Talk:E. O. Wilson

POV issues in lede

Template:Ping Hello.

I'm concerned that your recent changes have introduced wording that could be construed as WP:PEACOCK wording. The lead should be a brief and neutral overview of why Wilson is encyclopedically notable. I do not accept that terms like "trailblazer" for example, meet WP:TONE or WP:NPOV.

Another example of the problem is that, while Alabama is obviously part of the Deep South, the term is pretty loose and Florida, the other state mentioned, is only sometimes included. If there is some specific connection to this cultural region, it's not actually mentioned in the body of the article so doesn't belong in the lead in this way. Style choices like this make the article read too much like an obituary and not enough like a dispassionate biography, in my opinion.

I understand this is a work in progress, which is why I want to raise this now, rather than later, to prevent potential problems from accumulating. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me @Grayfell. For context, I'm not particularly acquainted with any scientific field; I write mostly articles pertaining to historical and legal topics and I came across Wilson when I was younger—the only scientist I ever found interesting at the time. You're perhaps right about the wording, and I'll make the necessary changes to rephrase the sentences. I am also aware that Wilson's legacy is touchy, especially given the previous arguments on the talk page; I will complete the lede soon and hope to rewrite the other paragraphs, though it will be sporadic. Currently, the sentence structure could use some fixing, and the lede could do to be considerably expanded. GuardianH (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that the lead could stand to be expanded. I appreciate much of the work you've done and there is plenty of additional room for improvement.

Wilson's legacy was complicated now and during his life. His life and career was long and colorful, and even setting aside his support of so-called "positive eugenics" and the more recently disclosed letters, there were plenty of other controversies. The academic reception of The Social Conquest of Earth comes to mind.

Clearly the lead cannot and should not include all of these perspectives, but likewise it shouldn't completely ignore their existence, either.

As the above walls-of-text show, figuring out exactly how to strike this balance is difficult. Grayfell (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Re As you know, there are continuing concerns about WP:PEACOCK in your additions to the lead. Both Sirfurboy and I have recently cut some of these, but you reverted to re-add them. Please understand that policy requires you to build consensus for these edits once they've been disputed, rather than edit warring. I'm happy to be persuaded, but simply being sourced is not enough. No one is challenging the fact that others have glowingly praised Wilson, but that doesn't make these quotes WP:DUE for inclusion in the lead paragraph. I hope that makes sense. Generalrelative (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Wilson was an active writer, and his work was commented on by many scientists; David Attenborough's comments were one of many. The lede mentions a few of the awards he received from various foundations and institutions—the Royal Swedish Academy, the International Academy of Humanism, the Pulitzer Prize—but no reception of his in some quotation is now mentioned. I originally believed it appropriate to add include some comments from Richard Dawkins; the description of Wilson being dubbed the "father of biodiversity," etc. predate my edits to the lede, and I think that those proved to be a valuable contribution, though I think some equal quotation to his posthumous criticism should also be mentioned. Also, there are many articles I can think of which do showcase similar comments of the subject in the lede, though like I mentioned previously these tend to be in subjects other than Wilson's.

In the Just the facts section of WP:PEACOCK is given an example of when to showcase these comments; I don't think the descriptions of Wilson in the lede differed greatly from this example. However, I understand also that he was a controversial writer and that his work was not always positively received. Maybe a diluted sentence like "His contributions to the scientific community were widely praised during his life, though posthumous examinations of his legacy were mixed" could be added instead? GuardianH (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, and indeed, on reflection, the single epithet "father of biodiversity" is sufficiently widely sourced and quoted that I agree my removal of those words may have been too much, and that they could go back in. If it were just Dawkins saying that, I would point out that the lead is not the place for such things, but actually it was much more than Dawkins, and many of his obituaries led with that title and it is a title that recognisably applies to him, so no objections to that going back in. Also your phrasing above seems a fair and more balanced representation to me. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Emphasizing that he was praised during his life is telling only half the story, so I think framing it that way in the lead would be another form of editorializing. While the discovery of the Rushton letters drew new attention to his position, it wasn't exactly a secret during his life. The letters were not discovered by accident, after all. Wilson was very proud of being 'controversial' although he seldom seemed to agree with his academic critics on why he was controversial. Regardless, the controversy was a significant part of his career during his life. So while some of his contributions were praised during his life, some were definitely not. Grayfell (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Well put, Grayfell. +1 to this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to add to Template:Tq, that this is exactly right. The lead can summarise objectively achievements like the most major prize or award given to the subject but it is not the place to discuss the reception of the award, nor to exhaustively list all awards or epithets. We have the article for that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Rushton again (again)

Pardon my ignorance as a newcomer. I'm a college teacher with a focus on law and higher education--especially academic freedom. The academic freedom topic seems to be precisely what is missing in the Rushton and Wilson section. Could we agree on adding one sentence with a citation? Here's what I proposed:

>Supporters of Wilson's work contend he was defending Rushton's academic freedom, not endorsing his ideas.[10]

[10] Shermer, Michael (April 27, 2022)."Was the Great Scientist E. O. Wilson a Racist? NO!]". Skeptic. Retrieved January 22, 2024.

Note: Shermer's article contains specific examples of relevant letters and comparable statements from other notable academics in support of academic freedom in Rushton's case. Should we not make at least one reference to this side of the story?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TPR editor (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine, and therefore the source is self-published. This is what I was referring to in my edit summary when I reverted you. Generalrelative (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a self published Substack blog, so not a WP:RS. If this were published in something a bit more reputable, it might be included. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, which I have reverted: It is totally insufficient to describe Bert Hölldobler as "One of Wilson's Harvard colleagues" without naming him or indicating why his opinion is encyclopedically relevant.

It is also cherry-picking, as it highlights a single perspective of Hölldobler's which has been artificially isolated from its larger context. Hölldobler also calls Wilson's endorsement "a serious misjudgment", for example, so this was not a neutral summary of Hölldobler opinion.

Hölldobler, in this opinion, speculates that Wilson would have partially admitted his error in recommending Rushton's pseudoscience if he were still alive. We'll never know, but even if we accept this, it only works as an answer to a criticism nobody was actually making. If we accept that Wilson was willing to defend scientific racism reflexively, due to his own personal history, this isn't a defense of that behavior.

Likewise, Hölldobler's perspective that Lewontin's charges against Wilson were "unsubstantiated", which is demonstrated by a single petty academic grudge from decades ago, suggests that Hölldobler has a blind-spot for his deceased friends and rivals. This is a bit ironic, considering his claims regarding Wilson's blind-spot towards Rushton.

These kinds of opinions and opinionated personal recollections are not automatically reliable or relevant, and the significance of any of his personal assessment would need context. Skeptic.com is a poor source for this kind of context, and is poor for establishing the due-weight of any opinion, especially in isolation. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This is precisely why Wikipedia favors WP:SECONDARY sources that are independent of the article subject. Generalrelative (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Dead link: Midland College talk

Reference number 73 VickiMeagher (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed! Good catch. Thankfully there's an archived version there too. Generalrelative (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Eyesight

Wilson is described as having 20/10 eyesight in his good eye. 2001:18C0:E1A8:D100:84EB:7D51:98F1:EB04 (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

20/10 eyesight is quite remarkable and quite rare. Chuck Yeager (fighter pilot) was recorded as being 20/10. The article describes Wilson as having poor eyesight in his good eye, at 20/10.

A quote from the Commonwealth Eye Surgery website: "If you have 20/10 vision you are above average! You are better than the “normal” person and you have better than what is considered to be standard or normal, vision. If you have 20/10 vision, you can see at 20 feet, what a normal person can see at 10 feet from an eye chart." CharlesKiddell (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect citation

Citation 41, "https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-legacy-of-e-o-wilson/" makes no mention of J Philipe Rushton, but it is used in support of the first paragraph of the second subsection of the second section of this article which references Wilson and Rushton's correspondence. The cited source is generic: it makes few notable factual claims and provides an opinion on Wilson's legacy--it should be removed or used elsewhere in this article to support Wikipedia's POV that Wilson's theories and science on human behavior and evolution were racist in nature 108.49.222.200 (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. In general, I think the part where you mention "Wikipedia's POV that Wilson's theories and science on human behavior and evolution were racist in nature" is a good observation. In general, Wikipedia is not supposed to have a point of view, and in fact, is supposed to adhere to a neutral point of view. However, not all editors adhere to that, or have managed to convince themselves that their skewed point of view represents some sort of reflection of consensus views. Hence, yes, we have this article slanted to the idea that Wilson was a dyed-in-the-wool racist and that sociobiology is a racist discipline, full stop. There are many of us who strongly disagree with that take, but do not find it worth the inevitable edit warring that would come up in an attempt to provide a more balanced view of Wilson's life and work.

However, that said, the Wilson and Rushton correspondence is noteworthy and an important part of the whole picture of the man. Does it prove that he was in fact a scientific racist, or was he simply a misguided attempt to try to move the Overton window in such a way that his work on sociobiology would no longer be targeted? That's a matter of interpretation not answered in his own writing, and something editors should not be skewing one way or the other. Does the section as it stands take up WP:UNDUE weight, given that Wilson's many theoretical contributions only take up a relatively short fraction of the article? Perhaps, especially considering how strongly this article has been policed against anything but the briefest mention of attacks on Wilson. On the other hand, Wilson-bashing gets no such check. However, I will also cop to not having contributed much in the way of material on Wilson's biography and theoretical contributions. The history of edit warring here has soured many to this project, and based on off-thread conversations I've had with others about this article, I'm not the only one who feels this way. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)