Talk:E. O. Wilson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.

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.

Contents

[edit] 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


[edit] Untitled

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

Why wouldn't Bertrand Russell be of interest?

Moved list of people of questionable relevance to Talk

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] time to remove pov tag?

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

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

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

[edit] cat vandals

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/2E/_/Talk%7EE._O._Wilson_dd75.html"