Talk:E. O. Wilson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ice water incident[edit]

Here are the current sources for the ice water incident:

  • Wilson, Edward O. (1995). Naturalist. ISBN 0-446-67199-1.
  • David Dugan (writer, producer, director) (May 2008). Lord of the Ants (Documentary). NOVA. Retrieved January 25, 2008.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology and Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Ice water?[edit]

As per my post on the BLP noticeboard [1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
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.

(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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


More evidence for pitcher (but not ice) is in a contemporary source from the San Francisco Chronicle (see clipping):[1]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here's a contemporary eyewitness account from SftP member Jon Beckwith and Bob Lange:[2]
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.[3]
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).[4]: 224 
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 (talkcontribs) 21:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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 ...[2] 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)[reply]

Well put. Generalrelative (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.[5] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. [3]) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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).[4] 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)[reply]

Proposal workshop[edit]

I'll start:

  • In February 1978, while participating in a discussion on sociobiology at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Wilson was chanted at and doused with water by members of the International Committee Against Racism, who accused Wilson of being racist for his views on eugenics. Steven Jay Gould, who opposed Wilson's ideas on sociobiology and was present at the event, condemned the attack.

This it only a rough draft. Any suggestions for improvement? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 [5] so I'm all in. Generalrelative (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The context is explained briefly and neutrally. NightHeron (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

New version in response to Werner's feedback:

  • In February 1978, while participating in a discussion on sociobiology at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Wilson was surrounded, chanted at and doused with water by members of the Marxist activist group International Committee Against Racism, who accused Wilson of being racist for his views on sociobiology and genetic determinism. Steven Jay Gould, who opposed Wilson's ideas on sociobiology and was present at the event, and Science for the People, who had previously protested Wilson, condemned the attack.

Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ([6][7].) 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

Rushton (again)[edit]

This is regarding the subsection I just re-added regarding Wilson's support of J. Philippe Rushton.

Following up on #Comments on correspondence between Rushton and Wilson, I don't think the content added by Qualscheck (and restored by SchreiberBike) got a fair shake. The editor who removed that has since been blocked. In my opinion, that block was the same pattern of obstructionist editing we saw on this page. I did not feel comfortable restoring it as it was, since it did have some significant issues with editorializing language. I have tried to fix those, but either way, the content should be discussed on its own merits instead of via oblique threats, wikilawyering, or similar.

As I said before using too many words, I think these newer sources are good enough to show lasting significance. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues in lede[edit]

@GuardianH: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@GuardianH: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Well put, Grayfell. +1 to this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to add to but no reception of his in some quotation is now mentioned, 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)[reply]

Rushton again (again)[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 02:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Dead link: Midland College talk[edit]

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

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