Talk:E. O. Wilson/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Michael McGoodwin?

There are two long quotes by MIchael McGoodwin paraphrasing/quoting Wilson's work, neither of which is cited. Wikipedia doesn't have a page on him, either. Who is he and why should his synopsis be the first thing we see in the "Sociobiology" section? Is he hostile? Friendly? Did he write a biography of Wilson? I haven't read Sociobiology but am aware of the controversy it created: I feel it would be more appropriate to have an explanation written by a Wikipedia author about the work, or at least an introduction to the idea rather than the quote that is currently in place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.51.115 (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Note: some earlier revisions of this article lie at Edward O. Wilson, which was started independently of the article stub originally at this title and then copied over.

Consilience

This section implies that psychology, sociology, and anthropology are not sciences. Some of my colleagues are going to be disappointed by that implication. Also, the idea that the mentioned concepts can be studied scientifically is not in any way significant because almost all scientists would agree. The entry should be revised by someone qualified to write about Wilson's beliefs about the consilience of psychology with biology. 216.243.176.158 (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Bob Black

Pulitzer prize year for 'On Human Nature'

On Human Nature won Pulitzer in 1979 not 1978. You can verify with these links 1979_Pulitzer_Prize & Pulitzer prize winning Harvard Scholars

Untitled

uh, i don't know what your problem is. Why don't you wait for a bit so the entries on these people can be made-why wouldn't they be of relevance? A dumb of names under a see also helping is VERY useful when you like to browse-these things can easily be organized and ARE NOT a hindrance to anybody

Why wouldn't Bertrand Russell be of interest?

Moved list of people of questionable relevance to Talk

Everyone of these people is associated with Wilson-most of them personally knew him and were involved in the same field

I think these reasons are inadequate to include this list on the Edward O. Wilson page. If the names appear in the text, they'll be linked anyway. If they don't appear in the text, the relationship is too tenuous to include.
(Please take a look at any five other pages about famous people for comparison. You won't find lists of names unless you specifically select for them.)

Well I think maybe its time for that idea to change. These people are connected with Wilson. Many of them worked with him so that he could earn this "fame" you seem so obsessed with. These people are deserving of links. i will head over to other people's pages and update there's with links too.


EVERY encyclopedia has a (often extensive) list of "see alsos". The great thing about the internet is that it takes .5s to "see also". We should make use of that.

    • The function of "see alsos" in paper encyclopedias is to alert you to the presence of other articles of interest related to the one you are reading. Wikipedia does this much more elegantly by inserting links within the text itself. This also encourages the editor to provide a little information about "how" the see-alsos relate. At least a little bit of context would be helpful in this list. Dystopos 29 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)


  1. What makes these people of "questionable relevance"?
  2. How can Bertrand Russell possibly be of questionable relevance?
  3. What do these people have to do with Edward O. Wilson? -- Zoe
Presumably numbers 1 and 2 are answered by the answer to number 3. A dump of names under a "See also" heading is rarely helpful... --Brion 23:24 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

Zoe -- that was exactly why I moved these to Talk. Maybe there's an excellent reason why these should be on the page, put pending clarification I just moved them here for "holding".

(Incidentally, the link above is bad; should be Bertrand Russell)

Ah. I didn't undedrstand that the list had been moved from the subject article to Talk. -- Zoe

page name

If we are supposed to place pages at the most common page name, shouldnt this be at E.O. Wilson or E. O. Wilson? He is generally know by that name, or by "Ed Wilson". Guettarda 23:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Make it so. Dystopos 00:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Nobody else made it so, so I did. Dystopos 29 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)
  • My changes were reverted becuase I done 'em wrong. Sorry. Dystopos 29 June 2005 23:31 (UTC)

I've done the page move. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


Bertrand Russell

All you people are asking why Bertrand Russell wouldn't be of interest:

I just came by the talk page to see why he is of interest. So, why is he? I'm sure he influenced Wilson's work in some way but Bertrand Russell greatly influenced 20th century thought and if we started putting his name by everybody's article that he influenced we would never stop. Perhaps I'm just ignorant of how Russell specifically influenced Wilson (or sociobiology in general?). Maybe someone could point out the connection.Maprovonsha172 29 June 2005 02:14 (UTC)

No one knows? Maprovonsha172 3 July 2005 00:22 (UTC)

Criticism section

The Criticism section is a POV critique of the criticism rather then a accurate recapitulation. The implied natural fallacy of critics of different views than Wilson and his followers may equally by applied both ways. Reference to S. J. Gould might be good. See this article for further ref.: http://human-nature.com/science-as-culture/dusek.html

b. regards

Someone should write up a summary of Wendell Berry's critique from his book Life is a Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition, where he spends seventy pages deconstructing Wilson's book Consilience. -- September 23, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.89.173 (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Female evolutionary theorists

I would just like to comment on the lack of famous female evolutionary theorists. Where are they? Has the sexism involved in evolutionary theory been seriously discussed anywhere? -Darci p

Leda Cosmides is credited as one of the two co-founders of evolutionary psychology.--Nectar 09:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, Lynn Margulis proved the symbiotic nature of mitochondria. She has written deeply on the evolutionary processes of early life with her son Dorion Sagan.
'Female evolutionary biologists' are like 'intermediate fossils', the only people who don't think they exist are those who have never looked for them. In fact, biology enjoys a higher representation of females than nearly any other field of science. Ashmoo 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

time to remove pov tag?

tried to remove POV from this section. should we remove the tag? Mccready 17:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This obsequious, sycophantic, oleaginous and ultra-POVish article provoked in this reader a fit of biliousness. The main purpose of the article seems to be to enable a handful of nonentities to hang their own hats upon Wilson's achievements. The article should be deleted and rewritten in a more sober fashion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.203.2.85 (talk • contribs) .

I think rewriting the entire article is a bit much. Though I have a favorable opinion of Wilson, I do agree with the anon in one respect--the article has a few POV problems. The use of unnecessary descriptive adjectives is a particular problem. For instance, the article says "The author was publically harassed and unfairly accused of racism . . ." and "As is true with most creative visionaries[cite]." This is not neutral. I will not add the POV tag back, but work needs to be done here. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair criticism, Jersyko. I've been attempting to rewrite this article off and on for the past two months. It was in poor shape when I first discovered, so you'll have to excuse the first draft feel of it. Even though Wilson's humiliation is a a matter of public record, it can be toned down. I will concede, however, that invoking the idea of a creative visionary might be a bit much. I only used it a device to temporarily hold together his two enormous bodies of work (i.e. scientific, philosophical). Thank you for the feedback.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtv233 (talk • contribs) .
I had a bit of a go at toning down some of the effusive praise, especially in the intro. I think his high standing needs to be mentioned, but should be attributed to specific authors/commentators rather than just saying 'some consider him...' Ashmoo 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good catch on the Tom Wolfe citation. I say we drop the Darwin II quote altogether since it doesn't really matter all that much anyway. I kept Wolfe's article as a reference for the comment about the seminality and reach of Wilson's work. I also dropped the remark about Wilson's equanimity in the intro because I couldn't find any direct reference for it (although it may be in Defenders of Truth). Instead, I added a reference about his prolific career. Thanks for your input, Ashmoo.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtv233 (talk • contribs) .
No problem. PS. Don' forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes. Ashmoo 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

cat vandals

I've reverted most of what appears to have been category vandalism from 21 November. The "race and intelligence controversy" cat I am only leaving because I am not sure it is not true. But it needs verification. If nobody provides some kind of argument for keeping it, I will remove it too, soon. Feel free to beat me to it. The fact that this vandalism remained for two weeks suggests to me that there may be more hiding in the last few months' changes. Anyone care to do a thorough check? — coelacan talk — 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

This is an admirable article on the subject. I believe it would be improved vastly if we would be consistent in adding in-line reference citations. You might take at look at the cite web and cite news templates. These are a bit more difficult to use but, IMO, vastly improve the output. Also, using ref name makes redundant citations a breeze. JodyB talk 13:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

NOVA episode

Think its noteworthy that an entire episode of PBS' NOVA series was devoted to his work, for someone who isn't the same household name as Watson & Crick (sorry Franklin, blame the media).24.24.211.239 (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bill Moyers

There's an interview with bill moyers available on the moyers journal website. Just lettin people know...72.78.156.34 (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

His Age

Well, he's obviously 79 (the article says 78), but I don't know how to change the info. Can anyone else do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.4.238 (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Science for the People

Indeed, this organization appears to have opposed him, but there is no established link between them and the violent InCAR. Dogru144 (talk)

Ants and social insects

(please consider; removed sloppy phrasing about "higher organism", some general editing)

Edward O. Wilson, referring to ants, once said that "Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species",[5] meaning that while ants and other social insects appear to live in communist-like societies, they do so as a result of biology: worker ants, being sterile, propagate their genes through their queen. Humans, in contrast, possess reproductive independence so they can give birth to offspring without the need of a "queen", and in fact humans enjoy their maximum level of Darwinian fitness only when they look after themselves and their families, while finding innovative ways to use the societies they live in for their own benefit.[6]

"Speared by an aborigine"

Wilson responded with a racial slur after being doused with water by an anti-racist group to which the audience cheered, but no one, including the people that were present that opposed his ideas, mentioned this at the time? This seems a bit implausable to me. The only source for the "speared by an aborigine" quote is an article by Val Dusek. " E O Wilson "Speared by an aborigine" " returns only 10 results on Google, all of which are either for Val Dusek's original article or copies of this wikipedia article. Val Dusek is a professor of philosophy at the University of new Hampshire but I can't find much information about this person on google.

I don't think the quote should be included in the article based on the low number of sources but I don't want to remove it myself because I'd rather hear other people's opinions first. Alteratively, it would be good if someone could find some more sources for the quote so that it can be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.165.17 (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson is not a pseudonym

The article claims that E.O. Wilson is the pseudonym of Frank B. Baird. Apparently, whoever wrote that misunderstood - Wilson was the "Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science at Harvard University" - that is the title of his position, not his name. http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/fenimore/wilson/ I am going to edit the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdfoote (talk • contribs) 23:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Theory of Island Biogeography

There's no mention about Wilson & MacArthur's work! The Theory of Island Biogeography was a major contribution to Ecology. Wilson's involvement should not be missing from the article.--Earrnz (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ant sisters only 75% same genes?

"with whom they share 75% of their genes (though the actual case is some species' queens mate with multiple males and therefore some workers in a colony would only be 25% related" Can someone help here? Is "genes" the right term? I see that 75% of their genetic material would be copied from the same actual set of genes of the drone and the queen. But don't they share a much higher percentage of the same genes, in the sense that all ants' DNA will code almost all of the same proteins? Dc3 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I think the idea here is that if selection acts primarily on genes, so that they "seek" to replicate themselves (which is what E.O.W. is claiming), then each variant of a gene will "seek" to out-reproduce other variants, even if they're identical down long stretches of DNA. If a sister contains 75% of the same genes you do, then any one of your genes is given a 75% shot of appearance in her. Your gene "wants" all its contents copied, whether they code for proteins or not, as a dominating strategy. If they're all copied, then the variations that matter will be copied as a matter of course. So the general strategy of a gene is to get itself copied and reproduced as accurately and widely as possible, and the way to do that is through promoting the interests of organisms that are most likely to contain and reproduce it. Nightspore (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I was thinking that the number should be 50% (but still 25% in the multi-male case). Don't ants have the same 2-gene mitosis as humans, etc? The number would be much higher in terms of raw genes (99.9% or so), but the evolutionarily relevant set are the genes that are different between individuals of the same species.--Wcoole (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't he attack this explanation of ant social structure in his most recent Nature Analysis piece alongside Novak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.83.251 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you provide a citation? Nightspore (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Why "E. O." Wilson? Potential move?

Hey all, I'm a little confused with the title for this article. It seems to me that the correct title should be Edward Wilson (biologist). Anyone have any idea why it's not? Would anyone oppose a move? NickCT (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

He's very widely known as E. O. Wilson. We use the names things are most commonly known by. Friday (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the response Friday. I'm familar with WP:COMMONNAME. I think I was a little thrown by the idea of applying it to living people. My first thought was that surely living people should be reffered to by thier formal first and last name.
Upon reflection though, I think E.O. Edwards probably is the right name because -
1)It is the most common name (as demonstrated in search engine test below)
2)WP:COMMONNAME holds true in other BLPs (e.g. J. K. Rowling)
I retract my initial comments. This is the correct title for the article.
"E. O. Wilson" sociobiology - 260,000 hits
"Edward Wilson" sociobiology - 12,500 hits
Thanks, NickCT (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Planet Earth (TV series)

Why is his appearance on the TV series notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Was your intent Planet Earth: The Future? 99.181.136.250 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that part of the series I noted? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

/* External links */

I notice that there are a number of external links on this page. Please consider adding to section with videos this link to an in depth video of EO Wilson telling his life story. The video is freely available on the Web of Stories website (http://webofstories.com): 

* EO Wilson tells his life story at Web of Stories (video)

Fitzrovia calling (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson’s Theory of Everything

from November 2011 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE ... intro ... "At 82, the famed biologist E. O. Wilson arrived in Mozambique last summer with a modest agenda—save a ravaged park; identify its many undiscovered species; create a virtual textbook that will revolutionize the teaching of biology. Wilson’s newest theory is more ambitious still. It could transform our understanding of human nature—and provide hope for our stewardship of the planet." by Howard W. French 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Fire ants in Alabama

The Early Life passage about Wilson's work with ants in Alabama could use some clarification. First, specifically what he found was a colony of Solenopsis invicta, the invasive Red imported fire ant. There are other fire ant species, relatively benign, that are native to the South. Second, he found it when he was 13, and it wasn't until 7 years later that he went back to Alabama to document the spread of the species. He has told versions of this story orally on more than one occasion (the lecture cited in this article, a lecture at Trinity College cited in the RIFA article). He committed a version to print in his afterword to the 40th anniversary edition of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (2002) (ISBN 0-618-24906-0).

By rare coincidence I was the first person unofficially to record its presence. In 1942, as a thirteen-year-old Boy Scout studying ant species around my home near the Mobile docks, I discovered a single well-developed colony of red imported fire ants. Seven years later, when the species had become abundant enough to rank as a local pest, I was hired by the state of Alabama to make the first thorough study of its habits and distribution. I found that the ants were spreading radially outward from Mobile at the rate of about five miles a year.... (p. 359)

Also notice that he writes "unofficially to record," which might be nothing more than some well-taken field notes. Dgorsline (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

early life

Hi. I'm new here. I'm a college student and for my English assignment, I need to edit and add to a Wiki page and the person I'm doing it for is Edward Wilson. I was wondering if it would be a wise idea to add more to his early life section. I feel that it doesn't talk enough of how he came to become a naturalist and about his education. Could I add more about his life? The source I'm planning to use is his autobiography, Naturalist. Please give me some advice and ideas. Thank you Dianehn (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I think that an expansion of the Early life section would be a good idea. In particular, a clarification of the fire ants story (which I commented on some time ago), referenced to a print source, would be helpful. I have added some helpful getting-started links to your talk page. Dgorsline (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Thank you for the links on my talk page. I don't know if I should reply to you on this talk page or not. Anyways, I just read your comment about the fire ants. I agree that it needs to be clarified. Wilson does talk about the fire ants in his autobiography. I guess I would need more than one source for that right? I just started to draft some edits for the early life section. I wanted to add more details about his fishing accident because it defined what types of organisms that he would devote his time to. I also added more about how he became to gain an interest in ants. I'll keep your suggestion for the fire ants in mind. Again, thank you! Dianehn (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

E. O. Wilson's Life on Earth

There's an entire series of books published on iBooks for free by this man, why is there no mention of it?

Here's a link to the first book in the series as a source/proof.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/e.-o.-wilsons-life-on-earth/id888107968?mt=13

Bumblebritches57 (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Sociobiology Controversy

I'm not adding anything at the moment, but it seems coverage of the Sociobiology controversy is really insufficient here. I see that it's there, but I think there ought to be more here.Kingshowman (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Kingshowman, If you do expand the Sociobiology section, be sure to add secondary reliable sources. The last para of the section (containing the controversy part) isn't currently sourced. Solomon7968 14:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


I had in mind to maybe discuss Phil Kitcher's books on the topic, for example "Vaulting Ambition: The Sociobiology Controversy." Or there's a chapter in Kitcher's more recent "Science, Truth, and Democracy" with good discussion. I'm on the lookout for other sources, though my interest is more philosophical than biological per se.Kingshowman (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman


I also think direct links to the NYRB pieces in which some of the controversy played out would also be useful in situating the controversy for readers, and directing them to the primary sources.Kingshowman (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman

Surname & 2 initials don't suffice, so ....?

   I G-searched for "E. O. Wilson" OR "Edward Osborne Wilson" OR "Edward O. Wilson" OR "Edward E. O. Wilson" primarily for insight into how popular the format is, that i construe as treating his initials as a nickname -- namely

Edward "E. O." Wilson

That format is one of several that produce hits with the search "Edward E. O. Wilson". What i'm calling "the nickname format" trails behind

Edward (E.O.) Wilson

6-to-2 among the first 10 hits, and 10-to-4 among the first 20 hits, so i now move on to a different search, for tallying the parenthesized initials against the first three search keys -- but setting aside the first hit, the current content of the accompanying article.
   On the

  1. st page: eowilsonfoundation.org uses, in G's excerpt (other than in the URL!) my second, first, and third versions in that order; Britannica first, third, and then second; among the remaining 7 on 1st page, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd score 4-2-0 among remaining hits;
  2. nd page: smithsonianmag.com 3rd then 1st; wikiquote.org & NYT, each 1st in title & 3rd in body text; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd score 5-0-2 among remaining hits;
  3. rd page: bigthink 2nd in title, 3rd then 1st later; facebook 1st in title then 3rd and 1st; Goodreads 3rd in title, then 3rd, 2nd, 1st; saveamericasforests (in each of two hits) 1st in title, then 1st & 3rd; audubon 1st in title, then 2nd; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd score 3-0-1 among remaining hits.

   Erk, i'm really tired of this. Summary: 1st, 2nd, and 3rd score 12-2-3 on the 1-form hits, which add up to 17 out of i think 28. IMO that suggests "E. O. Wilson" as title, starting the lead with "Edward O. Wilson" , and "Edward Osborne Wilson" consigned to the Infobox. I consider that a hard case to overcome, against not only what i found but also any other punctuation of a "first, last, and two initials between them" scheme. I don't claimed to have proved that's the right choice, but it looks a lot better than what i found, and leaves open, to those inclined to examine the data further, an approach more constructive than "i don't like it".
--Jerzy•t 09:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent correction to the article (with which I agree). Solomon7968 00:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


Post nominal letters

Why is there "FMLS" after his name? It is not on the list of post nominals suggested to add. We do not have Ph.D. or any other societies he was a member of. The link was red until I made it a redirect. I think it should be deleted. Having it there makes it seem extra special. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Richard, where is the "list of post nominals suggested to add" in enWP? The wording of WP:CREDENTIAL seems confusing. While it says not to include society postnomials, it gives the example of Stephen Hawking with them. This article contains the Category:Foreign Members of the Royal Society but there is no mention of being FRS in the article text. Being FRS is of course far more significant than being FMLS (the latter should any way be removed as you say). Solomon7968 03:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
His biography for his foundation has: "Crafoord Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science (given by the Academy in fields of science it does not cover by the Nobel Prize), Japan’s International Prize for Biology, the Prix de Institut de Vie, Paris, Italy’s presidential Medal and the Nonino Prize in science and letters, the Cosmos Prize, the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, the Gold Medal of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the Audubon Medal of the Audubon Society, the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the American Philosophical Society, Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal International Prize for Science, the Dominican Republic’s highest award, the Order of the Silver Cross of Christopher Columbus, and Sweden’s highest award given to a non-citizen, Commander, First Class, Royal Order of the Polar Star." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I thought there is a Wikipedia guideline which centrally enforces which post nominals needed to be added and which don't. I have removed it in any case. Solomon7968 23:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on E. O. Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Citations

IMO the rash of 'citation needed' marks is irrelevant and unnecessary when the text so marked is explicitly stated as being sourced from the publication under discussion in the section, i.e. the sections so annotated ipso facto cite a named publication. Chrismorey (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure quite what point you're making, or which section(s) you mean. Most of the 'Awards and honors' are uncited, and they aren't covered by any named publications. The list of 'Works' is indeed self-citing, if that is what you mean by your ipso facto, but this argument only applies to works themselves, not to claims made within the works, which at the least would require a page number each. The biographical details marked certainly need citing, too. It certainly looks as if someone who didn't like him much decided to do a bit of tagging, but the actual tags are in the main correct. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on E. O. Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on E. O. Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

On Human Nature, 1978

I'm going to edit this section soon. I honestly can't tell what the original editor is meaning to say in the quote below. Is there an easy way to figure out who that was? I guess I need to comb through the edit history to find them. I think what this is trying to say is that, though Wilson used the term "myth," he was obviously a proponent of evolution, and used the word to mean the scientific fact of evolution fills the role that myth did previously. Similarly with the phrase "evolutionary epic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolyaIskrina (talk • contribs) 00:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Wilson wrote in his 1978 book On Human Nature, "The evolutionary epic is probably the best myth we will ever have." Wilson's use of the word "myth" provides people with meaningful placement in time celebrating shared heritage.[1] Wilson's fame prompted use of the morphed phrase epic of evolution.[2] The book won the Pulitzer Prize in 1979.[3]

References

  1. ^ Connie Barlow. "The Epic of Evolution: Religious and cultural interpretations of modern scientific cosmology". Science & Spirit Magazine. Archived from the original on 2006-05-23.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference cnn was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Walsh, Bryan (17 August 2011). "All-TIME 100 Nonfiction Books". Time. Retrieved 2 January 2018.

Jonathan Haidt's book

Someone is trying to sell Jonathan Haidt's new book, by mentioning it all over this page. Definitely, many people are checking here after today's news of EO Wilson's death. I removed one of these instances under "Consilience, 1998" section. Many people have cited Wilson's book in their papers and books, but we only see the followings about Haidt's book. What a scam! "The book was mentioned in Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.176.105 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of motives, the line was too vague to be informative, so I have removed it. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

William H. Bossert

I just created a draft for Wilson’s colleague William H. Bossert. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Is Academy of Achievement a WP:RS?

This page is used all over the article. I'm not convinced of reliability. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Scientific Racism

Farina, Stacy; Gibbons, Matthew (2022-02-01). "The Last Refuge of Scoundrels: New Evidence of E. O. Wilson's Intimacy with Scientific Racism". Science for the People Magazine. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments on correspondence between Rushton and Wilson

E. O. Wilson is recently deceased and has been a distinguished scientist. Facts about E. O. Wilson were already known; they are documented in the "Reception" section for the book "Sociobiology". Content about the corrspondence with J. Philippe Rushton between 1978 and 1994 has already been added to that section, in a proportionate way with two careful references. The third citation from Scientific American is not reliable: the two other sources mention that. Adding extensive content about Rushton would be subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBR&I; the talk pages for Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn and Rushton are all templated. In that case a 1RR rule applies.

The newly registered account User:Qualscheck seems to be a single purpose account. In this case, the Scientific American Op-ed by Monica McLemore is not considered to be reliable by the two other sources. Equally well, the Science for the People post has inaccuracies (Wilson's age is given as 94). However, given the DS, like the talk pages of Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, this talk page will almost certainly be templated and a 1RR rule applied. User:SchreiberBike has been notified of the "important notice"; procedurally, I have reverted his changes so that SchreiberBike has an opportunity to discuss this on the talk page, given the possibility that a template is applied to this talk page. It could be done now. Mathsci (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Note that McLemore's article[1] was published within 4 days of Wilson's death and was rebutted by many scientists.[2] There are problems with these Op-Eds which are often hastily prepared. F&G, despite their attention to detail, give Wilson's age as 94. Mark Borello and David Sepkoski give the wrong university for Rushton.[3] That is in the nature of Op-Eds. But why should this section be so long? Apart from knowing that Wilson made his correspondence publicly available in the Library of Congress, what has changed since Wilson's death? Given that this is a sensitive topic area, I hope that User:Doug Weller, User:Rsk6400, User:Generalrelative, User:NightHeron, User:Grayfell and others will be able to give further advice. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Mathsci, given that you've reverted twice, I think you should self-revert in good faith.
As far as the sources go - they're written by experts - Farina & Gibbon are currently working on Wilson's correspondence, and Borello & Sepkoski are also experts in their own field. While McLemore's article probably isn't important here, the other work is quite significant; while McLemore's article prompted a rebuttal (which attracted quite a few notable co-signers), Borello & Sepkoski's work in particular has changed the tone a lot because it shed new light on matters (and convinced a lot of Wilson apologists to change their mind). As far as the source goes - the New York Review of Books is the venue where the original fight over Sociobiology played out.
With respect to fairly minor errors - we use reliable sources that get details like that wrong all the time. That's not the nature of Op-Eds, that's the nature of even peer reviewed sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Please wait for other editors to comment (see above). For known problems with WP:RECENT sources (Op-Eds), please make queries at WP:RSN. If your intention is to promote SPAs, please explain why. If you have some positive changes to suggest, please do that in your own words with cast-iron sources, like any other good faith wikipedia editor. If your intention is simply to revert previous content, please read the WP:DS for WP:ARBR&I. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The current article's coverage of Wilson's scientific racism seems incomplete and too vague. It also presents Wilson's view of his critics at face value, despite contrary sources. It doesn't help that it's tucked away in one subsection for the 1975 book. As an example, There was also political opposition is suggestive, but potentially misleading. It is subtly editorializing to imply that because it was tied to politically activity it was separate from the scientific criticism. Wilson himself seems to have viewed his critics as politically motivated (sarcastically describing them as his "favorite anti-racists of the Left" and calling Rushton's many critics part of a "Leftward revival of McCarthyism") but impartial sources do not support this position, or at least, explain that this was merely Wilson's take. It is, of course, entirely possible that they were both politically and scientifically motivated. But this leads to the deeper problem.

Why, exactly, were his colleagues accusing him? Where does the article explain this? Likewise, that his thinking was later reassessed is almost comically open-ended. Conspicuous vagueness like this gives the impression that because this is uncomfortable, it shouldn't be talked about in direct language. It was seen as scientific racism then, and even more so now. In my opinion this approach starts to feel insulting, especially in a biography of a scientist. Since this is an encyclopedia, we should use clear language. To leave this merely implied is to invite readers to draw their own conclusions, but we do not give them enough context for that to be possible or appropriate.

A neutral article will discuss his legacy, and like it or not, this is part of his legacy too. The recent coverage obviously supports this, but it would be a mistake to conclude that this must be recentism. I think the Science for the People article summed it up very nicely:

Wilson and Rushton’s relationship is not a story of “guilt by association” or of honest mistakes and unfortunate missteps. It is a story about how racist ideas are woven into the scientific record with the support of powerful allies who operate in secret. While this story is extraordinary, it is not unusual.[1]

To me this seems like a good indicator that this belongs in an encyclopedia article. Grayfell (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of care needs to be taken over obituaries, legacy, etc; and there is WP:NORUSH. The online Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Wilson by Michael Ruse seems balanced. There is a recent commentary in Nature by Wilson's colleague Bert Hölldobler. The online Op-Ed of Michael Schulson in Undark Magazine[4] appeared on February 16, 2022 and was added just hours afterwards to this wikipedia article with a headlined section "Controversies ..." It involved a selection of informal zoom and telephone interviews. It's clear that academics like Joseph L. Graves Jr and Ullica Segerstråle are highly respected authorities; but Schulson's over-use of "social media" doesn't seem to be particularly encyclopedic.
For the period of the 1970s, Adrian Wooldridge's 1994 [2006] book "Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c.1860-c.1990" (Cambridge University Press) is a reliable source; it is available online. Wooldridge's book covers Edward Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Science for the People (SftP) and the Boston-based Sociobiology Study Group (see for example page 373). SftP was described as a "radical organisation" in the 70s. It's preferable to use encyclopedic books when they exist. Despite the recent flurry of Op-Eds, with claims, counterclaims, rebuttals, etc, it seems likely that far more substantial content, probably in book form, will be written by academics like Sepkoski and Borello following the re-examination of the Rushton-Wilson correspondence 1978–1994 now in the Library of Congress.
For more context, please see Science for the People#Criticism of sociobiology and Segerstråle's 2000 book "Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond", Oxford University Press. --Mathsci (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This reply doesn't address my concerns at all, so I must be missing something here. Perhaps "legacy" was a poor choice of words on my part, as I do not consider any of these sources to be similar to obituaries. I certainly don't think that, alone, the timing would be a valid reason to exclude them. Perhaps "reputation" or "lasting significance" would be clearer. To restate my point: Wilson's scientific racism has been significant for many decades. Per the Undark article:
Not everyone found the content of the letters especially surprising. Indeed, close attention to Wilson’s work and public statements, some scholars said, already provided ample evidence that he was sympathetic to ideas that most biologists now consider not just morally questionable, but scientifically unfounded.[2]
If sources are now using his correspondence to explain this aspect, we should not hesitate to take advantage of those sources. Again, as I said, the article currently fails to sufficiently explain why he was accused, by his own respected colleagues, of racism, nor does it properly explain what that racism means. If his death brings this needed attention to this article, or his work as a topic, so be it.
It should go without saying that if and when when better sources come along, we should use those sources as appropriate, but the hypothetical existence of better sources in the future doesn't make current sources any more or less reliable. I am not disputing the reliability of any currently cited sources such as Wooldridge (nor am I specifically defending them). I am saying that the article should be updated to include more context from existing sources, and for neutrality. Whether or not Wooldridge described Science for the People as a radial organization in 1994 seems like a non-sequitur, especially for 2022. If you want context regarding that, the Undark article provides a bit. That it was added "just hours" after being published doesn't make any difference at all, unless you have some reason to think this was spam. Critiquing the source because it mentions the format of the interviews seems very strange. The source should be evaluated on its own merits, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The good sources are:
The first of the 2 WP:RSs are well known because they have already been absorbed into the content of History of the race and intelligence controversy, particularly the narrative involving Science for the People (SftP) & the Sociobiology Study Group. The four Op-Eds listed at the beginning of the section need to be examined separately; possibly other Op-Ed articles will appear. The first post of Monica McLemore was rebutted here. The posting in the SftP magazine by Farina and Gibbons seem outspoken, stating that Wilson corresponded with "race scientists" Arthur Jensen and Richard Herrnstein. And after tweets from Sepkoski, et al, more accusations can be found here. Several of the reactions from Schulson's undark Op-Ed seem non-committal. Mightn't reading Wooldridge, Segerstråle, Ruse, etc, be a good idea? Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, for one thing, the article in Undark Magazine (not undark#magazine) is not an op-ed, and it's not even a normal editorial. It is important to understand what these terms mean, and how the apply to Wikipedia. The Undark story is published under the site's "news and features" banner. It is journalism from a respected outlet for long-form journalism. Wikipedia articles can cite Journalism when appropriate, and this seems appropriate.
As for the four good sources, all sources must be judged in context, and what is good at one article will still need to be evaluated on its own merits for this article. Two of those predate Wilsons' death and therefor do not include information on his correspondences. Of course they can be cited here, but they are incomplete, because we now have new information. Britannica is, like Wikipedia, a tertiary source, and can be used, but we are not obligated to use that article as a baseline. As for the final one, it is an obituary written by a friend and colleague, meaning it is functionally an editorial about life to provide context for his death. Such sources are certainly useful, but as you said, we should be cautious, and we certainly don't expect such sources to be neutral or comprehensive.
However, again, I am having a hard time seeing how this relates to my original comment. The article currently fails to properly summarize this information. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Ask User:NightHeron; she wrote the content which I slightly rejigged. However, on February 15, 2022, the "E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation" issued A Statement on E.O. Wilson and the Rushton Correspondence, linking the article of Borrello and Sepkoski and distancing themselves from the correspondence. They wrote:
Recently, new inquiry into the papers of E.O. Wilson (1929 – 2021) reveals his correspondence (1978 – 1995) with a discredited racist psychology professor, the late J. Philippe Rushton. The majority of Rushton’s research in this arena has not withstood peer review, and therefore is not published. In 2002, Rushton left academia to head the Pioneer Fund – a nonprofit started to study hereditary and human differences, categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a Hate Group. Professor Wilson’s correspondence with Rushton has not been fully investigated by the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation; however, we acknowledge and recognize Rushton’s work has been labeled as racist and was withdrawn from several academic publications. We acknowledge E.O. Wilson’s correspondence with and apparent support of Rushton’s career is hurtful and harmful.
Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
You asked for advice from me and some other editors who have experience in this topic. My advice is to expand the article's coverage based on reliable sources, of which there are already several. I guess that's probably not the kind of advice you were asking for, but that's the advice I have to give. Since you specifically reverted changes along this line, and asked for consensus, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to make these changes myself, at least not yet. Do you disagree and think the article's fine the way it is? Do you agree it should be expanded? Since you cited BRD, it would be very helpful if you could explain your reverts.
As for the article, I specifically think the Undark source warrants more attention, since it covers a fair bit, and seems relatively even handed without falling into false equivalence. That source provides some context for the McLemore piece (such as online harassment etc.). Independent sources about an opinion piece are a great way to evaluate if and how to include opinions.
Two new links you included, I assume for for context, are a blog from Jerry Coyne (which includes some questionable BLP issues) and an anonymous blog post from a fringe creationist website. I do not consider those reliable at all, so I have not considered them for expanding the article. The foundation's letter might justify a sentence or two. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
There don't seem to be enough reliable sources for providing stable content, beyond mentioning the letter of the Biodiversity Foundation and the previous sentences. So far there has only been an interim report on the Wilson-Rushton correspondence 1987–1995. It has troubling aspects, as mentioned by Borrello & Sepkoski. Adding substantial content about the correspondence to the article J. Philippe Rushton using blogs does not seem to be possible, without unbalancing that pre-existing material. On the other hand, during the 1970s "Sociobiology controversy", Science for the People certainly labelled E. O. Wilson as a racist (see Wooldridge's book). The McLemore opinion piece and its multi-author rebuttal are not particularly helpful. Hate mail sent to McLemore, following the opinion piece, is a separate issue. I'm not sure why Ullica Segerstråle's views should be disregarded: is it because she's from Finland? Mathsci (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
"Because she's from Finland"... What? Is that supposed to be a joke, or is this a breakdown in communication? Why would you even speculate that something like that would be a factor? If you want to propose content from that source, please do so! That source is over twenty years old, and predates both Wilson's death and the publication of his letters. Obviously, it's still usable, but this newer context matters. So how, exactly, would this source be helpful?
I'm talking about adding new sources and summarizes the existing ones more proportionately. The newer sources appear sufficient for a few sentences, and the older ones should be balanced better. We should not add a WP:CSECTION, but we should provide context for both the older and newer sources. Changes should not be opposed merely based on whether or not the content is stable. Preserving obsolete information through inertia sacrifices usefulness and accuracy for stability.
The phrase "troubling aspects" is euphemistic. Are readers going to know why this is troubling, or controversial, or what he was accused of, or why his work was reevaluated? If we're not explaining this to readers, what's the point? We should directly explain to readers why it's an issue worth mentioning. Most, if not all, of the cited sources do a better job of explaining this than the current Wikipedia article. If there's a valid reason the article fails to explain this, I haven't seen it yet.
So, Wilson's defense of Rushton's scientific racism is already significant to any comprehensive biography, so the question is how do we summarize this. I don't care why the article covered it the way that it did before. Older sources do not invalidate newer sources. I think there was plenty of room for improvement before this came out, but that's true for almost all articles. In this particular case, we have a more specific reason to reevaluate. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci: You still have not explained what you meant by that "from Finland" crack. If this was a joke that fell flat, just say so. Ignoring it completely is not appropriate.

Your presumptuous comments about me "ignoring" a source are likewise inappropriate. If you have something to say, say it. As I've tried to explain multiple times, I'm not "ignoring" any of these sources. You are the one who asked for my opinion, and when I gave it, you functionally ignored me. I am trying to summarize sources proportionately and according to due weight. That will mean removing cruft and including newer sources with newer points of view. That's how editing works, right? Grayfell (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mathsci: What is the purpose of this quote? If the purpose is to explain that Wilson viewed this as political or polarizing, there are better ways to actually say this rather than obliquely implying it through arbitrarily chosen quotes. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
@Grayfell: some of your editorialising content has subsequently been deleted by User:NightHeron. I agree that that content seems unbalanced and non-neutral, as if righting great wrongs. Restoring it to its previous form might be a good idea. The long text in the next article talk section gave barely credible sophistry for deleting a quote from a PBS documentary previously added by other editors, with some consensus; your long text can be paraphrased as WP:IDONTLIKETHAT.
In the 2010 article "History of the race and intelligence controversy", the Cambridge University Press 1995 book of Adrian Wooldridge was used to summarise the turbulent events of the 1970s in Berkeley and Boston; the same source has been used here. The online WP:RS and the closing sentence adequately summed up the final paragraph, providing the point of view of E.O.Wilson (cited to his article "Academic Vigilantism and the Political Significance of Sociobiology"). There's nothing "oblique" here at all; possible wikilinks Sociobiology Study Group or Science for the People might be a shorthand way of adding further context. This biographic article is on the life and works of a distinguished scientist, not a content fork for vilifying the subject. Adrian Wooldridge writes dispassionately and, as NighHeron must have thought, your edits to summarize sources proportionately and according to due weight have not been wholly successful. If you are now misleadingly calling material by Adrian Wooldridge "cruft", then please make a report to WP:RSN. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the statement Grayfell: some of your editorialising content has subsequently been deleted by User:NightHeron. The only material I've deleted from the article in recent months is the description of an incident at a conference 44 years ago and Wilson's comment about it, both of which I thought were undue. It was not editorialising content. I didn't delete it for being unbalanced and non-neutral, as if righting great wrongs. I deleted it only for the reason stated in my edit summary, that is, per WP:UNDUE. I actually agree with Grayfell that the article should summarize why this was controversial. that is, should clearly explain why Wilson's opponents sharply criticized Sociobiology and not just that they did. NightHeron (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Mathsci, you specifically asked for my input at this article, but are now insulting me and interpreting that input in bad faith. I assume you didn't just think I would blindly support your position without comment, as that would've been canvassing. Your responses and comments don't seem to match mine, nor do they even seem to be specifically related to my actual edits. If you want to discuss how to summarize Wooldridge, nobody is stopping you. For example, does Wooldridge explain why Wilson described it as "difficult"? I don't have access to the source, but from what's online it appears that it does a much, much better job of explaining the history than this current Wikipedia article. If we're going to use the source, let's use it to help readers understand the topic, because the current article is failing to summarize even its own sources.
If you're concerned with wikilawyering, start talking about actual changes to the article, instead. Start discussing these sources on their actual merits. I hope we both know, every single source needs to be evaluated in context, and not everything that was ever published belongs in a Wikipedia article.
I posted an entire section arguing for the removal of that "editorializing", so to attribute the editorializing to me suggests that you don't understand what I'm saying. To argue for the restoration of that content, while accusing me of wikilawyering, is ironic to put it mildly. I think the content was undue, and so does NightHeron. NightHeron's removal solves that particular issue to my satisfaction, but the underlying problem is still here. If you disagree, please start explaining why you think it's due weight, or if won't do that for whatever reason, just start talking about the content itself instead of insulting my competence. Grayfell (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Grayfell: per my edit-summary, your edits are WP:OFFTOPIC since they're not about Wilson's correpondence with Rushton. Few have queried Wooldridge as a WP:RS; only perhaps Mikemikev. You might be the second. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Yet again, I don't have a problem with the source. How many times do I have to explain this? I want to use sources, including this one, to do a better job of summarizing the larger issue.
To put it as succinctly as I can: There seems to be an agreement that the article would benefit from a better explanation of this history. If we explain what sources like Wooldridge are saying about Wilson's actual views and statement and how they lead to his dispute with Gould, Lewontin, etc. then the article will be better off. After that, I think it will be a lot clearer if and how we should explain Wilson's support of Rushton and some of his theories.
Right now, the article isn't explaining this very well, and I'm more than happy to explain why, but you don't seem to have the patience any more. Casting aspersions against me doesn't improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
There's open access to Wooldridge's book here. Mathsci (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ McLemore 2021.
  2. ^ Farina & Gibbons 2022a.
  3. ^ Borello & Seposki 2022.
  4. ^ Schulson 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E._O._Wilson/Archive_1&oldid=1201245118"