talk:DannyC55|Talk]]) 02:56, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

If I recall correctly, the Darwin Awards initiated with the Naval Safety Center and Rear Admiral Dirren, its director. I know they were circulated during my time in the service through Naval Safety Center message traffic. You might contact the Naval Safety Center and attempt to confirm this. I do not know for a fact that Admiral Dirren was the first originator, but heard that he was. Hope this helps. [[User:ElectricJoe|ElectricJoe]] 04:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What years were you in the navy? [[User:Greg Lindahl|Greg]] 02:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)