This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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.
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
On Human Nature won Pulitzer in 1979 not 1978. You can verify with these links 1979_Pulitzer_Prize & Pulitzer prize winning Harvard Scholars
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
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.
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)
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)
I've done the page move. Talrias ( t | e | c) 10:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Indeed, this organization appears to have opposed him, but there is no established link between them and the violent InCAR. Dogru144 ( talk)
(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]
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is his appearance on the TV series notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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
cnn
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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)
This page is used all over the article. I'm not convinced of reliability. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) (registration required){{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)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)
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)
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]
troubling, or
controversial, or what he was
accusedof, 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.
@ 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)
to summarize sources proportionately and according to due weighthave 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)
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)
@ 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)
References
Here are the current sources for the ice water incident:
The first is Wilson's own autobiography. It is a primary source and should be weighed accordingly. The second is a documentary which quotes Wilson. Arguably primary also, this is a brief mention in a much longer work which doesn't seem to imply this incident had any lasting significance beyond Wilson's own "pride": "I believe I'm going to be able to claim that I was the only scientist in modern times to be physically attacked for an idea."
Wilson can be forgiven for this passing bit of grandstanding, but Wikipedia is not obligated to pass this on just because Wilson himself repeated the anecdote twice. By passing this along in the article, we are implying a level of significance that is not supported by these sources. The third is an obituary that post-dates the inclusion of this factoid in the Wikipedia article, which significantly undermines the claim to lasting encyclopedic significance.
The goal here is to follow due weight and explain these things proportionately. If this was significant, it should be possible to cite a source which explains why it was significant. Is Wilson the only one talking about it? So be it, the article should reflect that. If biographers mention this, let's summarize what they have to say.
As for the Nova documentary, I don't think it's a fantastic source, but it once again does a better job of summarize why this was controversial than this Wikipedia article does. It actually explains, in very simplistic terms, why Wilson's ideas were linked to eugenics, and why that was a legitimate cause for alarm. To cite that source for the Wilson's take on the ice water incident, but not to explain the controversy surrounding that incident, is little better than hagiography. Grayfell ( talk) 03:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Marxists and social scientists, who believe the human mind is shaped only by experience, reacted with fury. Fellow Harvard biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin published a brutal criticism of Wilson in the New York Review of Books, claiming his theory had close parallels with ideas that led to Nazi gas chambers. Wilson, who had merely suggested that genes influenced behaviour and whose liberal credentials are sound, only found out about the attack when it appeared on newsstands. Later, at a public symposium, protesters poured a jug of iced water on his head.
I'm sorry, but this decision is utterly *mad*. The "ice water incident" is particularly well-known, enough to be mentioned in numerous articles about Wilson years later and in several of his obituaries. It was an incident that summarized the degree of vehement opposition that some felt toward the ideas expressed in Sociobiology. To not mention this incident is simply "undue weight" in the other direction. If anything, I think it's worth expanding a bit with mention of Stephen Jay Gould's vocal criticism of INCAR's actions at the meeting.
And, frankly, I think this smacks of a degree of POV pushing. It is an incident that does show some of Wilson's critics in an unfavorable light. Some of the tone of the above discussion seems to me to quite explicity lean toward a favorable point of view towards Wilson's critics, with a view towards presenting the critiques of Sociobiology as entirely founded on scientific differences and playing down the outright ideological opposition. Peter G Werner ( talk) 11:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
utterly *mad*", are not the way to start a productive discussion. Your accusation that I'm acting like I have "
ownership" of this article is a bit silly. I've made a total of 6 edits in all to E. O. Wilson, out of the 1925 edits that have been made to the page. It's also peculiar to fault someone with not responding to your WP:WALLOFTEXT within a 12 hour period (actually, a 9-hour period). Editors do have lives outside of Wikipedia, and are not on call 24/7. There's no stopwatch running on the process of forming a consensus. It might go faster if you adopted a respectful tone. NightHeron ( talk) 20:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.Generalrelative ( talk) 21:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Since there is clearly not a consensus here, and since I'm clearly not the only one who strongly disagrees with the decision to remove this content, and since I believe the lack of inclusion of this material is effectively POV, whatever the motives for removal, I've gone ahead and added an NPOV tag to the section to reflect that fact that the absensce of this content is disputed. I am going to ask that this tag remains until a discision one way or the other has been reached.
I also think engaging only with the small group of editors who made this decision is a productive course of action, and the discussion needs to be opened up. Therefore, in the next day or two, I will be launch a Request for Comment on the question of reintroducing this material. Having more eyes and more prespectives on this article would most certainly by a positive. Peter G Werner ( talk) 07:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
As per my post on the BLP noticeboard [3], there's good reason to think that there was no ice water involved, and that a cup was thrown at/dumped on him instead of a full pitcher/jug, and that the whole idea that an iced jug of water was poured on top of him was a later embellishment. I think inclusion of some type of mention of the incident is due, but Wikipedia shouldn't be further propagating these untrue embellishments. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There's nothing in Wilson's description of the event that contradicts the Boston Globe story, but simply a detail that was not reported there.Two months later, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Washington, demonstrators seized the stage as I was about to give a lecture, dumped a pitcher of ice water on my head, and chanted, “Wilson, you’re all wet!” The ice-water episode may be the only occasion in recent American history on which a scientist was physically attacked, however mildly, simply for the expression of an idea. How could an entomologist with a penchant for solitude provoke a tumult of this proportion?
(This cites Steven Jay Gould's The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox: Mending the Gap between Science and the Humanities, though no quote or page number is provided)
It is in this context that one must see the controversy that arose when Wilson began to revive the effort to advance moral claims based on biological science. Most memorably, protesters rushed the stage at a February 1978 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science just as Wilson was about to begin a talk. They chanted “racist Wilson you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide” and threw a cup of water at him (later embellished in legend into a full pitcher of ice water). Unfazed, Wilson went on with his remarks, and in later years referred to the incident with pride, depicting himself as a scientist willing to pursue the truth despite public vilification and physical attacks, a twentieth-century Galileo.
...it seems untrue that a pitcher of ice water was dumped on Wilson’s head at that meeting. That’s a biological urban legend that has been repeated many times. But it’s apparently wrong. The New Atlantis reports the truth: it was a cup of water, and was not dumped on his head... The cup-of-water version is the way I’ve heard it from those who were there, and David Hull concurs (though not Ulrike Segerstrale).
I must also mention the most famous incident of all. In 1978, at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, both Segerstråle and I attended a session on sociobiology at which Wilson was to present a paper. As he began his presentation, a dozen or so members of the International Committee Against Racism marched up onto the stage, chanting: "Racist Wilson you can't hide, we charge you with genocide!" A woman then poured water over Wilson's head. How much water is a matter of conjecture. Usually we are told it was a pitcher of water. Segerstråle remembers a jug. I am sure that it was a small paper cup. One bit of evidence that supports my memory of the incident is that Wilson was able to mop up the water with a single handkerchief. Such are the problems of eye-witness reports.
As I said initially, if this is significant, it should be possible to use sources to indicate to readers why this is significant. We have plenty of sources for the incident itself, but what is needed is context. The NOVA source which quotes Wilson was not being fairly summarized here. As I said, that source goes into at least a bit more detail about why someone affiliated with a group of Marxists was pouring water on his head. It was about eugenics, which Wilson supported. Without this context it just sounds like Marxist being wacky for no reason. That's doing Wilson a disservice by trivializing this. It's also doing Gould and the rest a disservice by implying that this complicated issue can be reduced to one example bratty college hijinks.
Wilson took pride in the incident, but that's not an explanation and isn't even independently noteworthy. Obviously he took pride in a lot of his accomplishments, and it's easy to find sources for him mentioning those things as well. So readers would want to know why the water incident happened. They would want to know why the article even mentions it at all.
The New Atlantis source contextualizes it this way: It is in this context that one must see the controversy that arose when Wilson began to revive the effort to advance moral claims based on biological science. Most memorably, protesters rushed the stage at a ...
[4] That should be an indicator that we also need to provide some more context. Just saying 'it happened and he was proud of it' isn't enough.
Grayfell (
talk)
22:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
spin off of social media-driven demonization. Insisting otherwise is a profound failure to abide by talk page guidelines, even after being warned on your user talk page that AGF is not optional. I myself do not use social media of any kind, and certainly do not get my news there. I was saddened to learn that Wilson was a deeply racist man after reading about his statements to Rushton (in reliable non-social media sources, esp. [5]) because Wilson's book Consillience had made a profound impact on me growing up, even probably helping to spark my professional interest in the philosophy of science. But that is neither here nor there. I'm certainly not interested in defending those who threw water on him, but neither am I interested in acceding to a histrionic portrayal of the incident as a violent attack by mustache-twirling villains with no motivation beyond ignorance. The policy of encyclopedic tone demands that we thread the needle between those two extremes. The material in question can be re-added to the article once we've agreed on text that does so. Grayfell is correct that poisoning the well will only interfere with that process and delay your desired outcome. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably a single sentence will do nicely.That's not the same thing as saying
only the shortest possible mention of this incident ("a single sentence", as they put it) should be included, as you represent me. Believe it or not, I have no fear of saying exactly what I mean, so words like "Probably" are there for a reason. It's also odd that you would describe me as one of
the folks who initially made the decision to excise material from the article, when this material was removed months ago by others, and I only reverted you recently for ignoring WP:ONUS when an ongoing discussion was taking place (as I stated in my edit summary). [6] I'm open to any and every suggestion that conforms with our policies and guidelines, and this has been my stance from the beginning. At this point I think it would be helpful for you to simply suggest a bit of text and then discuss it with the rest of us collaboratively. That sure seems to me like it would involve less danger of "wasted effort" than all this fuss. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll start:
In February 1978, while participating in a discussion on sociobiology at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Wilson was chanted at and doused with water by members of the International Committee Against Racism, who accused Wilson of being racist for his views on eugenics. Steven Jay Gould, who opposed Wilson's ideas on sociobiology and was present at the event, condemned the attack.
This it only a rough draft. Any suggestions for improvement? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
New version in response to Werner's feedback:
In February 1978, while participating in a discussion on sociobiology at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Wilson was surrounded, chanted at and doused with water by members of the Marxist activist group International Committee Against Racism, who accused Wilson of being racist for his views on sociobiology and genetic determinism. Steven Jay Gould, who opposed Wilson's ideas on sociobiology and was present at the event, and Science for the People, who had previously protested Wilson, condemned the attack.
Thoughts? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Further revision based on feedback:
In February 1978, while participating in a discussion on sociobiology at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Wilson was surrounded, chanted at and doused with water by members of the International Committee Against Racism, who accused Wilson of advocating racism and genetic determinism. Steven Jay Gould, who opposed Wilson's ideas on sociobiology and was present at the event, and Science for the People, who had previously protested Wilson, condemned the attack.
who had previously protested Wilson(while clunky I think this context actually helps the reader navigate the sentence), but changed out "who" for "which". And in the interest of full disclosure, I also re-removed the POV tag. I do not think anyone could make the case that there is a serious ongoing dispute about the POV of the section. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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.
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
On Human Nature won Pulitzer in 1979 not 1978. You can verify with these links 1979_Pulitzer_Prize & Pulitzer prize winning Harvard Scholars
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
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.
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)
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)
I've done the page move. Talrias ( t | e | c) 10:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Indeed, this organization appears to have opposed him, but there is no established link between them and the violent InCAR. Dogru144 ( talk)
(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]
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is his appearance on the TV series notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
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
cnn
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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)
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)
This page is used all over the article. I'm not convinced of reliability. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 00:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link) (registration required){{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)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)
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)
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]
troubling, or
controversial, or what he was
accusedof, 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.
@ 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)
to summarize sources proportionately and according to due weighthave 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)
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)
@ 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)
References
Here are the current sources for the ice water incident:
The first is Wilson's own autobiography. It is a primary source and should be weighed accordingly. The second is a documentary which quotes Wilson. Arguably primary also, this is a brief mention in a much longer work which doesn't seem to imply this incident had any lasting significance beyond Wilson's own "pride": "I believe I'm going to be able to claim that I was the only scientist in modern times to be physically attacked for an idea."
Wilson can be forgiven for this passing bit of grandstanding, but Wikipedia is not obligated to pass this on just because Wilson himself repeated the anecdote twice. By passing this along in the article, we are implying a level of significance that is not supported by these sources. The third is an obituary that post-dates the inclusion of this factoid in the Wikipedia article, which significantly undermines the claim to lasting encyclopedic significance.
The goal here is to follow due weight and explain these things proportionately. If this was significant, it should be possible to cite a source which explains why it was significant. Is Wilson the only one talking about it? So be it, the article should reflect that. If biographers mention this, let's summarize what they have to say.
As for the Nova documentary, I don't think it's a fantastic source, but it once again does a better job of summarize why this was controversial than this Wikipedia article does. It actually explains, in very simplistic terms, why Wilson's ideas were linked to eugenics, and why that was a legitimate cause for alarm. To cite that source for the Wilson's take on the ice water incident, but not to explain the controversy surrounding that incident, is little better than hagiography. Grayfell ( talk) 03:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Marxists and social scientists, who believe the human mind is shaped only by experience, reacted with fury. Fellow Harvard biologists Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin published a brutal criticism of Wilson in the New York Review of Books, claiming his theory had close parallels with ideas that led to Nazi gas chambers. Wilson, who had merely suggested that genes influenced behaviour and whose liberal credentials are sound, only found out about the attack when it appeared on newsstands. Later, at a public symposium, protesters poured a jug of iced water on his head.
I'm sorry, but this decision is utterly *mad*. The "ice water incident" is particularly well-known, enough to be mentioned in numerous articles about Wilson years later and in several of his obituaries. It was an incident that summarized the degree of vehement opposition that some felt toward the ideas expressed in Sociobiology. To not mention this incident is simply "undue weight" in the other direction. If anything, I think it's worth expanding a bit with mention of Stephen Jay Gould's vocal criticism of INCAR's actions at the meeting.
And, frankly, I think this smacks of a degree of POV pushing. It is an incident that does show some of Wilson's critics in an unfavorable light. Some of the tone of the above discussion seems to me to quite explicity lean toward a favorable point of view towards Wilson's critics, with a view towards presenting the critiques of Sociobiology as entirely founded on scientific differences and playing down the outright ideological opposition. Peter G Werner ( talk) 11:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
utterly *mad*", are not the way to start a productive discussion. Your accusation that I'm acting like I have "
ownership" of this article is a bit silly. I've made a total of 6 edits in all to E. O. Wilson, out of the 1925 edits that have been made to the page. It's also peculiar to fault someone with not responding to your WP:WALLOFTEXT within a 12 hour period (actually, a 9-hour period). Editors do have lives outside of Wikipedia, and are not on call 24/7. There's no stopwatch running on the process of forming a consensus. It might go faster if you adopted a respectful tone. NightHeron ( talk) 20:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.Generalrelative ( talk) 21:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Since there is clearly not a consensus here, and since I'm clearly not the only one who strongly disagrees with the decision to remove this content, and since I believe the lack of inclusion of this material is effectively POV, whatever the motives for removal, I've gone ahead and added an NPOV tag to the section to reflect that fact that the absensce of this content is disputed. I am going to ask that this tag remains until a discision one way or the other has been reached.
I also think engaging only with the small group of editors who made this decision is a productive course of action, and the discussion needs to be opened up. Therefore, in the next day or two, I will be launch a Request for Comment on the question of reintroducing this material. Having more eyes and more prespectives on this article would most certainly by a positive. Peter G Werner ( talk) 07:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
As per my post on the BLP noticeboard [3], there's good reason to think that there was no ice water involved, and that a cup was thrown at/dumped on him instead of a full pitcher/jug, and that the whole idea that an iced jug of water was poured on top of him was a later embellishment. I think inclusion of some type of mention of the incident is due, but Wikipedia shouldn't be further propagating these untrue embellishments. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There's nothing in Wilson's description of the event that contradicts the Boston Globe story, but simply a detail that was not reported there.Two months later, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Washington, demonstrators seized the stage as I was about to give a lecture, dumped a pitcher of ice water on my head, and chanted, “Wilson, you’re all wet!” The ice-water episode may be the only occasion in recent American history on which a scientist was physically attacked, however mildly, simply for the expression of an idea. How could an entomologist with a penchant for solitude provoke a tumult of this proportion?
(This cites Steven Jay Gould's The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox: Mending the Gap between Science and the Humanities, though no quote or page number is provided)
It is in this context that one must see the controversy that arose when Wilson began to revive the effort to advance moral claims based on biological science. Most memorably, protesters rushed the stage at a February 1978 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science just as Wilson was about to begin a talk. They chanted “racist Wilson you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide” and threw a cup of water at him (later embellished in legend into a full pitcher of ice water). Unfazed, Wilson went on with his remarks, and in later years referred to the incident with pride, depicting himself as a scientist willing to pursue the truth despite public vilification and physical attacks, a twentieth-century Galileo.
...it seems untrue that a pitcher of ice water was dumped on Wilson’s head at that meeting. That’s a biological urban legend that has been repeated many times. But it’s apparently wrong. The New Atlantis reports the truth: it was a cup of water, and was not dumped on his head... The cup-of-water version is the way I’ve heard it from those who were there, and David Hull concurs (though not Ulrike Segerstrale).
I must also mention the most famous incident of all. In 1978, at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, both Segerstråle and I attended a session on sociobiology at which Wilson was to present a paper. As he began his presentation, a dozen or so members of the International Committee Against Racism marched up onto the stage, chanting: "Racist Wilson you can't hide, we charge you with genocide!" A woman then poured water over Wilson's head. How much water is a matter of conjecture. Usually we are told it was a pitcher of water. Segerstråle remembers a jug. I am sure that it was a small paper cup. One bit of evidence that supports my memory of the incident is that Wilson was able to mop up the water with a single handkerchief. Such are the problems of eye-witness reports.
As I said initially, if this is significant, it should be possible to use sources to indicate to readers why this is significant. We have plenty of sources for the incident itself, but what is needed is context. The NOVA source which quotes Wilson was not being fairly summarized here. As I said, that source goes into at least a bit more detail about why someone affiliated with a group of Marxists was pouring water on his head. It was about eugenics, which Wilson supported. Without this context it just sounds like Marxist being wacky for no reason. That's doing Wilson a disservice by trivializing this. It's also doing Gould and the rest a disservice by implying that this complicated issue can be reduced to one example bratty college hijinks.
Wilson took pride in the incident, but that's not an explanation and isn't even independently noteworthy. Obviously he took pride in a lot of his accomplishments, and it's easy to find sources for him mentioning those things as well. So readers would want to know why the water incident happened. They would want to know why the article even mentions it at all.
The New Atlantis source contextualizes it this way: It is in this context that one must see the controversy that arose when Wilson began to revive the effort to advance moral claims based on biological science. Most memorably, protesters rushed the stage at a ...
[4] That should be an indicator that we also need to provide some more context. Just saying 'it happened and he was proud of it' isn't enough.
Grayfell (
talk)
22:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
spin off of social media-driven demonization. Insisting otherwise is a profound failure to abide by talk page guidelines, even after being warned on your user talk page that AGF is not optional. I myself do not use social media of any kind, and certainly do not get my news there. I was saddened to learn that Wilson was a deeply racist man after reading about his statements to Rushton (in reliable non-social media sources, esp. [5]) because Wilson's book Consillience had made a profound impact on me growing up, even probably helping to spark my professional interest in the philosophy of science. But that is neither here nor there. I'm certainly not interested in defending those who threw water on him, but neither am I interested in acceding to a histrionic portrayal of the incident as a violent attack by mustache-twirling villains with no motivation beyond ignorance. The policy of encyclopedic tone demands that we thread the needle between those two extremes. The material in question can be re-added to the article once we've agreed on text that does so. Grayfell is correct that poisoning the well will only interfere with that process and delay your desired outcome. Generalrelative ( talk) 22:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably a single sentence will do nicely.That's not the same thing as saying
only the shortest possible mention of this incident ("a single sentence", as they put it) should be included, as you represent me. Believe it or not, I have no fear of saying exactly what I mean, so words like "Probably" are there for a reason. It's also odd that you would describe me as one of
the folks who initially made the decision to excise material from the article, when this material was removed months ago by others, and I only reverted you recently for ignoring WP:ONUS when an ongoing discussion was taking place (as I stated in my edit summary). [6] I'm open to any and every suggestion that conforms with our policies and guidelines, and this has been my stance from the beginning. At this point I think it would be helpful for you to simply suggest a bit of text and then discuss it with the rest of us collaboratively. That sure seems to me like it would involve less danger of "wasted effort" than all this fuss. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll start:
In February 1978, while participating in a discussion on sociobiology at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Wilson was chanted at and doused with water by members of the International Committee Against Racism, who accused Wilson of being racist for his views on eugenics. Steven Jay Gould, who opposed Wilson's ideas on sociobiology and was present at the event, condemned the attack.
This it only a rough draft. Any suggestions for improvement? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
New version in response to Werner's feedback:
In February 1978, while participating in a discussion on sociobiology at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Wilson was surrounded, chanted at and doused with water by members of the Marxist activist group International Committee Against Racism, who accused Wilson of being racist for his views on sociobiology and genetic determinism. Steven Jay Gould, who opposed Wilson's ideas on sociobiology and was present at the event, and Science for the People, who had previously protested Wilson, condemned the attack.
Thoughts? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Further revision based on feedback:
In February 1978, while participating in a discussion on sociobiology at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Wilson was surrounded, chanted at and doused with water by members of the International Committee Against Racism, who accused Wilson of advocating racism and genetic determinism. Steven Jay Gould, who opposed Wilson's ideas on sociobiology and was present at the event, and Science for the People, who had previously protested Wilson, condemned the attack.
who had previously protested Wilson(while clunky I think this context actually helps the reader navigate the sentence), but changed out "who" for "which". And in the interest of full disclosure, I also re-removed the POV tag. I do not think anyone could make the case that there is a serious ongoing dispute about the POV of the section. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite magazine}}
: CS1 maint: date format (
link)