This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human ethology article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 5 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fernandez103.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention whatsoever[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_Bach : This article has absolutely no mention of the con-artist who came up with this theory in the first place. So there is no way that this can be a neutral article without a reference to it's actual history. -- unsigned comment by 216.246.232.41 00:49, 7 November 2014

There is no need for ad hominem against scientists associated with the research tradition. Only referencing if specific theories or hypotheses have been proven or dis-proven should be in the purview of the article. -- 72.83.3.178 (talk) 09:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article has little or nothing to do with the person mentioned. I've removed the tag from the article. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sociobiology is a branch of evolutionary biology concerned with the evolution of social behavior. It is not concerned with mental states and therefore cannot be regarded as a 'psychological theory'. ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.57.227.56 (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

Remove merge template[edit]

The 'merge' template suggests that this article be merged with Human behavior. However, I see no discussion of a merge on the talk page. I will vote no to merging because 'Human ethology' is a distinct research tradition and a likely search term. Agnerf (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Needs revision[edit]

This article has many unsourced claims. There should probably be more references to Eibesfeldt, who is often considered the initiator of this research tradition. It should also me mentioned that human ethology as a research tradition has now been largely succeeded by the closely related evolutionary psychology. Agnerf (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology

[1]