Template talk:Evolutionary psychology

Inclusion of Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon
Vintage Feminist, what I imagine the creator of the template intended was that the sub-heading refer not to people who have written about evolutionary psychology, but researchers who have made substantive empirical contributions to the field, and that includes not just psychologists but evolutionary biologists and neuroscientists as well (which is probably why the author chose "seminal writers" instead of "evolutionary psychologists"). To my knowledge, however, Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon have not contributed any articles to any of the major handbooks or volumes about evolutionary psychology (such as The Adapted Mind, the first edition of The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology edited by David Buss or the first or second volume of the second edition of that handbook, or The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology edited by Louise Barrett and Robin Dunbar), have sat on or currently sit on the editorial board of the journal Evolutionary Psychology, or currently work at any research center associated with any of the other researchers on this list. Additionally, according to Fine's and Rippon's Wikipedia pages their views about sex differences in psychology are in contrast with this field (see the evolutionary psychology page sections about mating and parenting). If you can produce any references that indicate otherwise, then fine, but until and unless you do, I’m reverting these edits. - Jajhill (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon are both notable critics of evolutionary psychology, the idea of biological determinism (as these debates show), so of course they are not in any of the references that you are talking about. Fine wrote Delusions of Gender - a seminal work. Rippon's work has led her to be brought in as an expert on a number of occasions by the BBC. If we are talking about the template's original creator then it is pure speculation that they created the template with only pro-evolutionary psychologists in mind and there is a danger of breaching WP:NPOV in deleting credible neuroscientists who oppose epistemologies of a rigid view of biological determinism. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: I would disagree that the NPOV policy applies here. According to the policy, Wikipedia articles are allowed to characterize debates but not participate in them, and within the "Reception" section of the article on evolutionary psychology, there is a subsection on biological determinism, in addition to a link in the section to the separate article on criticism of evolutionary psychology. However, I do not think that the policy applies to navboxes, as navboxes are meant to link multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles. In the case of navboxes for schools of thought in social sciences, this would typically only include figures who contributed to the development of the school of thought, not the school's critics. For example, economist Paul Krugman is a well-known critic of the Chicago school of economics, but he is not included in the Chicago School's navbox, and shouldn't be, because he's not a Chicago School economist. However, some of Krugman's criticisms of the Chicago school are included in the "Criticisms" section of the Chicago School article, as they should be. Likewise, as Fine and Rippon are not evolutionary psychologists links to their Wikipedia articles should not be included in the evolutionary psychology navbox, but their criticisms can and should be included in the criticism of evolutionary psychology article. - Jajhill (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re:I don't think you're comparing like with like. Evolutionary psychology is a school of thought not a bricks and mortar school. When it comes to an individual school, someone either taught there or they did not. You're still choosing to interpret "seminal" as "pro". Where are you getting the quote: According to the policy, Wikipedia articles are allowed to characterize debates but not participate in them from? It is not in the link you have given. Do you mean the quote: to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them then you are making my point for me, Fine and Rippon are seminal writers in the debate, to put them them in the navigation box is to describe the debate.


 * Your other point is "Fine and Rippon are not evolutionary psychologists", can you explain then your inclusion of Simon Baron-Cohen, a clinical psychologist and developmental psychopathologist but not an evolutionary psychologist, in this diff. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re:Re: First of all, I never said evolutionary psychology is "a bricks and mortar school." This is why the analogy of Paul Krugman and the Chicago school of economics is exactly alike because the Chicago school of economics is not "a bricks and mortar school" either, Krugman is a critic of that school of thought, and because of that, is not included in the Chicago School economists navbox and shouldn't be. Second of all, I'm not interpreting "seminal" as "in favor of"; I am interpreting "seminal" as "member of this school of thought." Thirdly, when I said According to the policy, Wikipedia articles are allowed to characterize debates but not participate in them, I was not quoting directly from the linked article but summarizing it (which is why I didn't use quotation marks), and no, it does not make your point for you because as I said, I do not think this applies to navboxes, only to articles. Navboxes are meant to link multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between them and nothing more. As you've noted, Fine and Rippon are critics of evolutionary psychology, and since they are only related to the field by that, it would not be appropriate to include them in the navbox but only in the article about criticism of evolutionary psychology, just as including Paul Krugman in the Chicago School economists navbox would not be appropriate even though he is a seminal critic of the Chicago School. Lastly, Simon Baron-Cohen is one of the contributors to the Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, is a member of the editorial board of Evolutionary Psychology, and gave a talk at the Royal College of Psychiatrists First Symposium on Evolutionary Psychiatry last year. To say that he is not an evolutionary psychologist would not be accurate. - Jajhill (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re:
 * First, I never said evolutionary psychology is "a bricks and mortar school. I never said that you did say "evolutionary psychology is a bricks and mortar school." The lead section of the article on the Chicago school of economics reads (my bold): The Chicago school of economics is a neoclassical school of economic thought associated with the work of the faculty at the University of Chicago, some of whom have constructed and popularized its principles again, if anything you are making my point for me. Not everyone in the nav box went to the University of Chicago, but they are still in the nav box.
 * Second of all, I'm not interpreting "seminal" as "in favor of"; I am interpreting "seminal" as "member of this school of thought." – ...and the difference between these two (in bold) is what exactly?
 * You summarized something that is possible to lift directly as a much shorter direct quotation "to be neutral is to describe debates rather than engage in them", why did you re-phrase it so it is longer? If you link it the way that you did then it makes it appear that you are quoting (I clicked on the link you provided and went looking for your "quote") . As I said in my opening post: Fine Rippon are both notable critics of evolutionary psychology, the idea of biological determinism (as these debates show), so of course they are not in any of the references that you are talking about. Your comment – they are only related to the field by that, it would not be appropriate to include them in the navbox. – is based on nothing, they are both notable and seminal.
 * Surely the compromise here is to this is to change the words "seminal writers" to "advocates" and create another group entitled "critics". --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re:Re:Re: There is no need for your compromise because the whole basis of this disagreement rests upon your interpretation and taking issue with the use of the word seminal. I was planning on expanding the list of links in that section of the navbox to include the rest of the authors in the volumes that I mentioned and then create separate groups listed by academic specialization (i.e. biologists/neuroscientists, anthropologists, behavioral economists/political scientists, literary theorists, and psychologists/cognitive scientists). Beyond that, you have not provided a single compelling reason why excluding Fine and Rippon from the navbox violates the NPOV policy any more than not including Paul Krugman in the Chicago School economists navbox violates the NPOV policy. That's why I am not "making [your] argument for [you]," because you seem not to even understand the original analogy. You just reiterate that phrase over and over again, as well as argue that Fine and Rippon deserve to be included because you consider them to be "seminal writers". (I think the "Academic reception" section of the Delusions of Gender article indicates that that probably isn't true in the case of Fine, specifically Diane F. Halpern's review, as Halpern is a former President of the American Psychological Association and herself authored an extensive literature review on sex differences in psychology.) If links to their articles belong anywhere, it would be in the "Criticism of evolutionary psychology" article section "Reductionism and determinism", because as far as I can tell, Fine and Rippon are not even remotely important figures to the development of this school of thought and thus have no place in this navbox, but even more so since they already have links in a different navbox that is more appropriate for their network of academics. - Jajhill (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: I understand the analogy perfectly thank you. I just believe the comparison to be at best flawed or at worst [from your POV] it makes my point for me rather than yours. In your opening post you talk about what you imagine the creator of this template had in mind. It is you that have taken issue with any other view of the what the creator might have had in mind. In any case being bold is a central tenet of Wikipedia. I've left a RfC notice about this discussion at the GGTF. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding request for closure: summarizing the above:
 * I added Cordelia Fine and Gina Rippon to the "seminal writers" group within the nav box.
 * They were removed on the basis that there is no proof of them being evolutionary psychologists.
 * I argued that there is no proof because they are critics of evolutionary psychology.
 * I propose the compromise here is to change the existing list from "seminal writers" to "advocates" and create a new list of "critics" and add Fine and Rippon to that group. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Who decides what is and is not a work of evolutionary psychology?
If there are guidelines please point me to them. --The Vital One (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Good qn. In particular, why is Edmund Burke listed in this template? FatalSubjectivities (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)