This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by Nature on December 14, 2005. Comments: It was found to have 3 errors.
For more information about external reviews of Wikipedia articles and about this review in particular, see this page.
aside darwin, why not move fisher/haldane/hamilton to a "history" section?
darwin needs to be in the introduction...
but why not moving fisher/haldane/hamilton to a "history" section immediately following the introduction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, the situation is slightly different from that. The lead (introduction, overview) is supposed to be max 4 paragraphs, and only to summarize what is written in the rest of the article, so it does not need (aka should not have) references and should not therefore say anything doubtful.
From this, it's clear that this article does not exactly have a lead section at all - it is more of a historical introduction. I'd be happy with renaming it "Introduction" or "Overview" (not sure if it's exactly a "History" - that might mean turning it into 2 new sections ? - and then (someone) writing a new lead section to precis the article. If you feel like working on that, go right ahead. Chiswick Chap (talk)
I agree that the lead is too inaccessible and this is partly due to the involvement of overly-specialised editors who tend to remove any elementary expressions that provide a historical overview. It should certainly incorporate the historic refinements to evolutionary theory that go from Darwinian ideas of competition and survival of the fittest which produces the apparent paradox of altruism to the reconciliation that kin selection provides by incorporating the concept of genes (or smaller units) being the specific replicating units being selected for. Shyamal (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. All right, I'll be bold and draft a new lead, renaming the existing one to "Historic overview" (to combine the idea of history and current affairs, more or less, agree it's a bit klunky but anyone can improve it). Please improve my efforts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This section badly needs to be rewritten as it hardly can be seen as NPOV (no matter if the factual information is right or wrong).
OK, I've copy-edited it for neutrality. It seems to report fairly plainly what happened. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Curtd59 (talk) 07:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC) In the context of intellectual history, this section reflects a postmodern cum marxist, cum cosmopolitan advocacy of pseudoscience as part of the postmodern attempt to displace the study of Darwin (See Macdonald, See Hicks). All creatures in all cases, demonstrate kin selection, meaning limits to transfers, and decreasing cooperation with genetic distance. All human societies no matter how mixed demonstrate this behavior except on the margins where mating across groups produces status benefits, or provides access to superior out-group mates (white males and asian females for example). And applies equally within group to social classes. Cross mating increases with the adoption of the nuclear family structure (fragmentation) and declines with the retention of the traditional family. Furthermore, there is no conflict between kin selection and multi-level selection, since both occur for different reasons. The fact that we must constantly defend the knowledge economy against mysticism is one thing. The fact that we must defend it against politically motivated advocacy of pseudoscience is somehow worse.
All that is interesting and as may be, but this is not a forum for discussing the science or other matters. Our only interest here (as on all article talk pages) is to establish what the article should cover, using reliable sources. If you are familiar with the work of Macdonald and Hicks then why not edit the section and cite them as needed? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)