Talk:Heredity in Relation to Eugenics

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Medicine: Genetics

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Racist and with many other failures

This book is racist and eugenicist.In USA eugenics and racism were the same thing.Agre22 (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Not necessarily, yes they did sterilise people of 'different races' but also people with epilepsy, people with a mental disability etc. So no they didn't mean the same thing. So the book is racist and eugenicist and unfortunately was quite popular for the time. ScottishAnarchist 29th April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.182.46 (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page states that the book is wrong because it put forward the notion that psoriasis is genetic in origin, but the wiki page on psoriasis claims this as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.19.245 (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]