This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
E. O. Wilson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving E. O. Wilson was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 December 2021. | ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
This is regarding the subsection I just re-added regarding Wilson's support of J. Philippe Rushton.
Following up on #Comments on correspondence between Rushton and Wilson, I don't think the content added by Qualscheck (and restored by SchreiberBike) got a fair shake. The editor who removed that has since been blocked. In my opinion, that block was the same pattern of obstructionist editing we saw on this page. I did not feel comfortable restoring it as it was, since it did have some significant issues with editorializing language. I have tried to fix those, but either way, the content should be discussed on its own merits instead of via oblique threats, wikilawyering, or similar.
As I said before using too many words, I think these newer sources are good enough to show lasting significance. Grayfell ( talk) 23:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@ GuardianH: Hello.
I'm concerned that your recent changes have introduced wording that could be construed as WP:PEACOCK wording. The lead should be a brief and neutral overview of why Wilson is encyclopedically notable. I do not accept that terms like "trailblazer" for example, meet WP:TONE or WP:NPOV.
Another example of the problem is that, while Alabama is obviously part of the Deep South, the term is pretty loose and Florida, the other state mentioned, is only sometimes included. If there is some specific connection to this cultural region, it's not actually mentioned in the body of the article so doesn't belong in the lead in this way. Style choices like this make the article read too much like an obituary and not enough like a dispassionate biography, in my opinion.
I understand this is a work in progress, which is why I want to raise this now, rather than later, to prevent potential problems from accumulating. Grayfell ( talk) 03:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@ GuardianH: As you know, there are continuing concerns about WP:PEACOCK in your additions to the lead. Both Sirfurboy and I have recently cut some of these, but you reverted to re-add them. Please understand that policy requires you to build consensus for these edits once they've been disputed, rather than edit warring. I'm happy to be persuaded, but simply being sourced is not enough. No one is challenging the fact that others have glowingly praised Wilson, but that doesn't make these quotes WP:DUE for inclusion in the lead paragraph. I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
but no reception of his in some quotation is now mentioned, that this is exactly right. The lead can summarise objectively achievements like the most major prize or award given to the subject but it is not the place to discuss the reception of the award, nor to exhaustively list all awards or epithets. We have the article for that. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance as a newcomer. I'm a college teacher with a focus on law and higher education--especially academic freedom. The academic freedom topic seems to be precisely what is missing in the Rushton and Wilson section. Could we agree on adding one sentence with a citation? Here's what I proposed:
>Supporters of Wilson's work contend he was defending Rushton's academic freedom, not endorsing his ideas.[10]
[10] Shermer, Michael (April 27, 2022)."Was the Great Scientist E. O. Wilson a Racist? NO!]". Skeptic. Retrieved January 22, 2024.
Note: Shermer's article contains specific examples of relevant letters and comparable statements from other notable academics in support of academic freedom in Rushton's case. Should we not make at least one reference to this side of the story?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TPR editor ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Reference number 73 VickiMeagher ( talk) 00:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Wilson is described as having 20/10 eyesight in his good eye. 2001:18C0:E1A8:D100:84EB:7D51:98F1:EB04 ( talk) 15:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
E. O. Wilson article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | A news item involving E. O. Wilson was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 December 2021. | ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
![]() Archives ( Index) |
This page is archived by
ClueBot III.
|
This is regarding the subsection I just re-added regarding Wilson's support of J. Philippe Rushton.
Following up on #Comments on correspondence between Rushton and Wilson, I don't think the content added by Qualscheck (and restored by SchreiberBike) got a fair shake. The editor who removed that has since been blocked. In my opinion, that block was the same pattern of obstructionist editing we saw on this page. I did not feel comfortable restoring it as it was, since it did have some significant issues with editorializing language. I have tried to fix those, but either way, the content should be discussed on its own merits instead of via oblique threats, wikilawyering, or similar.
As I said before using too many words, I think these newer sources are good enough to show lasting significance. Grayfell ( talk) 23:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@ GuardianH: Hello.
I'm concerned that your recent changes have introduced wording that could be construed as WP:PEACOCK wording. The lead should be a brief and neutral overview of why Wilson is encyclopedically notable. I do not accept that terms like "trailblazer" for example, meet WP:TONE or WP:NPOV.
Another example of the problem is that, while Alabama is obviously part of the Deep South, the term is pretty loose and Florida, the other state mentioned, is only sometimes included. If there is some specific connection to this cultural region, it's not actually mentioned in the body of the article so doesn't belong in the lead in this way. Style choices like this make the article read too much like an obituary and not enough like a dispassionate biography, in my opinion.
I understand this is a work in progress, which is why I want to raise this now, rather than later, to prevent potential problems from accumulating. Grayfell ( talk) 03:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@ GuardianH: As you know, there are continuing concerns about WP:PEACOCK in your additions to the lead. Both Sirfurboy and I have recently cut some of these, but you reverted to re-add them. Please understand that policy requires you to build consensus for these edits once they've been disputed, rather than edit warring. I'm happy to be persuaded, but simply being sourced is not enough. No one is challenging the fact that others have glowingly praised Wilson, but that doesn't make these quotes WP:DUE for inclusion in the lead paragraph. I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative ( talk) 05:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
but no reception of his in some quotation is now mentioned, that this is exactly right. The lead can summarise objectively achievements like the most major prize or award given to the subject but it is not the place to discuss the reception of the award, nor to exhaustively list all awards or epithets. We have the article for that. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 07:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Pardon my ignorance as a newcomer. I'm a college teacher with a focus on law and higher education--especially academic freedom. The academic freedom topic seems to be precisely what is missing in the Rushton and Wilson section. Could we agree on adding one sentence with a citation? Here's what I proposed:
>Supporters of Wilson's work contend he was defending Rushton's academic freedom, not endorsing his ideas.[10]
[10] Shermer, Michael (April 27, 2022)."Was the Great Scientist E. O. Wilson a Racist? NO!]". Skeptic. Retrieved January 22, 2024.
Note: Shermer's article contains specific examples of relevant letters and comparable statements from other notable academics in support of academic freedom in Rushton's case. Should we not make at least one reference to this side of the story?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TPR editor ( talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Reference number 73 VickiMeagher ( talk) 00:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Wilson is described as having 20/10 eyesight in his good eye. 2001:18C0:E1A8:D100:84EB:7D51:98F1:EB04 ( talk) 15:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)