Talk:E. O. Wilson/Archive 1

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

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

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

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

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

Why wouldn't Bertrand Russell be of interest?

Moved list of people of questionable relevance to Talk

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


 * I think these reasons are inadequate to include this list on the Edward O. Wilson page. If the names appear in the text, they'll be linked anyway. If they don't appear in the text, the relationship is too tenuous to include.


 * (Please take a look at any five other pages about famous people for comparison. You won't find lists of names unless you specifically select for them.)

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

EVERY encyclopedia has a (often extensive) list of "see alsos". The great thing about the internet is that it takes .5s to "see also". We should make use of that.
 * The function of "see alsos" in paper encyclopedias is to alert you to the presence of other articles of interest related to the one you are reading. Wikipedia does this much more elegantly by inserting links within the text itself. This also encourages the editor to provide a little information about "how" the see-alsos relate. At least a little bit of context would be helpful in this list. Dystopos 29 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)


 * Bertrand Russel
 * Gerard Holton
 * Terence Monmaney
 * Stephen R. Kellert
 * Laura Simonds Southworth
 * Tom Petrie
 * Barry Lopez
 * Charles J. Lumsden
 * Bert Holld&ouml;bler
 * Marjorie L. Reaka-Kudla


 * 1) What makes these people of "questionable relevance"?
 * 2) How can Bertrand Russell possibly be of questionable relevance?
 * 3) What do these people have to do with Edward O. Wilson? -- Zoe


 * Presumably numbers 1 and 2 are answered by the answer to number 3. A dump of names under a "See also" heading is rarely helpful... --Brion 23:24 Oct 2, 2002 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

I agree. Make it so. Dystopos 00:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Nobody else made it so, so I did. Dystopos 29 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)
 * My changes were reverted becuase I done 'em wrong. Sorry. Dystopos 29 June 2005 23:31 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

b. regards



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

Female evolutionary theorists
I would just like to comment on the lack of famous female evolutionary theorists. Where are they? Has the sexism involved in evolutionary theory been seriously discussed anywhere? -Darci p
 * Leda Cosmides is credited as one of the two co-founders of evolutionary psychology.--Nectar 09:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Lynn Margulis proved the symbiotic nature of mitochondria. She has written deeply on the evolutionary processes of early life with her son Dorion Sagan.


 * 'Female evolutionary biologists' are like 'intermediate fossils', the only people who don't think they exist are those who have never looked for them. In fact, biology enjoys a higher representation of females than nearly any other field of science. Ashmoo 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * I think rewriting the entire article is a bit much. Though I have a favorable opinion of Wilson, I do agree with the anon in one respect--the article has a few POV problems.  The use of unnecessary descriptive adjectives is a particular problem.  For instance, the article says "The author was publically harassed and unfairly accused of racism . . ." and "As is true with most creative visionaries[cite]."  This is not neutral.  I will not add the POV tag back, but work needs to be done here. &middot;  j e r s y k o   talk  &middot; 13:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair criticism, Jersyko. I've been attempting to rewrite this article off and on for the past two months. It was in poor shape when I first discovered, so you'll have to excuse the first draft feel of it. Even though Wilson's humiliation is a a matter of public record, it can be toned down. I will concede, however, that invoking the idea of a creative visionary might be a bit much. I only used it a device to temporarily hold together his two enormous bodies of work (i.e. scientific, philosophical). Thank you for the feedback. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtv233 (talk • contribs).


 * I had a bit of a go at toning down some of the effusive praise, especially in the intro. I think his high standing needs to be mentioned, but should be attributed to specific authors/commentators rather than just saying 'some consider him...' Ashmoo 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, good catch on the Tom Wolfe citation. I say we drop the Darwin II quote altogether since it doesn't really matter all that much anyway. I kept Wolfe's article as a reference for the comment about the seminality and reach of Wilson's work. I also dropped the remark about Wilson's equanimity in the intro because I couldn't find any direct reference for it (although it may be in Defenders of Truth). Instead, I added a reference about his prolific career. Thanks for your input, Ashmoo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rtv233 (talk • contribs).


 * No problem. PS. Don' forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes. Ashmoo 01:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I think the idea here is that if selection acts primarily on genes, so that they "seek" to replicate themselves (which is what E.O.W. is claiming), then each variant of a gene will "seek" to out-reproduce other variants, even if they're identical down long stretches of DNA. If a sister contains 75% of the same genes you do, then any one of your genes is given a 75% shot of appearance in her.  Your gene "wants" all its contents copied, whether they code for proteins or not, as a dominating strategy.  If they're all copied, then the variations that matter will be copied as a matter of course.  So the general strategy of a gene is to get itself copied and reproduced as accurately and widely as possible, and the way to do that is through promoting the interests of organisms that are most likely to contain and reproduce it. Nightspore (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that the number should be 50% (but still 25% in the multi-male case). Don't ants have the same 2-gene mitosis as humans, etc?  The number would be much higher in terms of raw genes (99.9% or so), but the evolutionarily relevant set are the genes that are different between individuals of the same species.--Wcoole (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't he attack this explanation of ant social structure in his most recent Nature Analysis piece alongside Novak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.100.83.251 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Can you provide a citation? Nightspore (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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


 * He's very widely known as E. O. Wilson. We use the names things are most commonly known by.  Friday (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response Friday. I'm familar with WP:COMMONNAME.  I think I was a little thrown by the idea of applying it to living people.  My first thought was that surely living people should be reffered to by thier formal first and last name.
 * Upon reflection though, I think E.O. Edwards probably is the right name because -
 * 1)It is the most common name (as demonstrated in search engine test below)
 * 2)WP:COMMONNAME holds true in other BLPs (e.g. J. K. Rowling)
 * I retract my initial comments. This is the correct title for the article.


 * |"E. O. Wilson" sociobiology - 260,000 hits
 * |"Edward Wilson" sociobiology - 12,500 hits


 * Thanks, NickCT (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Planet Earth (TV series)
Why is his appearance on the TV series notable? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Was your intent Planet Earth: The Future? 99.181.136.250 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that part of the series I noted? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Fire ants in Alabama
The Early Life passage about Wilson's work with ants in Alabama could use some clarification. First, specifically what he found was a colony of Solenopsis invicta, the invasive Red imported fire ant. There are other fire ant species, relatively benign, that are native to the South. Second, he found it when he was 13, and it wasn't until 7 years later that he went back to Alabama to document the spread of the species. He has told versions of this story orally on more than one occasion (the lecture cited in this article, a lecture at Trinity College cited in the RIFA article). He committed a version to print in his afterword to the 40th anniversary edition of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (2002) (ISBN 0-618-24906-0).
 * By rare coincidence I was the first person unofficially to record its presence. In 1942, as a thirteen-year-old Boy Scout studying ant species around my home near the Mobile docks, I discovered a single well-developed colony of red imported fire ants.  Seven years later, when the species had become abundant enough to rank as a local pest, I was hired by the state of Alabama to make the first thorough study of its habits and distribution.  I found that the ants were spreading radially outward from Mobile at the rate of about five miles a year.... (p. 359)

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

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

Sociobiology Controversy
I'm not adding anything at the moment, but it seems coverage of the Sociobiology controversy is really insufficient here. I see that it's there, but I think there ought to be more here.Kingshowman (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Kingshowman
 * Kingshowman, If you do expand the Sociobiology section, be sure to add secondary reliable sources. The last para of the section (containing the controversy part) isn't currently sourced. Solomon7968 14:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Surname & 2 initials don't suffice, so ....?
I G-searched for "E. O. Wilson" OR "Edward Osborne Wilson" OR "Edward O. Wilson" OR "Edward E. O. Wilson" primarily for insight into how popular the format is, that i construe as treating his initials as a nickname -- namely
 * Edward "E. O." Wilson

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

6-to-2 among the first 10 hits, and 10-to-4 among the first 20 hits, so i now move on to a different search, for tallying the parenthesized initials against the first three search keys -- but setting aside the first hit, the current content of the accompanying article. On the 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)
 * 1) st page: eowilsonfoundation.org uses, in G's excerpt (other than in the URL!) my second, first, and third versions in that order; Britannica first, third, and then second; among the remaining 7 on 1st page, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd score 4-2-0 among remaining hits;
 * 2) nd page: smithsonianmag.com 3rd then 1st; wikiquote.org & NYT, each 1st in title & 3rd in body text; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd score 5-0-2 among remaining hits;
 * 3) rd page: bigthink 2nd in title, 3rd then 1st later; facebook 1st in title then 3rd and 1st; Goodreads 3rd in title, then 3rd, 2nd, 1st; saveamericasforests (in each of two hits) 1st in title, then 1st & 3rd; audubon 1st in title, then 2nd; 1st, 2nd, and 3rd score 3-0-1 among remaining hits.
 * Thanks for the recent correction to the article (with which I agree). Solomon7968 00:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Post nominal letters
Why is there "FMLS" after his name? It is not on the list of post nominals suggested to add. We do not have Ph.D. or any other societies he was a member of. The link was red until I made it a redirect. I think it should be deleted. Having it there makes it seem extra special. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Richard, where is the "list of post nominals suggested to add" in enWP? The wording of WP:CREDENTIAL seems confusing. While it says not to include society postnomials, it gives the example of Stephen Hawking with them. This article contains the Category:Foreign Members of the Royal Society but there is no mention of being FRS in the article text. Being FRS is of course far more significant than being FMLS (the latter should any way be removed as you say). Solomon7968 03:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * His biography for his foundation has: "Crafoord Prize of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science (given by the Academy in fields of science it does not cover by the Nobel Prize), Japan’s International Prize for Biology, the Prix de Institut de Vie, Paris, Italy’s presidential Medal and the Nonino Prize in science and letters, the Cosmos Prize, the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, the Gold Medal of the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the Audubon Medal of the Audubon Society, the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the American Philosophical Society, Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal International Prize for Science, the Dominican Republic’s highest award, the Order of the Silver Cross of Christopher Columbus, and Sweden’s highest award given to a non-citizen, Commander, First Class, Royal Order of the Polar Star." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misunderstood your comment. I thought there is a Wikipedia guideline which centrally enforces which post nominals needed to be added and which don't. I have removed it in any case. Solomon7968 23:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on E. O. Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/naturalconnections/edward_wilson_bio.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061111154927/http://www.ted.com/tedprize/winners2007.cfm to http://www.ted.com/tedprize/winners2007.cfm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species/

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on E. O. Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150918173637/http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/wil2bio-1 to http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/wil2bio-1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080324162927/http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/06.15/03-biodiversity.html to http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/06.15/03-biodiversity.html

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

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

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on E. O. Wilson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130129122836/http://www.mywesttexas.com/articles/2009/09/18/news/top_stories/doc4ab31071978e4063758641.txt to http://www.mywesttexas.com/articles/2009/09/18/news/top_stories/doc4ab31071978e4063758641.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514070453/http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/msi-dgac/menuitem.cfb4d0ec869dcac3934fec60b0c0e1a0/?vgnextoid=441e7109261a9210VgnVCM1000008d0c1e0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=441e7109261a9210VgnVCM1000008d0c1e0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default to http://www20.gencat.cat/portal/site/msi-dgac/menuitem.cfb4d0ec869dcac3934fec60b0c0e1a0/?vgnextoid=441e7109261a9210VgnVCM1000008d0c1e0aRCRD&vgnextchannel=441e7109261a9210VgnVCM1000008d0c1e0aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305032320/http://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/tlfu/ing/microsites/premios/fronteras/index.jsp to http://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/tlfu/ing/microsites/premios/fronteras/index.jsp

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

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

On Human Nature, 1978
I'm going to edit this section soon. I honestly can't tell what the original editor is meaning to say in the quote below. Is there an easy way to figure out who that was? I guess I need to comb through the edit history to find them. I think what this is trying to say is that, though Wilson used the term "myth," he was obviously a proponent of evolution, and used the word to mean the scientific fact of evolution fills the role that myth did previously. Similarly with the phrase "evolutionary epic." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DolyaIskrina (talk • contribs) 00:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

Scientific Racism
TrangaBellam (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments on correspondence between Rushton and Wilson

 * (registration required)

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

The newly registered account User:Qualscheck seems to be a single purpose account. In this case, the Scientific American Op-ed by Monica McLemore is not considered to be reliable by the two other sources. Equally well, the Science for the People post has inaccuracies (Wilson's age is given as 94). However, given the DS, like the talk pages of Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, J. Philippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, this talk page will almost certainly be templated and a 1RR rule applied. User:SchreiberBike has been notified of the "important notice"; procedurally, I have reverted his changes so that SchreiberBike has an opportunity to discuss this on the talk page, given the possibility that a template is applied to this talk page. It could be done now. Mathsci (talk) 18:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that McLemore's article was published within 4 days of Wilson's death and was rebutted by many scientists. There are problems with these Op-Eds which are often hastily prepared. F&G, despite their attention to detail, give Wilson's age as 94. Mark Borello and David Sepkoski give the wrong university for Rushton. That is in the nature of Op-Eds. But why should this section be so long? Apart from knowing that Wilson made his correspondence publicly available in the Library of Congress, what has changed since Wilson's death? Given that this is a sensitive topic area, I hope that User:Doug Weller, User:Rsk6400, User:Generalrelative, User:NightHeron, User:Grayfell and others will be able to give further advice. Mathsci (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Mathsci, given that you've reverted twice, I think you should self-revert in good faith.
 * As far as the sources go - they're written by experts - Farina & Gibbon are currently working on Wilson's correspondence, and Borello & Sepkoski are also experts in their own field. While McLemore's article probably isn't important here, the other work is quite significant; while McLemore's article prompted a rebuttal (which attracted quite a few notable co-signers), Borello & Sepkoski's work in particular has changed the tone a lot because it shed new light on matters (and convinced a lot of Wilson apologists to change their mind). As far as the source goes - the New York Review of Books is the venue where the original fight over Sociobiology played out.
 * With respect to fairly minor errors - we use reliable sources that get details like that wrong all the time. That's not the nature of Op-Eds, that's the nature of even peer reviewed sources. Guettarda (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please wait for other editors to comment (see above). For known problems with WP:RECENT sources (Op-Eds), please make queries at WP:RSN. If your intention is to promote SPAs, please explain why. If you have some positive changes to suggest, please do that in your own words with cast-iron sources, like any other good faith wikipedia editor. If your intention is simply to revert previous content, please read the WP:DS for WP:ARBR&I. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

A neutral article will discuss his legacy, and like it or not, this is part of his legacy too. The recent coverage obviously supports this, but it would be a mistake to conclude that this must be recentism. I think the Science for the People article summed it up very nicely:
 * Wilson and Rushton’s relationship is not a story of “guilt by association” or of honest mistakes and unfortunate missteps. It is a story about how racist ideas are woven into the scientific record with the support of powerful allies who operate in secret. While this story is extraordinary, it is not unusual.

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


 * I agree that a lot of care needs to be taken over obituaries, legacy, etc; and there is WP:NORUSH. The online Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Wilson by Michael Ruse seems balanced. There is a recent commentary in Nature by Wilson's colleague Bert Hölldobler. The online Op-Ed of Michael Schulson in Undark Magazine appeared on February 16, 2022 and was added just hours afterwards to this wikipedia article with a headlined section "Controversies ..." It involved a selection of informal zoom and telephone interviews. It's clear that academics like Joseph L. Graves Jr and Ullica Segerstråle are highly respected authorities; but Schulson's over-use of "social media" doesn't seem to be particularly encyclopedic.


 * For the period of the 1970s, Adrian Wooldridge's 1994 [2006] book "Measuring the Mind: Education and Psychology in England c.1860-c.1990" (Cambridge University Press) is a reliable source; it is available online. Wooldridge's book covers Edward Wilson, Richard Dawkins, Science for the People (SftP) and the Boston-based Sociobiology Study Group (see for example page 373). SftP was described as a "radical organisation" in the 70s. It's preferable to use encyclopedic books when they exist. Despite the recent flurry of Op-Eds, with claims, counterclaims, rebuttals, etc, it seems likely that far more substantial content, probably in book form, will be written by academics like Sepkoski and Borello following the re-examination of the Rushton-Wilson correspondence 1978–1994 now in the Library of Congress.


 * For more context, please see Science for the People and Segerstråle's 2000 book "Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond", Oxford University Press. --Mathsci (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * This reply doesn't address my concerns at all, so I must be missing something here. Perhaps "legacy" was a poor choice of words on my part, as I do not consider any of these sources to be similar to obituaries. I certainly don't think that, alone, the timing would be a valid reason to exclude them. Perhaps "reputation" or "lasting significance" would be clearer. To restate my point: Wilson's scientific racism has been significant for many decades. Per the Undark article:
 * Not everyone found the content of the letters especially surprising. Indeed, close attention to Wilson’s work and public statements, some scholars said, already provided ample evidence that he was sympathetic to ideas that most biologists now consider not just morally questionable, but scientifically unfounded.
 * If sources are now using his correspondence to explain this aspect, we should not hesitate to take advantage of those sources. Again, as I said, the article currently fails to sufficiently explain why he was accused, by his own respected colleagues, of racism, nor does it properly explain what that racism means. If his death brings this needed attention to this article, or his work as a topic, so be it.
 * It should go without saying that if and when when better sources come along, we should use those sources as appropriate, but the hypothetical existence of better sources in the future doesn't make current sources any more or less reliable. I am not disputing the reliability of any currently cited sources such as Wooldridge (nor am I specifically defending them). I am saying that the article should be updated to include more context from existing sources, and for neutrality. Whether or not Wooldridge described Science for the People as a radial organization in 1994 seems like a non-sequitur, especially for 2022. If you want context regarding that, the Undark article provides a bit. That it was added "just hours" after being published doesn't make any difference at all, unless you have some reason to think this was spam. Critiquing the source because it mentions the format of the interviews seems very strange. The source should be evaluated on its own merits, same as always. Grayfell (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The good sources are:
 * The first of the 2 WP:RSs are well known because they have already been absorbed into the content of History of the race and intelligence controversy, particularly the narrative involving Science for the People (SftP) & the Sociobiology Study Group. The four Op-Eds listed at the beginning of the section need to be examined separately; possibly other Op-Ed articles will appear. The first post of Monica McLemore was rebutted here. The posting in the SftP magazine by Farina and Gibbons seem outspoken, stating that Wilson corresponded with "race scientists" Arthur Jensen and Richard Herrnstein. And after tweets from Sepkoski, et al, more accusations can be found here. Several of the reactions from Schulson's undark Op-Ed seem non-committal. Mightn't reading Wooldridge, Segerstråle, Ruse, etc, be a good idea? Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, the article in Undark Magazine (not undark#magazine) is not an op-ed, and it's not even a normal editorial. It is important to understand what these terms mean, and how the apply to Wikipedia. The Undark story is published under the site's "news and features" banner. It is journalism from a respected outlet for long-form journalism. Wikipedia articles can cite Journalism when appropriate, and this seems appropriate.
 * As for the four good sources, all sources must be judged in context, and what is good at one article will still need to be evaluated on its own merits for this article. Two of those predate Wilsons' death and therefor do not include information on his correspondences. Of course they can be cited here, but they are incomplete, because we now have new information. Britannica is, like Wikipedia, a tertiary source, and can be used, but we are not obligated to use that article as a baseline. As for the final one, it is an obituary written by a friend and colleague, meaning it is functionally an editorial about life to provide context for his death. Such sources are certainly useful, but as you said, we should be cautious, and we certainly don't expect such sources to be neutral or comprehensive.
 * However, again, I am having a hard time seeing how this relates to my original comment. The article currently fails to properly summarize this information. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ask User:NightHeron; she wrote the content which I slightly rejigged. However, on February 15, 2022, the "E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation" issued A Statement on E.O. Wilson and the Rushton Correspondence, linking the article of Borrello and Sepkoski and distancing themselves from the correspondence. They wrote:
 * Recently, new inquiry into the papers of E.O. Wilson (1929 – 2021) reveals his correspondence (1978 – 1995) with a discredited racist psychology professor, the late J. Philippe Rushton. The majority of Rushton’s research in this arena has not withstood peer review, and therefore is not published. In 2002, Rushton left academia to head the Pioneer Fund – a nonprofit started to study hereditary and human differences, categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a Hate Group. Professor Wilson’s correspondence with Rushton has not been fully investigated by the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation; however, we acknowledge and recognize Rushton’s work has been labeled as racist and was withdrawn from several academic publications. We acknowledge E.O. Wilson’s correspondence with and apparent support of Rushton’s career is hurtful and harmful.
 * Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * However, again, I am having a hard time seeing how this relates to my original comment. The article currently fails to properly summarize this information. Grayfell (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ask User:NightHeron; she wrote the content which I slightly rejigged. However, on February 15, 2022, the "E. O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation" issued A Statement on E.O. Wilson and the Rushton Correspondence, linking the article of Borrello and Sepkoski and distancing themselves from the correspondence. They wrote:
 * Recently, new inquiry into the papers of E.O. Wilson (1929 – 2021) reveals his correspondence (1978 – 1995) with a discredited racist psychology professor, the late J. Philippe Rushton. The majority of Rushton’s research in this arena has not withstood peer review, and therefore is not published. In 2002, Rushton left academia to head the Pioneer Fund – a nonprofit started to study hereditary and human differences, categorized by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a Hate Group. Professor Wilson’s correspondence with Rushton has not been fully investigated by the E.O. Wilson Biodiversity Foundation; however, we acknowledge and recognize Rushton’s work has been labeled as racist and was withdrawn from several academic publications. We acknowledge E.O. Wilson’s correspondence with and apparent support of Rushton’s career is hurtful and harmful.
 * Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You asked for advice from me and some other editors who have experience in this topic. My advice is to expand the article's coverage based on reliable sources, of which there are already several. I guess that's probably not the kind of advice you were asking for, but that's the advice I have to give. Since you specifically reverted changes along this line, and asked for consensus, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to make these changes myself, at least not yet. Do you disagree and think the article's fine the way it is? Do you agree it should be expanded? Since you cited BRD, it would be very helpful if you could explain your reverts.
 * As for the article, I specifically think the Undark source warrants more attention, since it covers a fair bit, and seems relatively even handed without falling into false equivalence. That source provides some context for the McLemore piece (such as online harassment etc.). Independent sources about an opinion piece are a great way to evaluate if and how to include opinions.
 * Two new links you included, I assume for for context, are a blog from Jerry Coyne (which includes some questionable BLP issues) and an anonymous blog post from a fringe creationist website. I do not consider those reliable at all, so I have not considered them for expanding the article. The foundation's letter might justify a sentence or two. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There don't seem to be enough reliable sources for providing stable content, beyond mentioning the letter of the Biodiversity Foundation and the previous sentences. So far there has only been an interim report on the Wilson-Rushton correspondence 1987–1995. It has troubling aspects, as mentioned by Borrello & Sepkoski. Adding substantial content about the correspondence to the article J. Philippe Rushton using blogs does not seem to be possible, without unbalancing that pre-existing material. On the other hand, during the 1970s "Sociobiology controversy", Science for the People certainly labelled E. O. Wilson as a racist (see Wooldridge's book). The McLemore opinion piece and its multi-author rebuttal are not particularly helpful. Hate mail sent to McLemore, following the opinion piece, is a separate issue. I'm not sure why Ullica Segerstråle's views should be disregarded: is it because she's from Finland? Mathsci (talk) 03:52, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Because she's from Finland"... What? Is that supposed to be a joke, or is this a breakdown in communication? Why would you even speculate that something like that would be a factor? If you want to propose content from that source, please do so! That source is over twenty years old, and predates both Wilson's death and the publication of his letters. Obviously, it's still usable, but this newer context matters. So how, exactly, would this source be helpful?
 * I'm talking about adding new sources and summarizes the existing ones more proportionately. The newer sources appear sufficient for a few sentences, and the older ones should be balanced better. We should not add a WP:CSECTION, but we should provide context for both the older and newer sources. Changes should not be opposed merely based on whether or not the content is stable. Preserving obsolete information through inertia sacrifices usefulness and accuracy for stability.
 * The phrase "troubling aspects" is euphemistic. Are readers going to know why this is troubling, or controversial, or what he was accused of, or why his work was reevaluated? If we're not explaining this to readers, what's the point? We should directly explain to readers why it's an issue worth mentioning. Most, if not all, of the cited sources do a better job of explaining this than the current Wikipedia article. If there's a valid reason the article fails to explain this, I haven't seen it yet.
 * So, Wilson's defense of Rushton's scientific racism is already significant to any comprehensive biography, so the question is how do we summarize this. I don't care why the article covered it the way that it did before. Older sources do not invalidate newer sources. I think there was plenty of room for improvement before this came out, but that's true for almost all articles. In this particular case, we have a more specific reason to reevaluate. Grayfell (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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)


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

per my edit-summary, your edits are WP:OFFTOPIC since they're not about Wilson's correpondence with Rushton. Few have queried Wooldridge as a WP:RS; only perhaps Mikemikev. You might be the second. Mathsci (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet again, I don't have a problem with the source. How many times do I have to explain this? I want to use sources, including this one, to do a better job of summarizing the larger issue.
 * To put it as succinctly as I can: There seems to be an agreement that the article would benefit from a better explanation of this history. If we explain what sources like Wooldridge are saying about Wilson's actual views and statement and how they lead to his dispute with Gould, Lewontin, etc. then the article will be better off. After that, I think it will be a lot clearer if and how we should explain Wilson's support of Rushton and some of his theories.
 * Right now, the article isn't explaining this very well, and I'm more than happy to explain why, but you don't seem to have the patience any more. Casting aspersions against me doesn't improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's open access to Wooldridge's book here. Mathsci (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Ice water incident
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)
 * The Guardian's science writer Robin McKie had an alternative background story of the ice water incident: 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.
 * Several obituaries by gold standard sources mention the ice water incident, New York Times, Associated Press, Nature, Washington Post. This person lived a life of 92 years and all these sources decided that this incident was WP:DUE to mention in his obituary. --46.30.132.129 (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Journalists often treat academic disputes as a grudge match between people who just don't like each other. Wilson calls a prominent opponent of his a "charlatan", and one of his opponents throws ice water at him. That's the way the "reception" section of this article currently reads. There's no explanation of what the substantive disagreement was. An encyclopedia should cover the dispute is a more serious and academic manner with no need to describe childish name-calling or throwing of ice water. NightHeron (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If there is some way to use reliable sources to neutrally explain why this incident had lasting significance, propose it. These obituaries are either passing mentions or are using this as a way to provide context for the larger issue. It is not enough to merely mention that something happened using whatever sources can be easily googled. We need to explain to readers why it matters. The quote was also arbitrarily selected, since it doesn't even directly mention the incident or explain anything at all about why it happened or what followed it. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. As NightHeron observes, we need to be careful to present an encyclopedic tone here. If it's true that most relevant sources (e.g. gold-standard obituaries) mention this event then our hands are unfortunately tied –– WP:DUE holds sway –– but we should pay careful attention to how we describe it to avoid the aesthetics of WP:SENSATION. Generalrelative (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

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)


 * I'm being told to weight for "consensus" before restoring this content. So far, the "consensus" is between two editors, who's expressed reasons for not including content that's prominently mentioned in several "gold star" sources seems rather dodgy to me. I'd like to open this up to an RfC so that it doesn't just become an Argument Clinic between myself and the other two. Peter G Werner (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * One other note - if it's a matter of adding larger context, certainly more could be added on Science for the People's campaign against Sociobiology, of which the 'ice water' assault was the most dramatic and high-profile incident. Peter G Werner (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Removing a significant, colorful, and famous biographical detail with multiple reliable sources seems very strange indeed and against the spirit of Wikipedia, so I also agree it should be restored. 2601:600:817F:A8E0:DD59:BD06:6876:7C3B (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I also want to note that the opinion of two or three editors, especially ones that have appointed themselves the role of guardians against outside "interference" in editing the article, hardly constitutes a "consensus", and I'll note that User:NightHeron has not engaged with my criticism in the now 12 hours plus since he quick-reverted my reincorporation of this content. That does not look like consensus-building to me, and in fact, smacks of article ownership. I am going to put an tag the section in question until this issue is resolved. What I would like to do is open this issue to an RFC and, in particular, get some folks from WikiProject Evolutionary biology and WikiProject History of Science to give their opinion on inclusion of this material. More eyes on this article would be a good thing.


 * I think the edit I'm challenging is the most egregious issue with the article at the moment, but above and beyond this controversy, I think this article could use a great deal of expansion. Above and beyond the hot-button controversies that social media has pushed to the forefront, Wilson was one of the most eminent evolutionary biologists of the last century, and his contributions to evolutionary theory are numerous. And there are controveries there, too - late in his career, he co-authored a paper supporting the possibilty of group selection, something that was extremely controversial among his adaptationist colleagues who would have been his long-standing supporters in his arguments with Gould and Lewontin. There's nothing about this scientific controversy in this article. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Your intemperate tirades full of accusations against other editors, whom you called "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)
 * Well, I'm sorry you consider my words to be "intemperate tirades" that you can dismiss without engaging with, but I have in fact made clear and honest criticism of what I consider to be a very poor editorial decision on the part of a few Wikipedia editors who really jumped the gun on removing well-sourced content without buidling an actual consensus. I have no intention on toning down how bad I consider this decision to be, though I will refrain from personal attacks, and ask that you and other editors do the same. This discussion needs to be reopened and it needs much more participation before any consensus can be said to be achieved. What I will not do is approach the editors who made this decision as gatekeepers who need to be asked permission to make changes to the article.
 * My goal is not to write a hagiography of EO Wilson. But I take WP:NPOV seriously, and also am going to push back against a slant that is weighted toward Wilson's political critics. (Which is not to say that the views of his critics aren't to be included - I think NPOV demands this.) I hope we can all agree that Wikipedia is not Rational Wiki and that weighting an article against a subject simply because they're the subject of ire by online 'progressives' is simply not on. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems there was never a consensus to remove it, so requiring a consensus to put it back in seems to be bad faith. KRLA18 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually no, the policy at play here is WP:ONUS, which makes clear that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Generalrelative (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no "Onus" on those who disagree with your decision to have you and the other two editors who unilaterally made this decision grant permission to make the change. This smacks more than a little bit of WP:OWN and is based on a false consensus. As I've stated, I will put out an RfC, we'll get a wider range of opinions on this topic, and then we can talk about "consensus". Peter G Werner (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the stable version for the last 5 months did not have the incident, and after the removal back then there was a discussion (above in this thread) that generally supported the removal. PGW essentially acknowledged this in their edit summary 9 hours ago by referring to the edit as WP:BOLD. NightHeron (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This "consensus" was three in favor of removal and one against, which does not strike me as much of a quorum -- at the very least, not enough to dismiss forever the idea of including this well-documented and famous event in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. At any rate, there clearly isn't a consensus now. 2601:600:817F:A8E0:DD59:BD06:6876:7C3B (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Reading this conversation over again, the main concerns I see are about encyclopedic tone and the fact that content must be based on reliable secondary sources. The version I just reverted was not encyclopedically toned (using loaded language like "attack" and "front group" and unduly quoting Wilson as the final word on the matter), and it was cited only to Wilson's own autobiography and a NOVA documentary. Above an IP has mentioned obits in the NY Times, Nature, etc. (way back in April). Why was no effort made by those who wish to include this material to incorporate those sources and rework the passage for tone? Why instead the assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks? Honestly, if what you really want is to include this incident in the bio, there are effective ways of going about it. Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe because pouring a pitcher of water on someone really is a physical assault, however minor, and INCAR really is a front group for PLP, a fact that even left-wing sources on the topic do not dispute? I’m all for maintaining NPOV as much as possible, but facts are facts, and you don’t not mention facts because they reflect poorly on the subject. And I really don’t get the not so subtle call on the part of yourself or Grayfell that groups like INCAR or Science for the People be treated with a blatantly ‘’sympathetic point of view’’ rather than a neutral one. Nor do I see why Wilson’s biography here should be an off-limits source. Of course I’m all for using additional sources as well, but I seriously doubt how much that changes. Hell, if one can find a something written by INCAR or PLP stating their motives for the attack, include it by all means. But there’s nothing “unencyclopedic” about discussing the incident. And much that is POV about deliberately excluding it. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:50, 14 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)


 * If you want a quicker resolution, I would advise against that. An RFC will take a month and there are more editors watching this page than have chosen to comment thus far. There is good advice from User:Generalrelative where he makes the point that no one is saying the incident cannot be mentioned. The lack of consensus is over how it is presented. If you just ask in an RFC whether the information should be here I expect you will get a “yes, with appropriate sourcing” and be no further on after a month.
 * What would be quicker and more constructive is to take the advice from Generalrelative and find consensus on this page for reintroducing the material in a more neutral way. If you have made efforts to address concerns, and still get no consensus, then you will have a better idea what an RFC should be asking. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * First off, I don't mind it taking a month - I'm not in any hurry, and sometimes slow deliberation is better. Second, privileging the views of the few editors who came to this decision is validating a false consensus, and I really don't want to validate that kind of gatekeeping and article ownership. I am not engaging in a revert war because, of course, that's a bad practice, but don't take that as an indication that I think there's any validity to the claim that there's an "onus" on those of us who wish to reinclude this material.


 * But, OK, I can propose an altered version, and I'll probably do that, though the other editor had seemed to indicate that even calling it an "attack" or mentioning the group's affiliation is undue bias against INCAR, the group responsible for the attack. If that's simply met with a brush-off, there's no use in putting more work into it than that, and I think an RfC would be the way to go. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Ice water?
As per my post on the BLP noticeboard, 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)


 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to take issue with the phrase "untrue embellishment". The exact wording "dumped a pitcher of ice water on my head" is directly from EO Wilson's autobiography, which is a reliable source, and so I do not think this version of events should be treated as an "embellishment" with the implication that Wilson is giving a false version of events. The full text concerning the incident: "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?" 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.


 * Now I will also state that if it's just a matter whether or not the detail of a "pitcher" of "ice-water" is included, I basically don't think including it is worth the level of strife. But I definitely do not concede the point that Wilson's self-account of the incident is "untrue" and I think it is biased to treat his account of the incident as such. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Autobiographies are not independent of the subject, so stating Wilson's biography is a "reliable source" with no caveats for the claim is questionable in this case. We must weigh Wilsons's statement (which he had an incentive to embellish) against the other evidence I have presented, which clearly puts doubt into the pitcher of ice water claim. I think "doused with water" is enough. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Autobiographies should be treated as potentially biased sources, fully agreed! What I take great issue with is that you seem to have jumped to "likely embellished" without further evidence. The fact is, his account does not contradict the one given in the Boston Globe article. Are there other primary accounts that fully contradict Wilson's account of the event? If so, then there would be a real case of "sources contradict", and it's certainly an issue I've come across before in editing other biographical articles. But there does not seem to be other accounts that contradict Wilson's.

(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)
 * In any event, here's how I think it should handled: Use "douse with water" in the article text. In the citations, for the Boston Globe article and Naturalist, use the "quote = " in the approriate "Cite" template to give the direct quote from each source about the event. I believe these are short enough to include. (The statement from Wilson, which I've blockquoted above, could be shortened in the quote text to: 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 Boston Globe quote would probably be: "Edward O. Wilson was screamed at, jostled and doused with water yesterday as he prepared to deliver a talk on his research in sociobiology at the 144th annual meeting of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.") Peter G Werner (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you not read what I wrote on the BLP noticeboard? For a recap: The New Atlantis says:
 * "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."
 * Jerry Coyne says: ...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).
 * David Hull (who was actually present for the incident) says: "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."


 * So we have a direct eyewitness account of the incident (Hull) who directly contradicts Wilson's account. Obviously the details here are still murky (such as whether or not the cup was thrown or poured on his head), but there's strong reason to doubt the "pitcher of ice water" account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * With the caveat that the New Atlantis article is a derived source, I think it's worth proceeding as I proposed. "Doused with water" in the text, short quotes from the eyewitness accounts quoted in the sources. I think eyewitness accounts are particularly valuable - I did not know David Hull was one, but by all means, cite it. I know Stephen Jay Gould was there, and I'll by all means search for that particular source as well. I'm pretty sure that Gould made a statement denouncing the action by the PLP folks. If that can be properly sources, that should be included as well. It's also worth noting that Segerstråle is supposed to have given an extensive account of what took place in a book she wrote on the 'sociobiology wars'. I'll see if I can locate this. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * More evidence for pitcher (but not ice) is in a contemporary source from the San Francisco Chronicle (see clipping):
 * Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard professor, popularized the field of sociolbiology [sic], was drenched with a pitcher of water during a scientific meeting yesterday by a group of protestors who consider his theories racist. "Wilson, you are all wet," chanted a handful of members of group called the Committee Against Racism, and one poured the water pitcher over Wilson's head. The article further notes: Wilson was unable to use the podium to speak because he recently broke his foot jogging. One of the demonstrators moved behind his chair and poured the water over his head. Rather than quibble over the exact shape and size of the vessel or the temperature and quantity of the water involved, I think it can be credibly said that H2O was intentionally applied to Ed's head by protestors. That should be stated simply without belaboring (or casting into doubt) exact details of the hydration. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. We should briefly describe the incident in as uncontroversial a manner as possible without blowing it up into a pivotal moment in the bio. Probably a single sentence will do nicely. Detail on the history of the narrative can be added in the form of ref quotes. If someone wants to suggest language that accomplishes that, I would support its eventual inclusion. Generalrelative (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it merits more than a "single sentence", especially since there were other notable individuals like Stephen Jay Gould present who responded to the incident. It is a very notable incident within the larger controversy around Sociobiology, which deserves some explication. It is a topic that is frequently mentioned in accounts about Wilson, and yet is the subject of rumor and controversy demands an accurate account. Since there are several eyewitness accounts, I'm sure that a brief but full account can be given here. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've found a copy of Stephen Jay Gould's "The Hedgehog, the Fox, and the Magister's Pox" and he also mentions the part about Wilson having a broken leg. Gould, for all of his intellectual opposition to Sociobiology, is quite outspoken in his opposition to InCAR's actions, BTW. The group responible is named in the Boston Globe article and in several other sources, and should definitely be noted, as well as the fact that Gould and even Science for the People were opposed to this action so that responsibility is not misattributed. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing that InCAR was responsible, but the Boston Globe source does not say so. The Globe does note that Science for the People condemned the action though, as you say. Generalrelative (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's a contemporary eyewitness account from SftP member Jon Beckwith and Bob Lange:


 * He was about to begin his talk when a group of 10-15 members of Committee Against Racism (CAR) marched onto the stage, yelled "Racist Wilson you can't hide, we charge you with genocide," and poured water over Wilson's head. After a few minutes of confusion, and screaming both from CAR members and the audience, the former left the room and the moderator decried the incident, whereupon a large segment of the audience gave Wilson a standing ovation.


 * Here's the eyewitness account of Ullica Segerstråle who was present at the event, written in 2000.


 * Just as Wilson is about to begin, about ten people rush up on the speaker podium shouting various epithets and chanting: 'Racist Wilson you can't hide, we charge you with genocide!' While some take over the microphone and denounce sociobiology, a couple of them rush up behind Wilson (who is sitting in his place) and pour a jug of ice-water over his head, shouting 'Wilson, you are all wet!' Then they quickly disappear again. ... Who were these disrupters of the peace? It turned out they belonged to CAR.


 * Here's a 1999 report by Tom Wolfe (whom I don't know if he was present, but seems unlikely).


 * One goony seized the microphone and delivered a diatribe against Wilson while the others jeered and held up signs with swastikas – whereupon a woman positioned behind Wilson poured a carafe of ice water, cubes and all, over his head, and the entire antiseptic squad joined in the chorus: "You're all wet! You're all wet! You're all wet!"
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs) 21:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for these! Not sure about the Tom Wolfe one, since it's a derived source, but the other two are from eyewitnesses. I'd been looking for Segerstrale's book online and had neglected to check Internet Archive. I also found another very good source and one that gives some background on the meeting itself in a 1978 news article in Science: https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.199.4332.955.b Peter G Werner (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

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 ... 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)


 * Well put. Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I found Gould's eyewitness recount from 2003. He's on team cup, but his story differs slightly other accounts in the sex of the water-bearer. One student, yelling "Racist Wilson, you're all wet," took a cup of water and poured it over Wilson's head. The group then left the stage and the hall. (I was seated right next to Ed and got pretty wet myself). He later chides himself for not intervening sooner: You see, I saw that young man with the cup of water and I realized what he was about to do. Some witnesses say a woman dumped a pitcher, some say a man poured a cup. Some dispute dumping (perhaps favoring a thrown cup theory?) Ice may or may not have been involved: do we know the temperature of Washington DC that February? The thermostat setting of the conference room? Perhaps there was also a water balloon tossed simultaneously from a grassy knoll. I don't mean to imply that all of these conflicting or partly conflicting narratives need to be shoehorned in, but think it's apparent that neither narrative has been entirely debunked, although subsequent accounts, even by those who were present, may have been since embellished or misremembered. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. It would be unrealistic to expect everyone to remember these kinds of details hours or minutes later, much less decades later. It's not nefarious or even surprising that there are so many slight differences. These differences aren't necessarily an indication of lasting significance, it's just... how memory works. The incident was memorable to those who were there, but we can do a bit better than that. I'm not saying this is WP:ROUTINE, but we need to indicate to readers why it's not routine. Grayfell (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I wish I could start this on a positive note, but I don't remotely agree with User:Grayfells's reasoning here, and I have to ask what Wikipedia rule or policy you're invoking here. The fact that this incident is mentioned repeatedly by a wide range of verifiable sources and there are clear journalistic and book sources, in several cases by eyewitnesses to the incident is argument enough for inclusion. Now you claim an additional requirement, without reference to any Wikipedia policy, that sources must "explain why this relevant". I'm sorry, but unless you can show me an actual Wikipedia rule to that effect, that's just your opinion and is not sufficient to exclude this incident from the article. My second concern is why there's such excess concern about not making Marxist groups look bad. NPOV, of course, applies to mainstream and radical perspectives alike, and if the article was artificially slanted against Marxist or radical perspectives, I might agree with you. But because there's simply the implication that presenting this information might cast left-wing groups in a negative light? Well, so what - Wikipedia is not in the business of protecting political groups, right, left, or centrist. I'm not even sure why this is being treated as a serious argument.


 * As it stands, I am interested in the larger story and the place of this incident in the larger controversy between Wilson and Science for the People, and specifically the Sociobiology Study Group of that organization. If I'm not mistaken, the popular controversy around Sociobiology is what led to the symposium at the AAAS meeting. It is why Gould was there and shy it brought out protesters. The PLP folks were an especially fringe group that wasn't shy about taking it to the level of physical attack. (And, if it's necessary to bring that in, there's plenty of material going back to Kirkpatrick Sale's history of the SDS that describes the PLP's antics.) Of course, this background on the Sociobiology controversy needs good sourcing.


 * However, I'm seeing to different imperatives from the folks who initially made the decision to excise material from the article. User:Grayfell wants the information presented in its larger context. Some differences aside, we actually share the same goal in that regard. However, User:Generalrelative states that only the shortest possible mention of this incident ("a single sentence", as they put it) should be included. Obviously, those two things are contradictory.


 * There is also the question of wasted effort. I would like to help produce a quality and contextual reintroduction of this incident to this article. And yet I see several people strongly hinting that they will oppose any reintroduction of this material. This is why I'm starting with discussion first and possibly an RfC before I do any significant work on this article. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * We're all experienced editors who are discussing this with the common goal of improving the article. If you want policy: WP:DUE, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and WP:NPOV. The gist of those is that this is an encyclopedia, so our goal isn't just to list factoids, it's to provide readers with context so they can understand the greater topic, and the way we do that is by summarizing what sources say with minimal editorializing or cherry-picking. We don't have to include this, so if we do include this, let's do it right.
 * Most of these sources are pretty redundant or differ only on trivialities, such as exactly how much water was dumped, and exactly how cold was it. Nobody is disputing that this incident happened, only if and how to include it in this article. Further, many if not all of those sources provide context for why this matters. To include this without that context would be misrepresenting sources, which is absolutely not compliant with policy. If we include this, we have an obligation against including this in a non-neutral way, such as by framing entirely though Wilson's quote, made in passing, decades after the fact. That would be picking on source, stripping away the context of that source, and then ignoring all the other sources.
 * I'm also interested in the story behind Science for the People, but this, of course, starts with reliable sources. Presenting this incident as somehow being an example doesn't actually explain anything. Implying stuff about this incident which isn't supported by reliable sources is editorializing. We are better off leaving this out than misleading readers.
 * As an example of the sourcing problems, I was not familiar with The New Atlantis article before looking into it. It's not peer reviewed, and at the time of that article, the journal was published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center which is overtly partisan and political. It appears to be usable as a WP:BIASED source, especially for anything about a Marxist front group, but how is that going to work here? As I mentioned previously on this article's talk page, I don't think Coyne's blog is usable at all. The Hull source seems like enough that anything beyond "some water" would be disputable, but why even go into that level of depth on this biography article? How does that help readers who don't already understand all this stuff? Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Presenting the fact that he was physically attacked during the controversy over “Sociobiology” is not “editorializing”, and to leave it out when most sources present it as an important event is a pointed omission. It is POV to not include it for the mere reason to make Wilson’s critics look better. I am not backing down on my stance that this was a terrible editorial decision, made by only three editors. This is not “consensus”. Nevertheless, it seems that an in-context presentation of the event from multiple reliable sources would pass muster with (hopefully) most editors here. It would be worth doing a first draft, which will hopefully not be subject of extensive wikilawyering. I still think an RfC might be helpful in the end. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Nobody here has said that this must be removed or cannot ever be mentioned, and certainly not because it makes his critics look bad! Your use of scare quotes around editorializing is an admission that you don't understand the problem. You've also poisoned the well by preemptively dismissing these concerns as extensive wikilawyering. If you don't understand the problem, and dismiss any attempt to explain the problem as wikilawyering, how likely is it that your draft is going to gain consensus? Grayfell (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think there was ever a "problem" to begin with, and this was a supremely bad idea on the part of the three editors who made it. All I see is a lot of spin off of social media-driven demonization of EO Wilson that blew up after his death and seems to have played out on Wikipedia in unfortunate ways. At this point, I'll just say we're going to have to agree to disagree on the wisdom of the original edit and move forward with a better version. I don't think moving forward requires my agreement about the original edit. Peter G Werner (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Objections to including the material as it was were based on policy, not 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. ) 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)


 * Good grief, I really think making retaliatory threats is not the way to move forward. I have every right to state strong disgreement with decisions made by other editors, and I'm sure if you would be pretty vehement in your disagreement if you came across edits to an article that you found strongly POV, made by a small group, but being presented as 'consensus'. I have not ascribed motive to any individual editor, but I am saying that some very strong anti-EO Wilson sentiment seems to have influenced parts of this article. (And I'm not implying that the article needs a pro-EO Wilson stance, it's just that it's missing the mark on neutrality on the controversial aspects of his legacy.) Others might disagree, and might even claim that Wilson was "a deeply racist man" (a highly contestible claim), but I think I should be able to state my view and not be threatened with sanctions for it. I think we're all "adults in the room" here, so let's work on this like adults. Peter G Werner (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Great, please proceed. As a point of fact, no one here has told you that there is an existing consensus, only that per policy the onus is on you to create one if you want to include disputed material. Generalrelative (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I said 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). 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)

Proposal workshop
I'll start: This it only a rough draft. Any suggestions for improvement? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * I think it's pretty darn good. No objections. At first I was concerned about the use of the word "attack" (most of the sources discussed above use less fraught language), but I see that Gould himself uses it so I'm all in. Generalrelative (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. The context is explained briefly and neutrally. NightHeron (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I take issue with the "his views on eugenics" part. Wilson was not a promoter of eugenics and quite specifically anti-eugenics in his published work. Based on my reading of sources so far, the protesters did not specifically use the term "eugenics" in their criticisms of him either. The attack was motivated by his views on sociobiology (a term he coined), which his critics claimed expressly promoted racism and social inequality.


 * Otherwise, this is a good start. Small detail, but I would note that the attackers rushed the podium and then doused Wislon with water. Most eyewitness accounts emphasize this. The fact that Science for the People protested Wilson, but condemned the attack is also worth including. Per previous discussion, it's actually worth making longer to give the context of the symposium at AAAS, which is stated in the Science article that I linked to, and the fact that there was initially a protest and then the incident. I'm going to read through all of the source material again, and see if there's other material worth adding, and more generally, does the proposed version conform to the sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

New version in response to Werner's feedback: Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * I can get on board with this. Readability suffers a bit from the added information, and I'm not sure that all of it is relevant (i.e. mentioning that CAN was a "Marxist activist group" –– obviously true but not obviously necessary here). However nothing in this version runs afoul of policy, so I'll be happy to compromise in the interest of reaching consensus. Generalrelative (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Better! Still some tweaking of the "his views on" part. It implies something like "genetic determinism" was a veiw he actually held, which Wilson himself disputed. It might be better to state it along the lines of "his views on sociobiology, which protesters saw as advocating racism and genetic determinism". Might even be "his theories on sociobiology", since he was advocating sociobiology as new paradigm for the social sciences. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:51, 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.
 * thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with this version. I'd also like to say thanks for taking the lead on suggesting text and being so responsive to feedback. Generalrelative (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks also for taking the step of boldly adding the draft text. I took the liberty of re-adding the clause 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)


 * I do think this section has been substantially improved, and reintroducing this I think corrects a glaring ommission, so thank you all! However, I do think there are remaining issues of of balance in the "Sociobiology: Reception" section. Notably, it presents the reception as overwhelmingly negative, which was not the case. The book was definitely controversial, but also well-received in much of the scientific community if the reviews in Science and Nature are anything to go by. (.) In any event, we don't really need to look beyond Wikipeia for a balanced approach to this topic - it's given in the article on Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Of course, that article is lengthy, but I think a balanced view of reviews of this work could be given via a brief summary of what's already been written in the "Reception" section of that article. (The only only thing I think that's notably missing from the Sociobiology: The New Synthesis article is a summary of the Science and Nature reviews - I'll add tose to that article, and then come up with a summary of that article's "Reception" section to incorporate into the appropriate section of the this article.) In spite of the current lack of balance in this section, I don't see the need to retag it. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good plan. Our article on the book itself is really quite thorough! But yes, adding reviews from Science and Nature would be prima facie DUE. Generalrelative (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)