Talk:Evolutionary psychology/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Recently Added Abnormal Section

I do not think the table is helpful... acutally I think it could be construed as 'new research/material' since it is MeMills' summary of his interpretation of those cited works. As I have pionted out before, MeMills was incorrect in how he cited Darwin, but somehow his table managed to stay (even though it is wrong). Inserting this material as a 'table' also makes it very difficult to present 'alternative views' on some of the claims being made here. I am tempted to delete it, but will get the opinions of others before I do. Logic prevails (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I also don't find the table helpful. I think it disrupts the reading flow and that the information could be presented in prose format to equal or better effect.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would take a lot of prose to capture all of the information in the table. Also, it clearly presents the information in an organized structure. Over time I can add references for each of the hypotheses presented there. Keep in mind that this subsection (like the page itself) is not an overview of the entire discipline of abnormal psychology or psychology -- it is only about evolutionary / adaptationist perspectives on these topics. This is noted by the subsection title. The 'alternative views' already take up almost half of the subsection, and many of the points made there really are more relevant to the general field rather than to the specific evolutionary hypotheses. Let's see what other folks think. Memills (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I like tables and often prefer them to text. That said, if we're going to work side-by-side to improve the page, maybe we need to make some concessions. Your big table on theory has been a sore point, so maybe we leave this one out, as a show of good faith and a peace offering. The way for us all to stop fighting and improve the page is to stick closely to what the RSs say. If that means that we can't generate original tables, I'm OK with that. There are a lot more topics to cover. Let's cover the topics first and then worry about improving the treatment of the topics second. Leadwind (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we are in agreement to remove the material from the table and present it in a prose format. Memills, since you have the references handy and constructed the table, maybe it would be best to leave that to you? Logic prevails (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above, I see no downside to the table. It provides a valuable way to organize and briefly present information such that the concepts are more easily understood. The analogies with physiological dysfunction is particularly helpful to understand the adaptationist concepts. Replacing the table with equivalent prose would make this section quite long. My preference would be to retain the table until there is enough information to create a spin off article. At that time if folks would prefer to move it to the spin off article, that would be fine by me. Memills (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am removing the table. If you are adding material about 'ADHD' and 'Fetishes' as byproducts, I think they need more explanation, not question marks. In addition, one can argue that this constitutes 'original material' and could be removed on those grounds alone. Logic prevails (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there is insufficient basis to remove the table, so I have restored it. The material is sourced and is notable by its inclusion in several EP textbooks. The question marks are indicative that these are initial hypotheses (I would have imagined that you would have welcomed such qualifiers). The issue isn't whether the material warrants inclusion (it does).

However, if some wish to suggest that this material could be more clearly presented and understandable via the equivalent information presented in prose, rather than table, format I am open to that discussion. In my opinion that table takes less space than equivalent prose, and helps the reader to better understand the basic concepts. If someone wishes to propose equivalent prose and post it here, we can review and discuss. Memills (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, LogicPrevails has removed the table again, on the basis that it is "original research." It is clearly not original research -- it is a summary of sourced material. There are many such tables on various WP pages. As long as they are sourced, and are accurate representations of the information in the sources, there is no reason to delete them.

This is similar to the battle waged earlier on this Talk page about an effort to remove the Four Questions table, under the same rationale. There again, it was proposed to be "original research" -- it was not. In fact, it was pretty basic, foundational info covered in EP undergrad textbooks. I would have hoped we would have moved beyond this.

In any event, Maunus, in the next section below, has volunteered to translate the table into prose, under the rationale that the information could be better presented in prose. Again, I see disadvantages in doing so, and I must admit to a bit of suspicion about the motives for doing so... But, in any event, the table that was deleted is reproduced below, and I await its translation into equivalent prose. Should that not be done, I shall reserve the option to re-insert the table, and, if needed, re-open this discussion. Memills (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mills, if Maunus is willing to convert this material into prose, then that amounts to a level of cooperation that we editors really need to cultivate. How about we see how much we can improve the page by working together? In the end, if the version of the page that we all develop together still has serious flaws, then we'll need a Plan B, but let's first see how far we might get with Plan A (actually cooperating). Leadwind (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

MeMills, let me try to be clear about some of the issues I see with the table... please try to keep in mind that I am not trying to censor information, I just have concerns in how it is presented here:

1) The information is presented in one single packaged form (the table). Though the material came from sourced references, it was interpretted and compressed into its current package by you. It might be different if you were using a table to organize the material from a single source. But in this case, there is a 'middleman' putting multiple sources together into a single package... that constitutes 'original material.'

2) The information in the table references three sources, but it does not say which part of the table comes from which source, so if someone wanted to verify the information, they would have a very difficult time doing so.

3) The table would appear to present a lot of complicated material that needs a bit more explanation. For example, how are fetishes and diagnoses of ADHD argued to be byproducts? The material in a table should as self-evident as possible. I am not convinced that you have achieved that.

You may not agree with it, but that is my logical rationale for not going with a table. It has nothing to do with censoring material. Logic prevails (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me respond with my concerns.

1. Original research is not modifiable by others. The table is not original material in that other people are free to edit it, to make corrections or additions. Like any non-original prose on Wikipedia, the table can and should be edited by others to make corrections, additions, clarifications or deletion of inaccuracies. And, I encourage it.

2. As I have stated previously, I would be happy to insert the specific references for each set of hypotheses. For now, we have several textbook sources for reference. But, over time, I, and others, can add in the specific references.

3. The diagnostic category ADHD might be a byproduct of normal high levels of physical and mental activity, especially of young males, in ancestral environments. Now this is seen as problematic in classrooms settings where young children area expected to sit still and focus attention for many hours, and thus we have a large number of children being diagnosed with ADHD (and medicated). (Whether this would be better conceptualized as a byproduct or as an ancestral-modern environmental mis-match is a relevant question.) Sexual fetishes are likely to be a byproduct of normal sexual arousal adaptations that have 'imprinted' on unusual objects or situations. Since male sexual arousal is generally rather quick, indiscriminate, and less relationship-context dependent than is that of females, the fact that a majority of those with a sexual fetish are males might be viewed as supporting evidence for this hypothesis. Granted, both of these hypotheses are rather speculative, thus the inclusion of the question marks. Most all of the cells of the table could benefit from an additional explanatory statement or two. Or, if more elaboration is needed, prose referring to specific material in the table could be added.

What is important about the hypotheses in the table is not that they should be taken as scientifically validated, but rather that they represent interesting and novel ways of conceptualizing abnormality via an adaptationist lens. These hypotheses would not be generated from other perspectives. These novel ways of looking at abnormality may be heuristic -- they may lead to interesting lines of research that may have benefits in the future. Some might argue that eventually it may help to lead to a theoretical integration of ideas about abnormality, one that takes into account both nature and nurture -- how the interaction of psychological adaptations and developmental events may lead to 'abnormal' behavior. The fact that they are, at this point, interesting hypotheses is reflected in the title of the table: "Possible Causes of Abnormalities from an Adaptationist Perspective." I don't think we need to worry that readers will take the content of the table to be established fact, or that a consideration of this perspective on abnormality will lead to adverse outcomes. Memills (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Possible Causes of Abnormalities from an Adaptationist Perspective Summary based on information in Buss (2011), Gaulin & McBurney (2004), Workman & Reader (2004)
Possible cause	Physiological Dysfunction	Psychological Dysfunction
Functioning adaptation (adaptive defense)	Fever / Vomiting (functional responses to infection or ingestion of toxins)	Mild depression or anxiety (functional responses to mild loss or stress)
By-product of an adaptation(s)	Intestinal gas (byproduct of digestion of fiber)	Sexual fetishes (?) (possible byproduct of normal sexual arousal adaptations that have 'imprinted' on unusual objects or situations)
Adaptations with multiple effects	Gene for malaria resistance, in homozygous form, causes sickle cell anemia	Adaptation(s) for high levels of creativity may also predispose schizophrenia or bi-polar disorder (adaptations with both positive and negative effects, perhaps dependent on alternate developmental trajectories)
Malfunctioning adaptation	Allergies (over-reactive immunological responses)	Autism (possible malfunctioning of theory of mind module)
Frequency-dependent morphs	The two sexes / Different blood and immune system types	Personality traits and personality disorders (may represent alternative behavioral strategies dependent on the frequency of the strategy in the population)
Mismatch between ancestral & current environments	Modern diet-related Type 2 Diabetes	More frequent modern interaction with strangers (compared to family and close friends) may predispose greater incidence of depression & anxiety
Tails of normal (bell shaped) curve	Very short or tall height	Tails of the distribution of personality traits (e.g., extremely introverted or extroverted)

---

what next?

As you can tell, I've been summarizing an EP textbook for new content sections on this page. That strikes me as a useful thing for a neutral editor to do, and if there's an even better thing for a neutral editor to do, please suggest it. Anyway, I'd be happy to take requests on what section to do next. Below are the chapters in Gaulin, and I've be willing to work on any one of them. In an effort to work side-by-side with the editors I used to fight with, I'd be happy to take direction on this point from them.

The chapters are: origins, natural selection, genetics, perception, consciousness, emotion, cognition, learning, individuality, health, abnormal, mating, family, social, culture. What would people like to see next? Leadwind (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful that this does not get too big. If there is a need to create 'spinoff pages' for specific sub-topics, then I think that would be a better option, but for now I am sensing it is already on the 'long' side for anyone looking for a conscise overview of the field. I would like to see some of the other areas tightened-up before we look to make it longer. Logic prevails (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Logic, would you be able to remind us all what the length guidelines are for a page, and tell us how our current page stacks up? If this page gets too long, we'll have to make spinoff pages, just like you said. Leadwind (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The sections on parenting, interactions with kin (other than children), groups (interaction with non-kin) need more coverage of specifically EP research. Right now only the foundational ideas are presented in those subtopics. It would be great if you could add some specifically EP research from the relevant Gaulin chapters.

The Gaulin chapters on origin & natural selection are well covered already. I think we can skip the chapters on genetics and health.

The Gaulin chapter on Learning could be added to a new subsection on Learning (insert just before the Cognition subsection). However, I think it should be fairly brief, and mostly cover EP insights and research (e.g., don't need to spend much time on classical or operant conditioning).

If you want to get a copy of the book "Why We Feel" there is some great information there relevant to perception -- why we inherently find certain stimuli pleasant or aversive due to their ancestral links to survival or reproduction. It is great to point out, for example, that the sweetness of sugar is not inherent in sugar, rather it is an interpretation, or "illusion" created by evolved adaptations in our brain. That can really serve as a foundation to help folks understand how and why psychological adaptations evolve. The fact that our subjective experience is a virtual reality created by psychological adaptations is really quite a stunning insight when one grasps it for the first time. (We don't have to wait for the Matrix, we are already in it!) This insight provides a touchstone to understand that all of our mental experiences and functions are due to evolved psychological adaptations as they interact with the environment. Memills (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I can beef up parenting, kin, and groups. Learning does seem to be important, too. It's not clear what my availability is going to be for the next week, however. You say, "We don't have to wait for the Matrix, we are already in it!" Yeah, but the fictional Matrix only determines one's perceptions, while the "Matrix" in our heads also gives us our judgments ("Cute!" "Cheater!!" "Aww...").

I wonder if some of the more skeptical editors might like to venture an opinion as to what material to port in from Gaulin next. Leadwind (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

RSs and the way of peaceful editing

I know I've been a polarizing force in the past, as Logic says. Now I'm trying to undo some of the rift I've caused among the editors.

There's been a lot of talk back and forth about what to include on the page. Should we include a section on perception? Should we include speculations or only proven facts? These are tough questions, especially for amateurs, especially for a committee of amateurs, especially for a committee of amateurs working over the Internet. Perhaps it's inevitable that we struggle over these issues. So I have a suggestion that might help.

Let's just follow what the RSs say, and describe EP the way the RSs describe it. For one thing, that would save us the trouble of deciding for ourselves what should be included. For another thing, it seems to be a good way to follow WP policy. I'm not sure there's any policy or guideline that says that the editors on a page should use their collective expertise to decide how to cover a topic. Are we really supposed to put our heads together and decide, for example, whether to have a Consciousness section? If someone can show me a policy or guideline that says so, I'll admit I'm wrong, but I don't think there is any such guideline or policy. Maybe instead we're supposed to describe EP the way the RSs do, and let them decide what topics to cover, and how much weight to give each topic.

I understand that if an individual editor disagrees with the RSs, they might not like this proposal. But I don't think there's a policy about not following the RSs when editors disagree with them. I think the idea is that WP should follow the RSs regardless of whether editors agree with them. Leadwind (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I heartily welcome this apparent change in demeanor, and I support the general drift in your statement above. However, it is not as simple as saying "follow the reliable sources": Reliable sources are not in agreement among themselves. Different reliable sources include different things and express different evaluations of EP. We cannot include all reliable sources and will have to choose which to use and how to weigh them. Sometimes we as editors may also disagree on how to understand a reliable source. This means that there is no way to avoid having to make editorial decisions about how much coverage and weight to give to different sources. What is of utmost importance is that such editorial discussions be undertaken in a civilised, collegial and forthcoming way, which includes assuming that other editors are not ideological opponents, but instead consider that there may be substantial arguments behind their disagreement. It also requires working towards compromises rather than simply steadfastly repeating the same arguments. I am ready to follow this approach if you all are. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the repetition, but I do think this bears repeating. We need keep in mind that this article is a theoretical POV page (like the Evolution page, which is also described as a theoretical POV page). An evolutionary perspective is a particular approach to understanding -- an adaptationist one. Most psychologists work from a proximate perspective, and many have little training in thinking about psychological issues from an ultimate perspective. However, this is changing as more textbooks cover it, and more courses are offered. Ultimate and proximate approaches are different, but each is incomplete in itself, and eventually both are likely to start to merge as ultimate and proximate approaches develop links to each other. The hope is that new insights will be forged, and a far deeper, more sophisticated understanding of human nature and behavior will emerge.

Our task is not to cover all of psychology. Instead it is to describe how experts in this field approach the subject content via an adaptationist lens. For example, when folks come to this page and read the abnormal psychology section, they are not coming here to learn about all of abnormal psychology, but rather learn about adaptationist perspectives on abnormal psychology. If we can agree on that, and understand that proximate and ultimate explanations are different, but potentially, compatible approaches. I think it will be easier to work toward a common goal. Memills (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am turned off by the way that you repeatedly claim that this page is something, in this case a "theoretical POV page". The article is what the consensus of editors decide to make it. I will interpret your statement as being in essence an argument that the page should be a theoretical POV page and respond to it accordingly. I agree with you that the ultimate goal of the article is to describe what EP is. We have to describe what the EP perspective on psychology is. However this does not mean that we have to describe psychology from the EP perspective. This is an important difference. You compare EP with the page on evolution which does not devote much space, except a bit of the history section, to the development of evoltionary thought and its relations with alternative worldviews. There is however a very important distinction between the page on evolution and the page on evolutionary psychology. Evolution is a theoretical framework that is completely accepted by all scientific disciplines as the only paradigm worth considering. The alternative to evolution is something that is no longer science. This means that there isn't really any need to explain its relations to other paradigms or theoretical approaches or its relation to other disciplines. Evolutionary Psychology on the other hand, is one paradigm among many within psychology therefore it is relevant to explain EP's relation to other paradigms in psychology and to other disciplines with which it shares domains such as philosophy, anthropology, history. I think that if we approach the issue of "pov" not as providing "criticism" but as describing relations between paradigms and between views of issues within psychology it will be easier to agree on a neutral way to describe the issue. In this way it will be possible to describe the evolutionary perspective by describing how it differs from other approaches. This includes of course the fact that it focuses on distal explanations rather than proximal ones, but that is not the only relevant difference, or the only cause of disagreement between EP and other paradigms.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we probably agree on many of these issues. However, some points are about subtle distinctions.

You mentioned: "...this does not mean that we have to describe psychology from the EP perspective." There are two ways to interpret that, one interpretation conflicts with your previous sentence.

My perspective this is: As I said above EP is an adaptationist lens, and we are not covering all of psychology in the sense of providing coverage of proximate or non-adaptationist overviews of the discipline. We need, at the least, only describe the evolutionary perspective as applied to psychology. So if one wants an overview of what psychology in general has to say about, say, abnormality, this is not the place to get such comprehensive coverage. One will be getting an adaptationist perspective here. We can then add, and have, how proximate approaches might conflict with the EP approach to the topic, and the relevant research.

Re EP as a theoretical POV page. You are correct that Evolution has no scientific rivals (although "intelligent design" theory says it is). But here is the subtle point. Unless one believes in "psychological creationism" -- that the brain did not evolve and/or that behavior is not dependent on the brain, there is no scientific alternative to psychological adaptationism. The brain didn't spontaneously self-assemble and wasn't designed by an engineer.

The vast majority of theories in psychology are agnositic on the question of he evolution of the trait or mechanism. These are purely proximate theories, and they are not directly in competition with EP (unless EP makes conflicting proximate predictions.) Evolutionary biology is not inherently in in conflict with developmental biology -- they are looking at different levels of analysis. Same is true for psychological phenomena.

Purely cultural explanations of behavior are proximate, and incomplete. There is consensus in the field that all behavior is a complex interaction of proximate (cultural) and evolutionary (ultimate) causality. The nature vs. nurture debate is over. The idea that somehow our "general intelligence" or "capacity for culture" has liberated us from the biology of how our brains are structured and produce behavior) is incorrect (or incomplete at best). In this sense, proximate (or cultural) explanation of behavior alone is not necessarily in competition with, or counter to, psychological adaptationism. But is only a partial explanation.

When we compare EP theories with proximate ones we make a mistake if we think, a priori, that they are alternative, conflicting explanations. A more constructive way to look at it is how can they be integrated into a comprehensive theory? Rather like quantum physics and relativity theory are not in competition, both are correct in their own realm, but they need to be integrated to arrive at a comprehensive theory. Theories of depression being caused by learned helpless is not inherently in conflict with theories about the evolution of the capacity for being depressed. Sometimes mistakes like this are made when it is suggested that a proximate theory is a competing alternative to an evolutionary theory. As I have said before, evolutionary hypotheses are primarily in competition with other alternative adaptationist hypotheses, not proximate ones. For the most part, EP is not in conflict with most of proximate psychology, although far too many people make the mistake of thinking it is so. Memills (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just when I thought we were going to be able to do some neutral editing... Every time you suggest that EP is "like the main 'Evolution' page..." I get very annoyed. As Manus pointed out, this is a grossly unfair comparison. Editors have provided sources clearly showing that EP is not the only game in town when trying to understand human psychology from an evolutionary perspective. I know you do not believe in 'domain-general mechanisms,' but most psychologists do... either explicitly or implicitly. There is evidence for more flexible and domain-general systems in the brain [i.e. tertiary and associational cortex]. We can understand and explain them from an evolutionary perspective in that our behaviors are given the adaptive advantage of being shaped by ontogenetic learning. One does not need to believe that the brain is ‘silly-putty…’ since there is strong evidence for biological modularity in the lower parts of the brain [similar to how the rest of the body is formed], which would direct the organism in ‘simple ways’ so that it can attain the complexity through learning and experience. You do not have to agree with this view any more than the larger field of psychology needs to agree with EP.

As to your 'proximate' causes not conflicting with 'distal explanations...' we'll they do not conflict in the way that you understand the mind, since again, you would believe that proximate stimuli are likely 'evoking' some invisible and irrefutable module... your camp is again explaining what has yet to be proven. I would guess that any non-evolutionary psychologist would instead view proximate causes/differences to be evidence for more flexible domain-general mechanisms. There are plenty of critics who present that view.

I would like to think that we can move forward with more peaceful editing. I have no wish to overrun this page with criticism and conflict. My main goal is to ensure that the other side is presented fairly... this includes recognizing that there are non-adaptationist ways of accepting the tenants of evolution and applying them to human psychology. You do not need to agree with these alternative views, but you cannot deny their existence either. Logic prevails (talk) 10:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

One way to make the editing more peaceful here would be to make brief mention of contrary perspectives and findings on this page, but really flesh them out on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page. There is simply not enough room for the debate to do it justice on the main EP page, and that isn't the main purpose of this page. Most folks who come to read the EP page want to learn about what EP has to say. If they are interested in the more detailed discussions of the controversy than is presented in the controversy section on this page, they can click on over to the controversy page. Much of the debate that is conducted here on this Talk page could be more productively explored on the controversy page -- that would give WP readers the benefit of reviewing more detailed and nuanced arguments on both sides. I would be happy to join in that effort.

For example, I would be happy to respond to your substantive comments above here, but, there probably isn't much point. Few people read this page, we are beginning to repeat ourselves, and it is unlikely that I would change your mind on these issues, or vice versa. The debate has pretty much run its course here.

Since your area is psychotherapy, let me make an analogy. Long ago I taught a course on counseling and psychotherapy, and I used the textbook by Corey. Via a check on Amazon.com, I see that it is still in use (a 2008 Edition), and in it he reviews some of the major approaches to psychotherapy (psychoanalytic, Adlerian, existential, person-centered, Gestalt, reality, behavior, cognitive-behavior, family systems, feminist and, and postmodern approaches), one in each chapter. Each of these approaches has their own perspective, and all disagree with each other in some respects. By giving each approach their own chapter, the reader can delve into the content of each, without the constant distraction of being challenged after every few paragraphs with the critiques from the other schools of psychotherapy. Then, at the conclusion of the book, there was a chapter that compared and contrasted the approaches, and evaluated the empirical support for each. So the reader first learned about each approach, and later critically reviewed each.

When I suggest that the main EP page should be primarily about EP, I am making a similar point. Before each assertion or hypothesis is challenged from another very different POV paradigm with an incompatible set of foundational assumptions (here, basically cultural determinism), first let's see what EP actually has to say. Then, check out the controversy section to see what other major paradigms have to say in brief, and go to the controversy page to see the arguments fully explored.

What gives me serious concern is when sourced material is removed from this page, or, there is resistance when new material is added, on the the basis that non-EPers disagree with it. For example, you disagree with the EP hypotheses re abnormal psych and note that it is not a mainstream view in the field of abnormal psych (true enough -- and deserves mention). However, that is not a reason to remove the EP hypotheses and findings, or try to prevent inclusion of them in the page. If EP hypotheses have been presented in published, peer-reviewed journals, and are also presented in evolutionary psychology textbooks, that is sufficient reason to include the material. An editor's opinion about whether or not a paradigm or hypothesis is true or not is not a basis for inclusion or exclusion of information. If we can agree on this (arguably standard WP policies), there would be far less heated disagreements here.

And, we could really have a lot more fun duking it out over on the controversy page, and the readers of that page would be the beneficiaries. Memills (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not wanting to remove material based on how I feel about it. I am wanting to remove it because it can be viewed as 'original material' (since it is a concise presentation based on your interpretation of the various sources). It also appears unclear (e.g. how are ADHD and Fetishes argued to be byproducts?) and could be better put in prose format. Can others back me up on that? Logic prevails (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I will try to convert it to concise prose, I am pretty sure it can be done. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to ease your mind MeMills, I am not looking to argue every sentence you put in here... it is about EP after all. I only expect there to be comparatively brief mention of alternative (especially more dominant) views, so that the reader can put this in context. That is what a NPOV article would do. If EP wants to have something to say about each sub-field in psychology, it makes sense that we briefly mention the dominant view and dominant research (e.g. after the EP perspective of abnormal psychology is presented). Again, my understanding is that this page ought to have a NPOV, not necessarily a pro-EP POV. Though I may want to 'firm up' the criticism section at the end (something I would be happy to work with you on), I have no intent of riddling the article with "yeah but's, conversely's, or however's," which by the way, is one of the major problems of the Evolutionary Controversy Section. Logic prevails (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Great, we are in agreement! Let's sit in a circle, hold hands and sing Cumbaya... :-) Well, let's hope that we can work together on this more harmoniously, whether we come from 'pro' or 'con' perspectives.

Oh, wait... darn, the last clause of your last sentence... The ceasefire was short-lived. The controversy page should present the debate from both sides, right? Not sentenced by sentence rebuttal and counter-rebuttal, of course, but an overall exploration of the arguments from both sides. E.g., to look at both counter-modularity args and pro-modularity args (if they are not already fully explored on the main EP page), etc.Memills (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth... I agree with you. The way forward is to present a coherent view of both sides with proper weight given the scope of the article. The current controversy page sounds like a point-counterpoint style where every criticism appears countered so that the whole thing becomes an EP apologia... that is not neutral at all. The controversy page should be the exact opposite of this one, where most of the page is dedicated to what the critics are saying, while EP states its position in how it addresses these criticisms. Logic prevails (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

With perestroika, I am removing the Dispute tag from the page. Cheers. Memills (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Table "Overview of Theoretical Foundations"

This looks like complete Original Research, or am I wrong? There are sources for components in the table but no source for putting it together in this way. Please comment here; if necessary we can post at No original research noticeboard. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's really important to follow policy, especially on a controversial page. Please remind us of where the OR policy page says you can't summarize material on a table. I know that one can't synthesize material to make an original argument, but that's doesn't seem to be what's going on here. Leadwind (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is bordeline synthesis as I have argued before, and it is not even very helpful to give in table format. It would be a lot better to summarise the theoretical foundations in prose, because that way we can explicitly describe in which ways EP has drawn on the different theoretical concepts, instead of making it appear as if these theories ar ein fact somehow part of EP. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

To my eyes it's beyond the borderline and, yes, Leadwind, it does make an argument. Perhaps not the EP-for-or-against argument, but it imposes much too much interpretation on texts, and counterposes them in a way we shouldn't do unless it's done in the literature. If no source for the whole thing then I don't think it should stay. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There are many concept summary tables on WP that have been created by editors based on sourced material. As long as they are sourced, this in itself is not remarkable.

Original research is not modifiable by others. Sourced concept summary tables are not original material in that (a) they are based on referenced sources, and, (b) other people are free to edit them, to make corrections or additions. Like any prose on Wikipedia, concept summary tables can and should be edited by others to make sourced corrections, additions, clarifications or deletion of inaccuracies. Re this particular table, the concepts are organized in a way that helps to elucidate both the historical development of these foundational ideas, the relevant system level (individual, kin, non-kin, group, culture), the primary theoreticians, and examples of each idea. Several evolutionary psychology undergraduate level textbooks use a very similar structure to organize their chapters. Further, the summary organizational structure helps the reader to more easily understand the concepts, and to see the connections between these core theories. It has been a stable part of the page for years, and several editors have made contributions or revisions to it. More detailed information about the concepts are fleshed out elsewhere in the article, or via links to other pages.

EP is a controversial theoretical paradigm, and it attracts the attention of some WP editors who have a very different set of conflicting assumptions and foundational ideas about human nature (e.g., cultural determinism). Some of the WP editors who have proposed deletions, or who have objected to adding relevant material, have expressed a strong antipathy toward the discipline. This is documented here on this Talk page. As a consequence, the EP page has been subject to repeated attempts to remove material, or to prevent the inclusion of information, that has appeared in published, peer reviewed journals, and that is also notable as evidenced by its inclusion in several undergraduate level evolutionary psychology textbooks. Dubious rationales have been given for doing so, including previous (incorrect) claims of 'original material,' arguing that an EP hypothesis or theory is not generally accepted by psychologists or by the WP editor him or herself (not a sufficient reason for exclusion), arguing that clearly relevant material should not be added because it is not 'notable' or that it is not 'scientifically validated,' that presentation of the material could be harmful, that the material is "bollocks," etc. Some may wish to remove material that they disagree with if it is presented too clearly.

The censoring or exclusion of relevant information, whether controversial or not, is clearly counter to the mission of WP and its policies. Memills (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have argued to remove the table before. Leadwind and MeMills fought to keep it. I have also brought up numerous times the issue of mis-citing Darwin as saying something he absolutely did not say in the Origin of Species. If MeMills (the one who created the table) was sure of his source, he would only need to point out the page where it came from. I have asked him numerous times to do so and he has not. I tried removing the source, but MeMills or Leadwind kept putting it back without support. I dropped the issue of getting rid of the table (on grounds of it being original and mis-citing material) because MeMills and Leadwind were working hard to keep it in and I was not sure how many we had in favor of getting rid of it. I recommend we skip the discussion (it has been tried) and post it on No original research noticeboard. If I knew there was such a thing, I would have done so long ago. Logic prevails (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The material in the table is presented in several evolutionary psychology textbooks as foundational concepts. Since its introduction, it has been edited by several editors to revise wording, add material and references. That was my intention when I added the first draft, and, over time, I would expect the table to further evolve along with the discipline.

The first draft of the table here was based on a table I included a peer-reviewed paper presented at the Western Psychological Association meeting (which is referenced on the table). A similar version of the table appeared at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society website for many years (which is archived here. The conceptual structure of the table is also presented in Bernard, L. C., Mills, M. E., Swenson, L., & Walsh, R. P. (2005). An evolutionary theory of human motivation. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 131, 129-184. See, in particular, Figure 2.

However, again, the table was included here as a concept summary, rather as a replication of a table presented elsewhere (which thus could not be modified). That is, the table is "based on these sources..." rather than "replicated from (ref)...".

As I noted above, there are many similar concept summary tables on WP. This one is not remarkable given that it is a summary of sourced material. The organizational structure of the table helps to facilitate understanding the concepts and the inter-relationships. Again, I am concerned about the underlying motivation for the repeated attempts to remove well sourced information on the EP page by those who have antipathy toward the discipline.

Regarding LogicPrevails' comment questioning whether Darwin hypothesized that the mind evolved as did the body (that we have already discussed previously on this Talk page), that issue really is not controversial. As you might recall from our previous discussion of this, this is very, very well documented. In fact, there is correspondence between Darwin and Wallace wherein their differences on this issue was made clear (Wallace did not believe that mental traits evolved, Darwin did). Memills (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It is controversial if it was not stated in the Origin of Species... we have discussed that on the talk page. For the last time, nowhere (again, all you need to do is provide a page reference) in the Origin of Species, does Darwin say anything to the effect of: "The bodies and minds of organisms are made up of evolved adaptations designed to help the organism survive in a particular ecology (for example, the fur of polar bears, the eye, food preferences, etc.)." This makes it sound as if Darwin was an Evolutionary Psychologist, which he was not. You cannot understand what I mean because you refuse to accept that there are other ways (aside from EP) to apply evolutionary thinking to human psychology. Logic prevails (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It was stated in the Origin: "In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation." p. 449. If you are going to continue with the line of argument, find a quote to counter this. Or, the reference to Darwin's later book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals can be added to the table as an additional source. Memills (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this already. That sentence was the first and only time in a near 500 page book where Darwin mentions the word 'mind' (I have already provided a sourced reference that states that fact as well). This statement is hardly a foundational thesis for inclusion in a summary table about the basis of EP - he did not ever present a hypothesis (in Origin) about how evolution influences the mind. Secondly, can you explain how Darwin's brief statement about his vision of a future field where we uncover "the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation" translates into: "The bodies and minds of organisms are made up of evolved adaptations designed to help the organism survive in a particular ecology?" If anything his statement would be unsupportive of what you have in the table, since he is saying essentially: "the future may be able to use this evolution stuff to make sense of human psychology, but I just spent the last 500 pages talking about the non-mind stuff... not sure how well do it, but I hope it can be done." Again, hardly a foundational text to support EP. Logic prevails (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

He spent the majority of the book on how evolution creates physiological adaptations, and near the end he clearly states that the same reasoning applies to psychological adaptations, and that evolutionary theory will provide a foundational metatheory for psychology. Couldn't be much more clear. However, I will add a reference to his The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals where he devotes an entire book to this proposition. Memills (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for the information about sourcing. I would be happy for the table to go in verbatim and unchangeable from a source. I am not happy about a table that WP editors can change at will. You need to be an expert to produce such a table. Please don't assume people's stances on EP. I am not happy to be described as antipathetic to EP. I have my own views in RL which would take some time to detail, and it is beside the point what they are. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not referring to you. I was referring, in particular, to LogicPrevails and Maunus who have pretty clearly stated their disdain for the EP paradigm.

"You need to be an expert to produce such a table." I am a professor of psychology with a specialization in evolutionary psychology. I produced the first draft of the table here, although I don't consider it 'original research' because most any expert in the field would summarize the basic theories in a similar fashion. As I noted above, most evolutionary psychology textbooks use a similar organizational structure as that reflected in the table. Like any material in WP that is not taken verbatim from a source, a concept summary table can, and should be edited to improve it -- to add appropriate material, references, and to make it more accurate. I see no valid reason to remove it. Memills (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mesh with WP policy, unfortunately. If you have published the table in a textbook, for example, that could be a good source, but WP editors aren't regarded as experts when we write in WP. We need to find a textbook that presents the material in such a way, then include it as a quotation as it were. Or just link to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Judith, as you can imagine, this page is pretty controversial, with a history of incivility among the editors on the talk page. Nor can I exclude myself from that accusation. I, for one, am trying to move past my former confrontational attitude in an effort to rally the editors to work together. If that sounds reasonable to you, let's first try to figure out what we can all agree on. If we can move forward together on a few issues, that might help us all get along well enough to handle the more controversial issues later. So far, we seem to be agreed that we need to get rid of the Overview section (which is a violation of WP guidelines, as I'm sure you already know). Leadwind (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reproducing a table from a copyrighted source is, of course, disallowed. The same is true for a copyrighted graphic. However, editors can (and do) create both tables and graphics that are based on material presented in a source(s).

I don't think there is a WP policy that bans editors creating concept review tables that are based on sourced materials. There are several on this page. And, they exist on many pages throughout WP. Further, there is no expectation or documentation needed that WP editors must be experts in a field before they add or edit material (although, at times I must admit to wishing it were so... ;-) If there is such a prohibition, please point us to the source. Memills (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets focus on this: what is the information that the table provides and are there other, perhaps better ways of including it. The way I understand the table it provides information about the particular theoretical formulations within evolutionary biology and sociobiology that have been adopted by EP. I think for this information to be relevant for this topic this information should be given in the context of how it has been adopted to EP. I think it would be better to write in prose about how different scholars/studies in EP have drawn on different existing theories adapting them to the EP context. E.g. we need to explain how Darwin has been evoked in specific EP studies. We need to explain how Hamilton and Tinbergen have been used as the theoretical foundations for different Ep studies. I think this table doesn't do that - it basically shows that EP draws upon theories from Evolutionary biology and sociobiology, but it doesn't do a good job of showing who has used what how and in which context. To do this I think the best format is prose. I am a big fan of sweetly flowing prose as the main tool to explain complex relations. I think tables are good for providing numerical content, not to explain historical relations between research paradigms. Tables may simplify complex matter - but simplification is not always good. ·Maunus·ƛ· 22:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The table has been a stable part of the EP page for many years. There has been too much recent focus on removing material, or preventing new material being added, which, as I have mentioned, I find a tad suspicious. If we wish to increase harmony among the editors, Leadwind's suggestion seems reasonable. Let's back off from deleting material for a while. Instead, why don't we refocus our energies on integrating the Overview section into the main article, as well as working cooperatively to improve the existing prose. Memills (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not proposing on removing material, I am proposing to change the form in which we present it to one that makes for a better article. Improving this article will consist in changing text that has "been a stable part of the EP page for many years". The page will not be improved unless cohesion is promoted by sticking to the main focus of the article, rewriting sections that lack internal and external cohesion and by pruning material that is redundant.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

From my perspective, the tables on this page present some of the most interesting and thought provoking material here. They organize, clarify, summarize, and show the relation between concepts in a way that makes understanding the basics relatively quick and easy. Precisely the purpose of an encyclopedic article. The prose then further expands on these basic concepts. Memills (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the basic issue as I see it: proponents of EP draw on people like Hamilton and Tinbergen and even Darwin. However, many other scientists, including opponents of EP, also draw on these scholars. So we want to make clear that these are important points of reference for EP, without making it appear as if EP is a natural or uncontroversial extension of their ideas. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this can better be done in a prose format that explains how EP has drawn on its "theoretical foundations." in specific cases. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If that is how EPers see their discipline, drawing on these foundational ideas, there is no reason not to indicate that. Also, I know of no other evolution-focused research programs in psychology that would reject the broad label of 'evolutionary psychology.' Most research program in psychology focus on proximate mechanisms, not their putative evolution, which most routinely ignore. Please give us some references to research programs that are fundamentally evolutionary in their approach to understanding psychological adaptations that would not include themselves under the broad category of evolutionary psychology. With what other disciplinary label do they self-identify? Other than the specific ideas of particular individuals, I know of no such cohesive evolutionary research program competitor to EP. Memills (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do know several researchers in psychology who are overtly evolutionarily focused on distal causes and who do not accept EP's conclusions or ways of aaproaching data., E.g. Michael Tomasello, Tecumseh Fitch, Stephen Levinson.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Anthropology. Anthropologists are keen to develop models for how H. sapiens evolved a capacity for language and symbolic thought and learning, and debate different evolutionary mechanisms. A real but fringe group of these scholars embrace EP; the majority firmly reject EP. (and of course the theory of evolution is th foundation of anthropology; all general anthropology textbooks begin with an account of the theory of evolution, basics of population genetics, and a section on the evolution of H. sapiens) Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Most cultural anthropologists reject EP, while most evolutionary anthropologists do not. Many of the latter are active contributors to the field of EP itself, and have been some of its most prominent researchers. Really, it is the clash of cultural determinism vs. adaptationist perspectives that is at the root of most of the disagreements on this page. Again, our task here is to accurately represent EP. Would that the editors here have that as their primary mission, rather than to engage in skirmishes over the conflicting assumptions of the nature vs. nurture debate. Memills (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

MEmills the "cultural determinism" schtick is a red herring, that is not what this is about anymore than EP is biological determinism or social darwinism. You should know that by now, you sure have been told enough times by now.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cultural determinism, broadly defined, is the assumption that humans are born pretty much a blank slate, that culture writes on that blank slate, that we have become so intelligent and have developed the "capacity for culture" such that biology can be pretty much safely ignored, and cultures are basically unconstrained by biology. Call it what you will -- this has been, and still is, the predominate paradigm in much of the social sciences. You can see this debate played out vividly in the videos below. Memills (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't become more true because you repeat it in an professorial voice. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It does, it does too! Memills (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if one doubts that this divide is not profound, may I recommend watching a few of the videos from the Norwegian "Brainwash" series, to see cultural determinists and adaptationists at each other's throats. The password to view these is "hjernevask" (no capital letters, no quotes).

* "The Gender Equality Paradox" http://vimeo.com/19707588

* "The Parental Effect" http://vimeo.com/19893826

* "Violence" http://vimeo.com/19921232

* "Sex" http://vimeo.com/19921928

* "Nature or Nurture" http://vimeo.com/19889788

* Also see

* Margaret Mead and Samoa http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3157675332479529894&q=margaret+mead+and+samoa

* Secrets of the Tribe http://vimeo.com/18751423

The intense academic infighting noted in some of these videos make the debates here look downright civil. :-) Memills (talk)

And none of these are reliable academic sources. The last two, at least, are attempts by discredited authors to find support in the popular audience. The anthropologist I know who support EP are cultural anthropologists - bioological anthropologists know too much about the theory of evolution and genetics to have any patience for EP. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case. Memills (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Do we think we can take a step back and figure out what we can agree on? We all want a good page that's in line with WP policies and guidelines. How about we see what we agree on and work toward that goal? Once we have a little experience working profitably together, then we'll be in a better position to address our differences productively, instead of antagonistically. I recommend, for starters, doing away with the overview section, which editors on both sides of the divide agree is against WP guidelines. Leadwind (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Since when did Leadwind become the calm voice of reason? Seriously, I think I could grow to like it.

Look, I think everyone here (aside from MeMills) is in agreement that the table ought to be re-worked into prose format. SLR had a very good point about the problems of presenting this complex material in a table... many non-EP's draw on the same 'founding researchers' and come up with different conclusions. The table is not able to say the reasoning in how they draw from these key researchers. The layreader may assume that evolutionary thinking applied to psychology leads progressively and necessarily to EP. I have argued numerous times that this is not the case and there are plenty of researchers who argue from an evolutionary perspective while explicitly rejecting EP as a method for doing so (e.g. J. Panksepp). Logic prevails (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The article is about EP, remember?

You and Maunus have repeatedly attempted to delete other tables and material on this page, prevent the inclusion of sourced notable material, and are clearly opposed to EPers accurately describing their own discipline on this page. This repeated behavior is bordering on censorship. This is apparently motivated by very strong anti-EP POVs and it is interfering with constructive editing of this page. Suppression or exclusion of information based on one's antipathy toward the content area is antithetical to the mission of WP.

See the policy related to "Dislike of the subject" [WP:DLS]

"The subject may be something that does not appeal to you. It may pertain to a differing interest, field, point-of-view, religion, or some other factor that bothers you personally. But Wikipedia is here for the whole world, not just you."

At this point, I suggest we listen to Leadwind's reasonable suggestion, and focus our effors to integrate the Overview section into the main EP page. Memills (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I forgot that you are the spokesperson for EP and that you can create your own tables, integrate your own information, and put new material on this page against the good judgment of everyone else. We've talked about this. No one is trying to censor information - just inaccurate information and poor writing. You are again making yourself out to be a hypocrite... it has mostly been you that has been rejecting the inclusion of material... anything with a slight bias against EP is instantly rejected by you. It has been a struggle to get even a small bit of information on this page if it does not cast EP in a favorable light - if anyone's bias is a problem here, it is yours. Stop claiming that mine is interfering when you have no reason to make those statements - again, I DO NOT want to censor notable material if it is presented in a neutral and clear manner.

I have read your suggested policy. In the first paragraph, it states: "It is not a Wikipedia policy." Why don't you take some time to read the policy related to "Conflict of Interest"[[1]], since it would seem that your own view seems to be the only one halting agreement. I think the numbers are against you here. Logic prevails (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

natural selection

I replaced the uncited material that some editors didn't like with material cited specifically to an EP source. I hope everyone can agree that this change is at least in the right direction. Leadwind (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for your efforts. Memills (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

ref format

I've had real trouble getting the "ref name =" format to work, and I've never seen this bug before. Ideally, we should be able to use the "ref name =" coding to have multiple citations all refer to the same footnote. I just can't get it to work the way I think it should. Since formatting references is a nice, neutral, non-controversial issue, I'm hoping that someone can fix my formatting. I've tried repeatedly with no success. Thanks in advance. Leadwind (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Overview section

Judith, I'm glad to have your enthusiasm on this page. There's one big change that we're all agreed needs to happen, and maybe you can help us with. The Overview section needs to go. Maybe you can help us move all the pertinent information to other sections of the page, and delete what's not pertinent. Leadwind (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If our goal is to improve the article, and not to fight about whether EP is good or bad, then let's starts peacefully by improving the article in ways that we all agree on. We all agree that we should eliminate the overview section. Let's start there. Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

race and EP

Editors who think that I'm some sort of racist for supporting EP (and who denigrate me for promoting Encyclopedia Britannica Online as an RS) could maybe do me the kind favor of noticing my recent support for the sociological definition of race, as seen on the Race and Race and Crime pages. It's my sincere hope that the links I've provided to the EBO article on Race will help settle some arguments on the topic. As a white man who married a black woman and who has a black/white (and slightly Native American) child, I bristle at any implication that I'm a racist, but maybe that's beside the point. Andy previously requested some sort of treatment of the race topic on this page, and I added a referenced section, but that work was deleted. I agree with Andy that we should address the issue of race on this page, as it relates to EP. There is probably other work to do first (eliminate the Overview section, discuss Learning, connect the Sexual Selection section directly to EP), but let's not forget to circle back and cover the race issue once the less controversial work is done. My apologies if this post is unprofessionally personal, but the issue of race has been particularly personal to me ever since I married someone of another "race" (whatever that means). Leadwind (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The predominant view in EP is that because our ancestors virtually never encountered someone of a different race in their entire life, we are unlikely to have psychological adaptations designed specifically to classify people by race. However, there may be coalitional adaptations that might classify folks into "in-groups" and "out-groups" by virtue of differences in appearance, customs, rituals, clothing, etc.

Here are a few refs you may find of interest:

* Perceptions of race, by Leda Cosmides, John Tooby and Robert Kurzban

* Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization by Robert Kurzban, John Tooby, and Leda Cosmides

* The Evolution of Prejudice Scientific American article

Memills (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

a request for citations

Honestly, I am not here to stir up any conflict - I am asking your indulgence to make a request for help (i.e. I am not suggesting an improvement to the article). I see that the article has a link to the Margaret Mead in Samoa video - but this video is really about the conflict with Freidman, whose critique was based on his own fieldwork in Samoa (i.e. using the same basic methods as Mead, he basically is claiming he just did better research and has thus better results). Is there any serious and sustained critique by an evolutionary psychologist/representing the perspective of evolutionary psychology? Or, is there any good published EP critique of any major work of anthropology? I am not talking about a few scattered sentences, I am talking about a sustained critique. I have no hidden agenda here: I just want to add to my persnal reading list. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Mead-Freeman controversy is basically about the claim that cultures are unconstrained by biology and thus are free to vary on any trait (cultural determinism -- which Mead's findings supported) vs. the claim the culture itself is a product of an evolved human nature, and just as humans share the same basic evolved physiology regardless of culture, humans around the world also share a common psychological human nature (nature-nurture interactionism -- which Freeman's work supported). This fundamental clash of paradigms is well exemplified by the Margaret Mead and Samoa video (watch the video). Evolutionary psychologists have used this as one of several examples of the fundamentally different set of assumptions about human nature of these two paradigms. In particular, Daly and Wilson devote an entire subsection reviewing the controversy in their book Homicide. Most evolutionary psychology textbooks (including those by Gaulin & McBurney, and by Buss) discuss the Mead-Freeman controversy as well. Memills (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow ... so ths simple answer is "no." Okay, fine. Obviously you have not read Mead's book or Freedman's; they are not arguing over nature versus nuture, they are arguing over whether the taupou system in Samoan society was restricted to girls of high rank or to all ranks. Also, my recollection is that her argument about a low-stress adolesecence has a lot to do with thei kinship system and residence rules and the role of young children in daily labor. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That is a pretty narrow interpretation. Check out the video, and see what researchers on both sides of the debate had to say about these two books. Memills (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the video. It does a decent job of presenting Freeman's argument. Anyway, you seem to have answered my question: there is no good peer-reviewed journal article based on original research and presenting an original argument from the EP perspective. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Shrewd gambit, Slrubenstein. Open with a statement requesting info -- "but really, I'm not trying to start an argument," then reject the references presented to you without reading them, and finally conclude with your original preconceived "facts". Won't be falling for that one again. Memills (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

No, you cannot cover up your own failure. I made a sincere request for sources. You have not provided the citation of a single peer-reviewed article. Instead you refered me to a film that largely defends Freeman's arguments, which are not evolutionary psychology. The video was not made by evolutionary psychologists and does not forward an evolutionary psychology argument. If you can recommend to me an article that does, great! Did you really think recommending a video that trashes Mead by rehashing Freeman's book is an adequate response to my question? Then your standards for scholarly research truly are pathetic. This is just dogmatism: Mead was not an evolutionary psychologist, therefore her work is bad, therefore any work that criticizes her is evolutionary psychology - what kind of thought process is going on here?

For all you real experts out there - asking Memills about scholarship is obviously a waste of time - my question remains: is there any good (e.g. a peer-reviewed journal article with a methods, data, and discussion sections or equivalent) article that criticizes Mead's work in Samoa from an EP perspective (this excludes Freeman), or in fact any other major work of anthropology, could someone provide the citations please? thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you check out the references in Daly & Wilson's book [http://www.amazon.com/Homicide-Foundations-Human-Behavior-Wilson/dp/020201178X/ Homicide]?

The EP perspective is your setup of a straw man. The fundamental issue is the nature vs. nurture debate. Freeman's book itself is from an EP perspective since he suggests that the data supports nature-nurture interactionism, rather than cultural determinism (that cultures are free to vary on any trait because culture is not limited by an evolved human nature). See Tooby and Cosmides (yes, they are evolutionary psychologists) discussion of the Integrated Model (nature-nurture interactionism) vs. the Standard Social Science Model (cultural determinism) in the book [http://www.amazon.com/Adapted-Mind-Evolutionary-Psychology-Generation/dp/0195101073 The Adapted Mind:Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture].

But, really, you are not interested in that. You are trying to say that modern EPers haven't gone to Samoa themselves to check out Mead's claims, and thus, the Mead-Freeman book has nothing to do with (narrow) EP, so the video is irrelevant to EP. I get the logic of the gambit. Not an effective one, tho. Memills (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That is the most ridiculous statement I've ever heard - there isn't a single living anthropologist that espouses cultural determinism, rather all favor nature-nurture interactionism so by your standards they are working form an EP perspective. Seriously you are living in a very strange world.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Great, so as Donald Symons once wrote, "If we are all Darwinians, what is the fuss about?" Everyone accepts nature-nurture interactonism -- that humans have an evolved psychological "human nature" that is the foundation for culture, that humans are not born a "blank slate," and that cultures are not free to vary on any trait in any direction. Great news. Party at my house at 6:00pm. Memills (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So now you are doubling back on yourself, now you are saying that EP DOES allow for cultural diferences? Really? Then do evolutionary psychologists have a critique of Mead or not? By the way, One need not go to Samoa to propose a diferent argument from Mead's. Her work contains data that she heself does not draw on in her conclusions - ethnographers typically present more data than their arguments require, precisaely because it is not easy to go to the same fieldsite and of course with the passing years impossible to go back in time. Or one can use the same data to make a different argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"You are saying that EP DOES allow for cultural differences?" Whoa... dude. What the heck do you think EP is? Of course it does. You need read up a bit on EP, my friend. 21:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Memills (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As Maunus says, anthropologists all favor nature-nurture interactionism. As Memills says, evolutionary psychologists all favor nature-nurture interactionism. So why is everyone fighting? Leadwind (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Article improvement

Honestly, the article is much too long, any peer reviewer would say that straight away. And it is too much like a textbook chapter rather than an encyclopedia article. The tables have to go, sorry. Memills, I think you are publishing elsewhere, and you perhaps need to let go of the Wikipedia work, because it is a collaborative encyclopedia and will never represent the work of just one writer. The bottom line is that this isn't a repository for original research. I also think that we need to keep it focused on the recent work, E.O. Wilson and subsequent. It is easy to make a case that Kropotkin, for example, was working in the same area, but his work is part of the historical background, not part of EP proper. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is too long because it tends to get sidetracked by trying to give a Evolution 101 as well as describe the topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Itsmejudith, but reduction of the size of the article, if that is even needed, should be paring of more non-essential material. My suggestions: (a) the history section can be moved to its own page, (b) the criticisms section is material already covered on its own page and can be reduced to a couple of sentences or a paragraph. The "evolution 101" material is essential and brief -- EP cannot be accurately understood without it. Memills (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It has to be understood without it. Instead of thinking about delivering an undergraduate course, think about writing an abstract for an academic paper. In that case you don't expect to go through all of evolutionary theory to make your point. A history of EP would be OTT when we don't have histories of other sub-disciplines and theories in psychology. Plus, we know now when writing the history of psychology, that Darwin was always an essential backdrop. But many or most standard histories of psychology take the Darwinian heritage for granted. Might be sad, but we need to follow the sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone was in agreement that the tables needed to go (for various reasons), however MeMills continues to revert the changes as soon editors stop monitoring the pages on a daily basis. I also agree that this page should be shortened. Logic prevails (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hummm, is there a tag team here? LogicPrevails, Itsmejudith, and Maunus, anti-EP'ers all, all just happen to reappear on the same time at the same Talk page? Strange coincidence! And, they all happen to wish to eviscerate the core theories of EP -- by arguing "the article is too long?" And, all have a history of repeatedly (and, I do mean repeatedly) resisting the inclusion of new sourced and noteable material, and/or have previously attempted the same strategy of trying the delete sourced material from the page? No POV bias there... just trying to make sure that this page accurately represents EP, right?

Again, before any of this foundational material goes, there is much other material, far less essential, that would need to be jettisoned first. Shall we work on that?

Or, is there another agenda?

I know. It's sad.

Memills (talk) 22:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm is there an article WP:OWNer here - one who has rejected repeated arguments by multiple editors that including a section about general evolutionary theory is outside the scope of this article and has even editwarred to keep the information in...And one who also hasn't bothered to read the MOS or any of the other policies about to construct good articles that stay on topic.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the consensus version of the article per the talk page. I've also removed the ridiculous, unencyclopedic link Memills keeps adding, and I've removed the peacock words per best practices. Memills, you are out of line again. There is enough evidence per the COI allegations and your past edit warring to ask for a topic ban. I suggest you stop edit warring immediately. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You deleted a fair bit of material that's cited to an EP textbook, so I restored it. If the article is too long, then I have two questions: how long is it, and how long should it be? Leadwind (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The question is not length but staying on topic - this is an article about a psychological discipline not about evolutionary theory. Readers can get background knowledge about evolutionary theory through short prose descriptions and wikilinks. There is simply no way that including large sections and tables about generalities of evolutionary theory can be justified in relation to our policies of how to structure a good article. Making this look like an "anti-Ep" thing is ridiculous drama mongering - this is just a question of good encyclopedia writing. I encourage Memills to take his martyr complex elsewhere.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't call me an "anti EP-er", Memills. I am not, particularly. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you are not, particularly, then please discontinue deleting important foundational information from the page using dubious rationales.

And, Maunus, back at you. It is pretty telling when a tag-team group works together, repeatedly pushing their common anti-EP POV here and elsewhere. You are far more interested in eviscerating this article than insuring it is an accurate description of EP, and noted by both your words and your editing actions here.

Leadwind's question is relevant -- if the article is too long, what should be the appropriate length? If length is a problem (of course, that is not the real motivation), shall we reduce the length of the Controversies section? There is, after all, an entire page devoted to that. But, of course, the anti-EP tag team here really isn't interested in deleting that. Instead, the objective is to re-work the page to suppress and delete info so that real EP isn't presented comprehensively or accurately.

I recall the comments of a WP Administrator in reviewing a WP dispute. With some resignation, he noted that there were textbooks full of information that never made it into WP, while controversial and hot button topics were constantly involved in edit wars. He noted that sourced contributions by academic experts are often deleted by those who have yet to pick up an undergraduate textbook on a topic. His fear was that WP was turning into a propaganda outlet, despite the NPOV mantra. When cries by a tag team of WP:LENGTH and WP:OWN are used to suppress sourced information presented in multiple evolutionary psychology textbooks, by editors who "just want to do good encyclopedia writing" (despite their self-acknowledged anti-EP perspective), WP red flags should appear and sirens should sound.

Robert Kurzban really nailed the process with The Pop Anti-Evolutionary Psychology Game -- the gambits are played out here repeatedly in real time. Memills (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I can be expected to reply to this massive Personal attack and blatant lack of AGF in any other way than by reporting you to an administrator's notice board for disruptive editing. I am giving you this notice in order to let you reconsider, get back on track and take a more constructive approach to writing a collaborative encyclopedia before I take that action. You are a single editor with a vested viewpoint who is arguing that all editors who disagree with you about how to write an article are tag-teaming. There is something wrong here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Maunus, ok, after tag-teaming, now we are back to "collaborative editing?"

You have frankly lost your credibility with me as a sincere non-POV editor. A review of your edits show a clear pattern here of repeatedly resisting inclusion of sourced information, deleting sourced information (or supporting such deletions on this Talk page), and contributing primarily anti-EP material to the page. I stand by my comments, and I would be happy to document them in a review.

My only "vested viewpoint" here is that EP is presented accurately and comprehensively with sourced information that is also notable by its inclusion in multiple evolutionary psychology undergraduate textbooks. Leadwind has also taken this perspective. I suggest that all the editors here follow this approach. Memills (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if I have lost my credibility you have never had it, you are obviously a convert of the EP cult to a degree to that you take EP'ers systematic misrepresentations of other fields' research as if they were holy truth. And yes what you call tag teaming is in fact collaborative editing - I am sorry that you happen to be the recalcitrant ego that wants your way or the highway. That doesn't work here, and insisting on it is what we call disruptive editing and article ownership. This is not a textbook it is an encyclopedia article and it will come to be written as one eventually with or without your acceptance.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I suspect this is where the problem lies. This is an encyclopedia, and cannot be a comprehensive presentation. Currently, the article is over 35 pages long when printed out. It should be much shorter. If certain sub-topics merit their own article, then I think those should be created, if only to bring the page to a manageable size. aprock (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem seems to lie with MeMills - and I am not the first editor to suggest that. As several past and present editors have pointed out, his actions indicate a wanting to lay sole claim to this page while having exclusive rights to how it is edited. He frequently violates wiki policies related to edit-waring, consensus, and more general guidelines related to good writing. Whenever another editor disagrees with him, he accuses them of being 'anti-EP' and confuses 'partisan tag-teaming' with what would seem to be nothing more than collaborative editing. There is no conspiracy here MeMills. I have been monitoring the page from time to time... However, I only find the energy to edit here with you when other people are willing to do the same. The editing of a page should not be held back so much by one single person. Logic prevails (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You have admitted your strong anti-EP perspective -- that really isn't in dispute. Like Maunus, who calls EP a "cult" above, your efforts have been to block new information, delete information, and contribute only material to challenge EP.

Doesn't really matter about who disagrees with whom here. What matters is that material is sourced and notable. Both Leadwind and I have both used that criteria to include information, and have suggested that others do too.

I support Aprock's suggestion that, if the article is too long, we work cooperatively to create, as appropriate, sub-pages for further exploration of a topic. There is already a page on the EP Controversy -- should we pare that down that section of this article first? Memills (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Note that I also pointed out that the article cannot give give comprehensive coverage of the topic. aprock (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Memills do anything here, aside from entertain his self-publication fantasies and drive away every other editor who wants to contribute? Memills, try a little AGF. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Aprock, of course it cannot give comprehensive coverage, like a textbook. However, it should give a comprehensive overview and summary, with references and links to additional information. Slrubenstein, I'm all for contributions -- many, many folks have contributed to this page; my contributions are but a small fraction. What have you contributed to this page? Memills (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Memills, you are skating on thin ice. Slrubenstein attempted to fix the article[2] and you reverted him, adding in your own research against consensus, in violation of COI, which you have previously been warned about. You are using this article to push your own research, which is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not my research, Viriditas, as Leadwind noted above. I wish it was, tho. Memills (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Then why does the diff[3] show you adding a reference to Mills (2004)? Viriditas (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, and these references were added at the request of other editors. The "Overview of theoretical foundations" table is a summary of theories based on content from multiple evolutionary psychology textbook sources (again, as noted by Leadwind, above). The organization of the table by systems level was noted in that reference, as well as the following reference listed for the table (see Bernard, et al., Figure 2). Again, the content of the table is not my research (darn), although I might claim a tad bit of the systems level organization, but even that is based on Systems theory. Memills (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Arguing that the table is WP:SYNTH and not WP:OR really doesn't improve matters much. Honestly, it appears that you've been waging a slow motion edit war on this table for over three years. aprock (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And what is telling, is who wants it removed.

Not Leadwind -- he just restored it, because it accurately summarizes material presented in several evolutionary psychology textbooks. (He actually owns several of them!)

Not evolutionary psychologists -- surely they would object if it was inaccurate. In fact, as I have noted previously, a version of the table was included at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society website for about 8 years or so. That is the foremost academic society of evolutionary psychologists. Never a complaint from an evolutionary psychologist that it was inaccurate, either in terms of content or presentation / synthesis. Not one complaint.

Who has wanted the tables (ALL of them!) removed here? Primarily Maunus and LogicPrevails -- the two most strident anti-EP'ers here. Why? Lots of rationales and rationalizations, but, bottom line -- I don't think they like even seeing this stuff in print.

Things that make you go, hummmm.... Memills (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that it's original research and/or synthesis by you, it's hard to see how the identity of those removing the material matters very much. aprock (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The table already includes many edits and contributions from other editors. I welcome edits that improve the table, as I would welcome edits to improve a paragraph that I have contributed here. As with the table, I would also object to the deletion of a paragraph of good, accurate, and sourced foundational material on the basis of dubious rationales. Memills (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Memills, this nonsense needs to stop. Nobody here is "anti-EP", and you have thrown that label at any and every editor who dares question your edits. Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Virgina, there actually are a few 'anti-EP' folks lurking here, by their own admission. Shhhh... don't wake them.  ;-) Memills (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Memills, you need to start taking our policies and guidelines a bit more seriously. This is a collaborative enterprise which requires editors to work together. This is not a battleground. There is enough cumulative evidence to ask for your topic ban. I would hope that faced with this outcome, you would begin to change your behavior. Viriditas (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you wikilawyering again, Viriditas? Instead of making threats, how about making some actual good, sourced contributions, instead? Made any here? Got your evolutionary psychology textbooks at the ready for quick reference? Memills (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Memills, I'm a bit concerned about you. You seem to have forgotten that you have reverted virtually every edit I've ever made to this page, and that my criticism, which I made several years ago in a series of long discussions (now in the archives) was derided and resisted by you in every encounter. Imagine my surprise when I found that you accepted the very same criticism I made years ago, except this time it was raised by another editor just last month (even though you have never fixed the article, you just agree to do it but it never happens). I don't believe I have ever wikilawyered, Memills, and you are free to check my discussion contributions in the talk page archives. You will find that my criticisms have been shared by editor after editor, with you attacking and reverting all of them. Something has to change, Memills, and that something is you. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

MeMills, you say that you are open to people making appropriate edits to your table, but that is not true. I have repeatedly raised concerns about that table, including your dubious sourcing of Darwin, where you take a cryptic single sentence from a nearly 500 page book, and out of context, to make it sound as if Darwin was the first evolutionary psychologist. This is not a "good, sourced contribution," but rather a dubious synthesis from a single editor... I doubt you would ever get this kind of thing published in a reputable journal, and this is not the place to do it.

Your claims about me being anti-EP are ridiculous. No one else has raised an issue with my edits being biased. I know you would like to fancy yourself protecting this page, and the 'Truth' of EP from the majority of the other editors who are somehow conspiring to censor EP, but this is just not the case. It seems that in your view, the only way to be a 'neutral' editor, is to be unquestionably pro-EP. You seem to have no regard for inappropriate sourcing, writing original material, or engaging in bad writing... as long as you present your field in a favorable light. If an editor brings up a concern, you accuse them of being biased. I am not trying to censor notable and appropriately sourced material. I am also not using either this page or the controversy page as a battleground to state any position I may have - I use peer-reviewed journals for that... I suggest you try doing the same. Logic prevails (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As Leadwind has suggested, why don't we look to the evolutionary psychology textbooks as our guide? You do own some evolutionary psychology textbooks, right? Memills (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

unencyclopedic link to ep psych game

Like Viriditas, I deleted this link, added my Memills. It's contrary to policy to include Internet hyperlinks in running text, and the "game" doesn't seem to represent what our best sources say. We have plenty of good, basic material yet to add to the page. Let's leave this sort of material off the page. Leadwind (talk) 04:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. But, it actually isn't a game. It is a list of some of the more common gambits used by critics of EP, many of which can be seen on this Talk page. However, I shall defer -- it might be appropriate as a reference on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page, tho. Memills (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In what context would it be appropriate here, Memills? Could you please review Wikipedia:External links and get back to me? Of course, if you weren't a SPA who focused solely on owning this single article, you would understand how we use links, which is something most editors learn the first week they join. Viriditas (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You must have misread my comment. It stated: "it might be appropriate as a reference on the Evolutionary psychology controversy page, tho." "reference" not a "link." Memills (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Rely on evolutionary psychology textbooks to promote civil and collaborative editing

Leadwind and I have suggested several times that the way to go forward is to rely on evolutionary psychology textbooks to resolve any disagreements about what should / should not be included on the page. Personal ideas and perspectives about EP don't trump the textbooks. If we rely on the evolutionary psychology textbooks, and especially look for material that is covered in multiple textbooks, we can have a common base on which to explore discussions regarding content.

Here are some (inexpensive used ones are often available):

• [http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-New-Science-Mind/dp/020501562X/Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind] (4th Edition) 2011 by Buss

• [http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-Introduction-Lance-Workman/dp/0521888360 Evolutionary Psychology: An Introduction] 2008 by Workman and Reader

• [http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Psychology-2nd-Steven-Gaulin/dp/0131115294/ Evolutionary Psychology] (2nd Edition) 2004 by Gaulin & McBurney

• [http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Human-Behavior-Darwinian-Perspectives/dp/0262033801 Evolution and Human Behavior] 2008 by Cartright

Memills (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

A nonsensical proposal. EP is a contentious subject and to base our article on textbooks that support one particular perspective would be a gross breach of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok folks, there it is in black and white. This is the key to the editing conflicts here. This is a massive misunderstanding of WP:NPOV.

Like all WP pages on scientific disciplines, the main EP article is primarily about accurately describing the discipline. We have a "Controversies" section on the main page, as also an entire Evolutionary psychology controversy page to explore those issues. It doesn't matter whether you think the field is "bollocks" as AndyTheGrump does.

Per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT if you dislike evolutionary psychology and don't want it to be accurately described on this page (as per concepts and materials in evolutionary psychology textbooks), and/or if you think your own opinions trump the material in the textbooks, you are way out of sync with the most fundamental mission of Wikipedia. Memills (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a question of POV (in anycase I have provided multiple citations from psychology textbooks that are highly critical of EP). It is rather a question of whether the article structure, layout and organization should be dictated by the structure of textbooks. This makes the proposal doubly nonsensical since this is not a textbook but an encyclopedic article. The only guideline for the structure of encyclopedic articles in wikipedia is our manual of style and our various policies regarding article structure. I can guarantee you that if were asked to write an article about EP for the Encyclopedia Britannica (since they don't currently have one this might actually happen I gues) and you decided to dedicate half of it to generalities about evolutionary theory the editor would tell you to stick to the point and let people who are experts in evolutionary theory take care of describing that topic in its own article. The same applies here.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Psychology textbooks are not evolutionary psychology textbooks, just as cultural anthropology textbooks are not physical anthropology textbooks. Most psychology textbooks examine behavior from a proximate perspective, not an evolutionary perspective. As such, the latter are far more relevant if you want to learn about actual EP.

The coverage of foundational evolutionary psychological theories (Darwin, Hamilton, Trivers, etc.) do not take up half of this article -- they are less than 1/8th of the article, as measured by word count. Memills (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This article should not cover the elements of Darwinism. It is best done in the relevant articles. Do you understand that? It is the consensus of those editing this article, and it is a consensus view based on Wikipedia principles and policies. By the way, people are entitled to edit whether they are sympathetic to EP or opposed to it. I thought I was quite sympathetic, but when I read the blog post you linked to, with its childish and unscholarly "if not with us then against us stance", I am now increasingly inclined to be opposed. How to win friends and influence people...Itsmejudith (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in reducing the two paras under "Natural Selection" to a few sentences. If you wish to do that, go for it. However, to exclude Darwinism entirely would be inappropriate for this article, and is not needed since it takes up such little space.

Anyone can edit, regardless of their biases, but certain those with a negative bias should not engage in WP:CENSOR, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, WP:TAGTEAM.

I presume you read Kurzban's post? Keep in mind that blog posts are more freewheeling -- Kurzban is actually a very nice, personable guy. Those in the field are repeatedly frustrated by the gambits he describes, tho. My suggestion is to read actual EP academic articles and textbooks. See the blog post What Others Tell You About Evolutionary Psychology Is Usually Wrong by Catherine Salmon -- she makes the same suggestion. Memills (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Judith, I hope you don't get caught up in the animosity that rules the talk page for this article. You are wise to bring up principles and policies. That's the only way that people who disagree with each other can edit peacefully together. With that in mind, I've got a question about the content of the article. You say: "This article should not cover the elements of Darwinism. It is best done in the relevant articles. Do you understand that? It is the consensus of those editing this article, and it is a consensus view based on Wikipedia principles and policies." Can you tell me what principle or policy says that "(t)his article should not cover the elements of Darwinism"? You might think it's so obvious that maybe I'm just yanking your chain, but honestly I want to know. I always sort of thought that the perfect article covers every encyclopedic aspect of the topic. The books I read about EP do make a point of explaining natural selection, sexual selection, and kin selection (inclusive fitness). So if there's a policy or guideline that you're basing your judgment on, then I could look at that policy or guideline and agree with you. Then I'll back you up in getting this material off the page. Leadwind (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Has anyone broke the bad news to Memills yet about how Wikipedia articles deal with textbooks? Wikipedia articles are not primarily based on textbooks, Memills. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you refer me to that policy? Memills (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:IRS, look carefully at what it says about secondary sources. And do look very carefully at a range of featured articles in different disciplines. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from WP:IRS re the use of textbooks:

* Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.

*Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.

*Isolated studies are usually considered tentative.. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred when available, so as to provide proper context.

Memills (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The policy is no original research, which explains that we use secondary sources for the basis of our articles. The policy section is described at WP:PSTS. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is what is said at WP:PSTS about textbooks:

*Tertiary sources... many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other.

Memills (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

...And WP:PSTS goes on to say that ″some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others″. In other words, as tertiary sources they still need to be assessed for reliability. Secondary sources are preferred to tertiary sources for in-depth detail on the whole. Constructing an article around a few tertiary sources is less than ideal. In any case, this does not address the issue of presenting a controversial subject like EP in a balanced way, which must of necessity include academic criticisms from beyond the field itself, and as much as I'd like to think that textbooks would do this, I'm less than convinced that they would, given the propensity with which EP proponents show here to treat such criticisms with disdain. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We actually agree on that. The evolutionary psychology textbooks should be used to help decide what is notable and should be covered on the main page (to make sure the field is described accurately as EP'ers conceive it). For the Controversies Section, and the Evolutionary psychology controversy page other sources with differing perspectives can also be used. Memills (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Either Memills is missing something, or textbooks are good. Is he missing something? Judith, you seemed to hint that there was some sort of issue with textbooks? Leadwind (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Memills is missing quite a bit. We don't rely on tertiary sources to write articles. They are used in moderation, if at all necessary, with a reliance on current secondary sources. Textbooks are notorious for being out of date the day after they are published. Judith's guideline merely points to the policy. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Textbooks are categorized a both secondary and tertiary sources at different places in the policy sections above. "We don't rely on tertiary sources to write articles" -- can you provide a reference for this? Memills (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The entirety of our sourcing policies and guidelines enshrine the use of secondary sources as paramount. I don't have to provide a ref again for this. Good and featured articles are based on secondary sources with the help of primary and tertiary sources for support. I often use and cite papers that are included in tertiary sources, which makes them secondary in that context. It depends on the type of source and how you use it. Most textbooks are summaries of the primary and secondary literature, which may or may not be current or reliable, or inclusive of other viewpoints and perspectives. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So, this is your opinion? Or is it WP policy? If the latter, can you cite the policy so we can read it?

Also, as I have noted previously, I have not suggested that we rely predominately on textbooks as citation sources. Please read my posts more closely. I said we could use textbooks to decide what topic content areas are notable to help with decisions about what content topics to include on the main EP page. Memills (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

• What's with the extreme wiki-lawyering on policy in this discussion? You're asking Memills to show where policy follows his reasoning and he does so and then all of you are trying to then say how the policy doesn't actually mean that when it does. Of course we use tertiary sources. They are not as good as secondary sources, of course, but we primarily use tertiary sources to understand what sort of organization we should use and how overall topics within an article should be organized. Especially in articles such as these, tertiary sources are highly necessary for organization purposes, because users can so easily try and input their own opinion on how things should be organized. Silverseren^C 01:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Memills is the only one here wikilawyering over policy, and was the one who raised the issue. The policy quite clearly says we write articles based on secondary sources. Please show me a GA or FA based on a textbook. Viriditas (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, Viridita, please provide a source that states that tertiary sources should not be used. The policy cited above suggests that they are. Memills (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You're confused. You claimed we should rely only on tertiary sources to write this article. Others disagreed. You asked for policy links. They were provided showing that Wikipedia articles rely primarily on secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are confused, Viridatas. I never suggested that only textbook sources be used. Rather, I suggested that we look for content that is presented in multiple evolutionary psychology textbooks to help decide what content topics are sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article. If the same topic is covered in multiple evolutionary psychology textbooks, that suggests that that topic is notable. Memills (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You said, "the way to go forward is to rely on evolutionary psychology textbooks to resolve any disagreements about what should / should not be included on the page." Other editors have pointed out that you are trying to avoid using sources critical of EP by narrowing the sources to tertiary sources, which does not follow our best practices for article writing. Nobody has ever said that you can't use textbooks or tertiary sources. What they have said, and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that we favor secondary source treatments of the subject that address all aspects of the topic. You appear to be trying to argue against the NPOV, not for it. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It will tend to help, Viriditas, if you read my comment above where I noted : "The evolutionary psychology textbooks should be used to help decide what is notable and should be covered on the main page (to make sure the field is described accurately as EP'ers conceive it). For the Controversies Section, and the Evolutionary psychology controversy page other sources with differing perspectives can also be used." Also, I never suggested that non-textbook sources could not also be used on the main EP page, or elsewhere. Memills (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I give examples below. Silverseren^C 02:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said that they have to be entirely based on a textbook, i'm just arguing that there's no reason why textbooks can't be used as sources, even main sources. As for examples, try 1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·, where a good number of the sources are textbooks (college ones, mind you). Euclidean algorithm is another example (look at the Bibliography). Is that what you were looking for? Silverseren^C 02:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said you did. Memills said it in the first comment in this thread. Please read the discussion before replying. It tends to help. Viriditas (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It will tend to help, Viriditas, if you read my comment above where I noted "I never suggested that only textbook sources be used. Rather, I suggested that we look for content that is presented in multiple evolutionary psychology textbooks to help decide what content topics are sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article. If the same topic is covered in multiple evolutionary psychology textbooks, that suggests that that topic is notable." Memills (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed any of the criticism of this approach in the above thread, nor in fact have you addressed or acknowledged any of the major criticism made about the state of the current article. This is an encyclopedia article that takes a NPOV, unlike a textbook. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A textbook takes a POV approach. Can you please provide a WP reference for that? Memills (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, Viriditas, can you actually respond in regards to the evidence articles I presented? You look like you are trying to sidestep the material when you don't respond to it like this. Silverseren^C 03:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I get the sense that Viriditas doesn't respond when she has been called on her bluff. Memills (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas, maybe you're right and the page would benefit from a broader perspective. I, for one, would really like to use Psychology textbooks and Evolution textbooks, too. Even if they're wrong, they qualify as good sources, and I'd be happy to use them. You would really help matters if you could go get some Psych and Evolution textbooks and describe how they cover EP. We already have Schacter, thanks to Maunus. Let's get more. Leadwind (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

question about WP:LINKVIO

ResidentAnthropologist deleted a large number of links to online videos. I surmise that the videos represented copyright violations? Leadwind (talk) 00:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the links given to the Youtube videos at least, they appeared to be valid under WP:YOUTUBE and were not copyvios. The channels look to be the official channels for the videos themselves, such as Reason TV, Richard Dawkins.com, ect. So I see no proper reason for why they were removed. Silverseren^C 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE does not say one way or another whether particular videos are copyright violations or not, and where there is doubt, there are good reasons to be cautious. I suggest that rather than jumping to conclusions, we should ask ResidentAnthropologist why he deleted each article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the links to the videos until someone provides evidence that a video is itself a copyright violation. Memills (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got the burden backwards. The videos should not be added back until discussion has ended per BRD. You have the burden to show they are acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason given why they were not acceptable. They clearly weren't Linkvios. Silverseren^C 02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

RA said they were linkvios in the edit summary which is reason enough. Per BRD, Memills should discuss why the links are appropriate. He should not be reverting every editor who disagrees. Why are the links appropriate? Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please show us policy that suggests that one cannot link to an online video unless it is confirmed that the video is not in copyright violation. And, how would one know if it is? Memills (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The burden is on the editor adding content. Pleading ignorance is not a rationale for adding the links and reverting other editors. The logical contortions you are going through to avoid explaining why these links are in the article are tendentious. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It has to be hosted on what appears to be an official channel. We only need it to appear as such for it to be okay for us, but they cannot be videos hosted on User Guy16353's Youtube channel. Silverseren^C 02:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to make me go through and say why each one is individually appropriate? *sighs* Alright, give me a little bit. Silverseren^C 02:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to justify the linking of each video. That's ridiculous -- don't fall for Viriditas' wikilawyering. The videos were removed not for content reasons, but under the dubious pretense that the videos that violate copyright (there is no evidence presented that they do). Memills (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of them clearly do and some of them clearly don't, it's good for us to make sure of each, because we don't want to be linking to copyvios. Silverseren^C 03:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

See, if we just pay close attention to policy, we can work things out. Leadwind (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Going over the video links

Acceptable

1. Why Everyone (Else) is a Hypocrite

Appears to be hosted on the official RSA channel.

1. Richard Dawkins lecture on natural selection and evolutionary psychology Part 1/2

Appears to be hosted on the official Richard Dawkins channel

1. Stone Age Minds: A conversation with evolutionary psychologists Leda Cosmides and John Tooby

Appears to be hosted on the official Reason TV channel.

Not acceptable

1. Evolution Sweaty T-shirts and Human Mate Choice

Doesn't appear to be hosted on a official channel, seems to be a random user.

1. Evolutionary Psychology-Steven Pinker & Frans de Waal

Appears to have already been deleted due to being a copyvio on Youtube.

1. Secrets of the Tribe

User doesn't appear to be anyone official and his other uploads aren't on a single topic, but extremely varied. Probably a copyvio.

Google videos and some Vimeo links

I'm not sure how to tell if these are official or not, so i'm just going to list them here.

1. Margaret Mead and Samoa

1. Video interview with Steven Pinker by Robert Wright (journalist) discussing evolutionary psychology

1. Video interview with Edward O. Wilson by Robert Wright (journalist), contextualizing evolutionary psychology within science, politics, academics and philosophy

Being private, I think these vimeo videos have a higher likelihood of being official, but I don't know how to check.

1. The Gender Equality Paradox
2. The Parental Effect
3. Violence
4. Sex
5. Nature or Nurture

• If anyone can help out with identifying the ones I am unsure about (or can prove one of the unreliable ones are actually reliable), please do so in explanation here. Silverseren^C 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

sexual selection done, learning next

I've replaced the unreferenced section on sexual selection with material cited to an EP textbook. Next on my to-do list, I believe, was write a "learning" section. Not the most interesting topic to write about, but worth doing. Leadwind (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh???! It is by far the most interesting topic to write about. And the most difficult. Human nature, instinct, free will. All in there with learning. Will be glad if you make a start on it. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Compared to red-blooded topics like sex and violence, learning seems pretty tame. Leadwind (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. Look forward to your next contribution. Memills (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, that wasn't so bad. Learning is done. Comments welcome. Next I suppose it's get rid of the overview section. Leadwind (talk) 05:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Look, I think the original issue was deciding whether this article is to be STRUCTURED in the same way as a textbook, not about whether we can use textbooks or even about whether we should prefer them over other sources. There have been comments that the article is already too long. Unfortunately, some editors think that we should be writing a textbook. That is, including almost anything and everything that you can find in one. I temporarily removed the learning section - can we please get justification for why it needs to be included? Can we not just summarize the 'gist' of it in a sentence or two - namely, that EP has a particular way of viewing learning? You are honestly opening up a can of worms here, since I will insist that the questionable statements in that paragraph you added be qualified with 'Evolutionary psychologists believe/propose/suggest'... and for the real dubious claims, I may also insist that the more accepted 'non-evolutionary psychology' view be briefly stated as well. In addition, all of this material is paraphrased from a single source... is that what we're doing here? Just paraphrasing from a few textbooks to create our own? Logic prevails (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored it because it's well-sourced. Weeks ago I asked what sections to add. Memills suggested add learning but not other sections. There were no objections or other suggestions, even though I specifically solicited responses from the detractors. If you have a policy or guideline that says not to add this material, please point it out. I know things aren't going your way, Logic. But let's stick with policies and guidelines. Leadwind (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, just because you have sources, does not mean that it needs to be included here. You seem to be wanting to re-write a textbook. I also cannot help but notice that you are bringing up this 'learning' section right when we are in the middle of a dispute about how to structure the article - this is not helpful. Other editors have also brought up issues regarding length. Lets refer to WP:SIZE for some guidelines. Under 'readability,' it states:

"One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed." - the present article is already at 25 pages not including the table of contents and references. I think we are justified in working hard to reduce its length.

It also says: "Articles that cover particularly technical subjects should, in general, be shorter than articles on less technical subjects." - this is a highly technical article, which I think means that we should work especially hard to keep the main article very succinct, with 'spinoff' articles for these other areas that could be covered.

Please refrain from using loaded words like 'detractors.' I was beginning to like your approach you were taking here. Logic prevails (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the "detractor" comment. I was using "detractors" because we don't like "anti-EPers." What term would you like for the editors who think EP is bad and edit accordingly? "Critics"? "Non-EP supporters"? I'll use whatever term people are happy with. And thanks for looking up the length thing. Sticking to policies and guidelines is our best bet for peaceful collaboration. Looks like we're way over. Luckily learning was the last thing to add on my to-do list, and next up is cutting the overview section. FTR, can you tell me how to calculate the number of "pages" an article consists of? Leadwind (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

overview section must go

We know that the overview section is contrary to article content guidelines. Editors who are angry about how long this article is might like to start cutting there. The table of causes seems worthwhile and could go in the history section where Tinbergen is discussed. The Principles list is also packed with information and maybe could live as its own section? The rest of the material is good, but most of it isn't sourced and most of it duplicates material that's either in the body or in the lead. Left to my own devices, I would rescue the Tinbergen table and the list of principles but then mass delete the rest. Leadwind (talk) 13:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

True that overview sections are against guidelines. Leadwind, I don't think anyone is actually angry about any aspect of this article. There are plenty of articles in far worse shape than this. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Beg to disagree about Tinbergen table. The article on his four questions is the place for the table. This is hypertext, after all. Readers expect to click on links if they want to follow things up. (A key difference between printed textbook and Wikipedia article.) Itsmejudith (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Tinbergen table has a place here, I believe, because it helps those unfamiliar with EP differentiate evolutionary approaches from other complementary approaches (proximate, and developmental). It helps to show that EP is not in "competition" with proximate or developmental psychology, but rather that a different set of questions (ultimate / functional) are being explored by EP. This is pretty important to know to avoid some common misunderstandings. Memills (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

is the table a violation of WP:SYNTH

Editors who hate Memills's tables say that they're a synthesis, but are they? Here's what WP:SYNTH says:

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources."

What is the "conclusion C" that Memills is synthesizing? What is he concluding that's not in the sources? The policy doesn't say, "do not join A and B together." Joining A and B together is one of the things that editors do. The policy says, "do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." If Memills hated tables are SYNTH, what's his conclusion C? Leadwind (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The table is off topic and belongs at Evolutionary theory and it disrupts the flow of the article and goes against the MOS.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Off-topic is the crucial thing. We get similar problems in lots of articles. In the biography of a 19th century politician, do I have to tell the whole history of the 19th century, otherwise people will not understand any of the context, and why he did what he did? Then because the 19th century can't be understood without knowing what happened in the 18th we have to tell all that too? No, that way lies madness, or unencyclopedic writing anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Off topic" ?! No way. This material is covered in every evolutionary psychology textbook, and is essential foundational information. It isn't possible to understand evolutionary psychology without an understanding of natural and sexual selection, inclusive fitness, and Triver's theories of reciprocity, and other foundational theories. The amount of space devoted to these topics is appropriate, and relatively brief.

But this is really a gambit. It is not a sincere attempt to improve the article. There is an agenda here. Leadwind caught it pretty well: "...the various anti-EP editors have waged a strange campaign to distance EP from evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory gets a lot of credit, so the anti-EP crowd doesn't want to emphasize the roots that EP has in evolutionary theory." Memills (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If you could lay speculations about other editors possible ulterior motives away for just a second and actually respond to the arguments that are being made we would all be happy. This is not a textbook but an encyclopedia - each entry treats a discrete topic, without having to provide all necessary background knowledge. This is even an encyclopedioa that has the the possibility of using wikilinks to direct readers to articles where they can get that background knowledge if they do not already have it. It is also impossible to understand Evolutionary Psychology without knowing about the development of Psychology as a discipline but that does not mean that we need a section about Freud and William James. Leadwind's point is slightly valid, you have consistently tried to make it look as if EP is the only approach to human behavior that is compatible with evolutionary theory, by including the table you do reinforce this erroneous view, but this problem is small potatoes compared to the fact that it completely disrrupts the flow of the article and takes the reader into a wild goose chase in Darwin Land looking for the roots of EP a century before any such thing even existed.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong -- you can understand EP quite will without any background of Freud or William James. They did not provide any foundational EP theories. The key here is what evolutionary psychologists believe are the essential theories to understand, not what you think is or is not essential. And, to determine what they think is essential, we can look to the evolutionary psychology textbooks -- and there the answer is clear: Dawin, Hamilton, Trivers, etc. Memills (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For ther umpteenth time - this is not a textbook. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

My god. We agree on something. Irrelevant to this discussion, tho. This isn't a textbook presentation, which would be far more in-depth. It is an overview. A pretty brief one at that. Memills (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Memills, look at some maths articles. It simply isn't possible to understand differential equations without a basic understanding of algebra. Every textbook on differential equations contains a section on the algebraic foundations (probably). Yet our article starts from an assumption that readers already have the necessary background. If you don't have it then you can either try and learn it by clicking on internal links or you can go and enrol on a maths course. We could make the same arguments on practically any biology article too. It simply isn't possible to understand the lifecycle of quercus robur without a thorough grounding in botany. Every textbook on European trees has a section on identification of flowering plants. Etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. However, one does not take calculus until after passing algebra. The folks who land on the evolutionary psychology page don't necessarily have any exposure to adaptationism as developed by Darwin, Hamilton, Trivers, etc. And, it would be inappropriate to essentially say, before you read this article, go away learn about this first and then come back later... This is what I see as a real strength of the table. It provides the background information in an organizational structure that is easy for a layperson to understand, and it does so without jargon. It indicates the systems level, the life "problem" being addressed, the name of the theorist, a brief description of the theory, and a couple of examples -- as well as links to other pages for more information. I doubt another format could present so much information could be communicated in such a compact space and be so readily understandable by a layperson. A basic understanding of these theories is essential to understand what follows on the page. Finally, as I noted below, it does not take up too much space -- less than 1/8th of the page (in terms of word count). Memills (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It would not be inappropriate at all, and as Judith points out its what is done in other fields and in other entries. This one is way too long as it is.Griswaldo (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Article length issues

I personally am not much concerned about the length of the article. The Table of Contents allow folks to navigate around a pretty logical organizational structure. However, if the length of the article is of concern, it is not so pressing that it needs to be a rush job. I would hesitate to outright delete much material. Instead, a good strategy would be to look for subsections that could merit their own individual page, and move some of the material there.

For example, much of th History section could be moved to a new History of evolutionary psychology page. There is already an Evolutionary psychology controversy page, so several of the paragraphs in the Controversy section could be moved to that page. As the subtopic areas under the heading "Survival and individual level psychological adaptations," such as Consciousness, Emotion and Motivation, etc., grow in size over time, eventually they too might warrant their own pages. Memills (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice try. WP:POVFORK says no. Your tenacious unwillingness to conform to the basic policy of NPOV is disheartening.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it not common practice to split off history sections when they get too long in articles? Maybe you should actually follow the guideline that you are using, "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing." Memills is clearly not trying to be disruptive here, but is asking about what sections should be split off because they are long enough to do so. I think you need to back down on the accusations, since it makes it seem as if you are the one acting with a POV here. Silverseren^C 23:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. The controversy section is not a history section but is already a POV section dedicated to the criticism of EP that should be present through out the article according to our policies. You also have no business coming here just to slander me and side anyone with whom I happen to be in disagreement just because I happen to have chastised you for making antisemitic generalizations a month ago. You clearly know nothing about what is going on at this page and you are not being helpful to anyone. Memills has spent an enormous amount of energy to keep any mention of the huge amount of critical literature about EP out of the article, I managed to get the article to make a token compliance with WP:NPOV by inserting the controversy section, which is just a small and obligatory summary of the much larger article about the controversy that already exists. So please back off Seren and go do some reading before mouthing off here.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that even deserves a reply. Silverseren^C 00:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Maunus is under the erroneous impression that this article and the Evolutionary psychology controversy article are one and the same. Memills (talk)

The article is quite large, it would take quite a bit of stamina to read the whole article and make sense of the whole field. I do favor the use of summary style per the guidelines from WP:Article size. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a relevant quote from WP:DETAIL: "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects. This can be thought of as layering inverted pyramids where the reader is shown the tip of a pyramid (the lead section) for a topic and within that article any section may have a {{main|<subpage name>}} or similar link to a full article on the topic summarized in that section (see Yosemite National Park#History and History of the Yosemite area for an example using two featured articles). Memills (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The article length as it stands is already twice the recommended maximum length. It also seems far too long if we follow guidelines about how 'technical topics' should be handled. There is no reason why the main evolutionary psychology page cannot be reduced to 10 pages or less as per WP:SIZE guidelines. This main page should only provide a concise overview of the field, with appropriate links to evolution and related pages. We should trust that readers can click on a hyperlink if they do not understand something or need more breadth. The constant additions from MeMills and Leadwind are turning this page into a miniature textbook. I think sub-sections describing the 'evolutionary psychology perspective' on learning, consciousness, abnormal psychology, and so on, should only be provided in this article as links to separate pages. This way the material stays easily accessible, but we can keep the main page as a relatively succinct description the field. Unless I am mistaken, the aim of this page is to present a concise summary of the field - not a 25+ page summary of various EP textbooks. You cannot argue that this topic is too technical to be summarized as such... If the quantum mechanics page can be summarized in about 12 pages, I think we can at least do the same. Logic prevails (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

And the quantum mechanics article has had its constituent information split off into their own articles, which is exactly what we should be doing here, just like that article, yes. Silverseren^C 02:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I just waded through the AN/I about this entry and had a glance at it afterwards. The entry is way too long and a serious collaborative effort to cut it down to size needs to happen.Griswaldo (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. We've had consensus on this for years, but Memills will not allow other editors to improve it. Viriditas (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Cutting it down does not mean deleting vast swaths of material, it should mean following WP:SPLIT and creating separate articles so they can be just summaries on here. Memills is clearly not against splitting and s/he has an extremely good point in that the history section should be split off. Along with that, I think the Major Areas of Research should be split off as well. Silverseren^C 02:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I was involved with a long edit war and arguments about both content and article length on the topic of sustainability. It took a while but eventually the article made GA status by summarising what had become swathes of information. As an "outsider" I must say that for all the criticism levelled at him/her, without Memills's enthusiasm, dedication and persistence this article would be much the poorer. However, though extremely difficult to "let go" my limited experience would suggest that by using summary style, and splitting off major areas of research this actually allows the topic to evolve (excuse the pun) - giving editors space to develop sub-topics in greater detail. In other words I agree with SS - the basic structure is fine - there's just too much. Information and ideas need not be lost in the process of reduction - just moved elsewhere. For example, most major science topics have a separate article to describe their history. Also, would it be reasonable, for example, to suggest an article on Evolutionary psychology and evolution or somesuch title? I can understand that EP perhaps needs its own "take" on evolution but the main article does not seem the place to do this. Without most of the "historical" and "evolutionary" explanatory material in the article it would be down to a more acceptable length.Granitethighs 03:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos, Granitethighs, as well as for sharing your previous experience in a similar editing situation.

Based on my previous comment above, if we moved the History section to its own page, moved several of the paras from the Controversies section to the Evolutionary psychology controversy page (in fact, it looks like several paragraphs are already duplicated there), and make each of the subtopics under the heading "Survival and individual level psychological adaptations," their own page, I think we might be down to appropriate article length. If further reductions are needed, let's discuss further how best to proceed from there. Memills (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've moved material in the History section to a new History of evolutionary psychology page. I'll try to eventually add some material from the book Evolutionary Thought in Psychology: A Brief History by Henry Plotkin. Memills (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I do think the Major Areas of Research section is the longest in the article and should be moved to its own article. It goes into way too much detail for this overview article. Silverseren^C 05:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Glad to see this moving forward. Although we need illustrations, as soon as I see the picture of Darwin's finches, I see an article going off topic. And I still think all the tables are problematic. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Itsmejudith. The tables seem to clutter up the article, they don't seem appropriate for the main EP article. It would be more helpful if the information in the tables were condensed into a few lines of text. If necessary the data presented in the tables can be used in other subarticles. The lead could do with some simplification as well. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A handful of editors have at various times asked to either remove the tables, or summarize them in appropriate prose, though a couple of editors have been very resistant. Editors have brought up issues about those tables for various reasons (WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, WP: SYNTH, WP:CON, etc.), but perhaps we can avoid that conflict for now and just agree that they can be more appropriately placed on relevant sub-pages.

While MeMills seems eager to reduce the controversy section at the end, those just joining the discussion should be aware that it has been a very lengthy battle with MeMills to include anything at all that mentions controversy/criticism about the field. We need to include these views if we are to follow WP:NPOV. It was MeMills who had the controversy originally split to a separate page, which is a violation of WP:CFORK. MeMills then turned the controversy page into an EP apologia, where criticisms were glibly stated, and always finished with EP (or MeMills) having the last word - it became a blog. Various editors fought hard to get a more balanced view of the controversy back into the main article. The only reason why material is now 'redundant' is because Leadwind recently cut and paste what we worked hard to do here, and put it in the controversy page (which has been an absolute mess for years). Given all of the above, I am extremely resistant to removing material from the controversy section, though if MeMills loosens his grip enough to substantially shave or succinctly present the rest of the material on this page - I am sure the same could be done for the controversy section.

For now, I would agree with SS that the Major Areas of Research section, as the longest part, should be moved to its own article. We could also have a 'bullet list' of those areas linking to sub-pages as was done for the cognitive psychology page, which by the way, has a far greater presence in mainstream psychology compared to EP, yet that page was still able to summarize the field in 2 pages. Logic prevails (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Although it is not my preference, moving some of the tables to sub-pages sounds like a good compromise, if they are relevant to a newly created subtopic page.

A couple of WP policies relevant to this issue of POV forking, and when it is acceptable:

Point of view forks:

"All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic. For example, Evolution, Evolution as theory and fact, Creationism, and Creationism-evolution controversy are separate articles."

Articles whose subject is a POV:

"Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Thus Evolution and Creationism, Capitalism and Communism, Biblical literalism and Biblical criticism, etc., all represent legitimate article subjects. As noted above, "Criticism of" type articles should generally start as sections of the main article and be spun off by agreement among the editors."

Note that this page is a theoretical POV page.

I would prefer to have the Major Areas of Research section restructured to briefly describe each of these areas, with a link to their own separate pages (in contrast to having all of that material on just one spinoff page -- even that page would likely grow too large before too long).

Of course, LogicPrevails and I disagree about the Controversy section. If the goal is to pare down material to reduce the size of the page, there is really no reason to keep most of the material in any section that has its own separate page.

Memills (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Major Areas of Research section, even if it is restructured, will be far too long. I think we should follow a similar approach as was taken for the cognitive psychology article. Logic prevails (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see, first, if it is still too long to include brief descriptions under each of these subheadings. The problem I find with the cognitive psychology psychology article is that it is too short! It is mostly a collection of links.

Instead, better that readers get a bit of info about a subtopic in the main article so they get a taste of what the subtopic is about. Then , if that brief description piques their interest, they can go to the subtopic page for further info. A bald link, alone, is particularly problematic if the reader doesn't even know enough about the subtopic to know whether or not they are interested in reading the linked subtopic page. Memills (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Memills, you say, "Although it is not my preference, moving some of the tables to sub-pages sounds like a good compromise." From what I hear, you are an unreasonable editor who claims ownership of this page and won't listen to anyone. But here you are compromising. Maybe we'll get somewhere yet. My goal would be to have each top-level section stand on its own as a summary of the topic. That is, if you read the "Theoretical foundations of EP" section, it will tell you most of what you need to know about these theoretical foundations, like a good article lead would. In summary style, I believe, the sections on the central page can serve more or less well as leads on their own respective pages.

Also, the Cognitive psychology article seems sort of terrible and probably shouldn't be used as a model for this article. Leadwind (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

By my count, the page is about twice as long as it should be. I measure it at 63kb, and it should be under 40 (per WP:length). To measure the readable prose of this article, navigate to the page, paste the following script into your URL field, and hit enter.

javascript:importScript('User:Dr pda/prosesize.js'); getDocumentSize();

Also, see User:Dr_pda/prosesize. Leadwind (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal started for controversy page (link)

I have started a move proposal here about moving the Evolutionary psychology controversy articles to Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Please go and comment. Silverseren^C 10:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

table of contents

What should the table of contents look like on this article? I suggest (Lead), Scope, History, Theory, Research, and Controversy, with "Scope" covering the principles and the relationship to psychology and to related fields. I'd put about half the total content in Research. Anyone care to offer a similar high-level view as to the page's content? Leadwind (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should ask for opinions on WikiProject Psychology. Some wikiprojects have standard article structures, and even if Psychology doesn't at the moment, the question will be of interest to participants there. I have been looking at other articles on academic subfields and schools of academic thought. There is very little standardisation. Economic history, for example, is very different from this. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, let us know what you come up with. Leadwind (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

start new Theoretical Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology page

We've already moved history to its own page. Next I intend to move the Evolutionary Theory and Mid-Level Theory sections to a new page and replace them on this page with thorough summaries. This change is in line with our understanding that the page is too long as it is. Leadwind (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an idea and ideas are intrinsically good. I think it won't work. Would it be possible to start it in userspace in the first instance and perhaps put a request for feedback on it? Is there any precedent? I haven't seen one, even for really major and complex areas of enquiry, such as philosophy. Would we expect to see one article on Philosophy and another on Theoretical foundations of philosophy? It would confuse readers, in my opinion. However, it would be good to migrate the text out of this article and then see whether we do have something that would work free-standing. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

My preference would be to keep this foundational material here for now, and consider moving it only if that is need after other lengthy sections of the article have been moved. For example, we could move each of the subsections under areas of Areas of Research to their own main pages, leaving fairly brief descriptions here. That alone would free up a great deal of space, as well as allow the expansion of each of these subtopics on their own main page (and, believe me, there is a great deal of material that could be included in each). Might we start on this first? Memills (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I see it just the reverse. The "theoretical foundations" are material shared with evolutionary theory in general, while the "areas of research" are particular to this topic. To me that means that the "areas" deserve more coverage here than "theoretical foundations" do. Also, other editors seemed to agree that there was too much ink spent on the foundations section. The lay reader is going to be more interested in what EP has discovered than in the theories on which EP is based. If we use EP textbooks as our example, they cover history in one chapter, theory in another chapter, and then one chapter each for major areas of research. By that example, our "mating" section alone should be as big as the entire "theory" section. Leadwind (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll defer to Leadwind here. Have at it, and then we can review / discuss the move, as well as the next material to be reworked. Since the Criticisms section is a duplicate of what is now on the Criticisms main page, that section could be easily reduced in length Memills (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to work on a good, long lead for the Theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology page and then try to use it (or something much like it) for our foundations section. Leadwind (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I've got a first draft of a good lede on Theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology. I plan to use something like this lede as the "theory" section on this page. Leadwind (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I gave the lede on the other page another pass. My next step will be to import it (slightly modified) to serve as our "theory" section. I've already received one very helpful comment and would be grateful for others. Leadwind (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. The page is now under 10K words. It's on the long side, but not too long. Leadwind (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

principles?

The Principles section, which used to be called overview, is still something of an overview and therefore contrary to article style and redundant with the lead (which is supposed to be the overview). Our Principles section offers an alternative definition of EP to the one in the lead, and alternative list of areas of research, etc. I don't want to blank the whole Principles section because there is some good material there, but honestly if it were blanked the article would still hold together pretty well. I'm not sure a new reader would notice anything lacking on the page without it. Leadwind (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Referencing style

I'm going to improve the referencing style, so that in "Notes", we have short form ("Harvard") references, author(s) and date. The full references will go under "References" and then "Further reading" will be anything that could be useful to a reader but that we haven't used. A mechanical exercise, but the reorganisation will help me read the article in more detail, get a better handle on what sources we are using, and how. Hope that's OK. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Just started, and this is what springs to attention. References to books need page references. The very first note, 1, is to several works; only one or two are needed, but page numbers need to be given so that the reader can cross-check. Whoever has the referenced books to hand could help out with this. Thanks. Also, do we think it's appropriate to use Britannica, I'd say not. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I took out the reference to the Psyche Games website, seems to be any old website. I found the remarkable line "Here are the some games which may kinder the light of the psychology in each individuals:" on it. OK, it had a brief description of EP, bet it was copied from somewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the thankless work that no one else will do. Leadwind (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I haven't actually done much of it yet, but am starting now. Is Buss 2005 the same edition as Buss 2004? If so, can we give just one date for consistency? Which? Can page numbers please be added to all references to books, I know that will take time. The first referenced statement, with a whole list of books and no page numbers is a textbook example of how not to reference. On the positive side, I see that most works cited are appropriate scholarly texts. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers

From WP:V "Cite the source clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate." Who wants to start finding page numbers in the books cited? Come on, you know you want to. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

modularity/computation criticism

The following material is based on a single primary source. There's no evidence that it's a live issue as far as our secondary and tertiary sources are concerned. According to WP:DUE, we should give this viewpoint coverage commensurate with its coverage in secondary and tertiary sources, which I guess means not at all, not on this page anyway.

Here's the quote: "Another frequent critique against the narrowly defined discipline of evolutionary psychlogy comes even from other psychologists who work within evolutionary frameworks. This is a critique of the computational and specifically the modular theory of mind, which according to several groups of critics is not well supported, or necessary in order to explain psychological traits as having adapted. Proponents of other models of the mind argue that the computational theory of mind does not fit with our biological reality any more than does a mind shaped entirely by the environment." Leadwind (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

That quote gives a false description of non-modular theories of mind - they do not propose a mind "entirely shaped by the environment" - they propose a mind based on few general multipurpose processes rather than many highly specific modules. The modularity criticism is repeated in scores of independent secondary and tertiary sources. It is probably the most common criticism of EP among people who study cognitive sciences.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, find a secondary source and we're all good. Leadwind (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this before... there is no policy stating that we should only cite secondary sources (i.e. textbooks). There are two primary sources used here, which for its length, is better than the single sources used elsewhere. The issue of innate modularity is a huge issue (even MeMills has attested to that fact), so it stays and needs no further justification.Logic prevails (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Logic, I know you're fond of Panksepp, and I was wondering if this thread would prompt a response, but WP:WEIGHT says we should cover issues to the extent that they're covered in our best sources. If there are no secondary or tertiary sources that credit this criticism as significant, then it's undue weight to cover it, at least at this length. If secondary and tertiary sources don't treat this issue as important, it's a violation of policy for us to do so. As much as I might like to take your personal word for it, we do sort of need to stick to policies and guidelines. Leadwind (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You have no ground to stand on. Panksepp is highly regarded and has written textbooks in the neurosciences - it would seem that in order for you to view him as notable, he would need to write one against EP? He would not waste his time. The real point here is that he is not presenting anything new... he is himself citing research that is well founded within the neurobiological sciences. In this sense, his article can be considered closer to a secondary source. Even still, policy does not prevent us from using primary ones. Logic prevails (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I have repeatedly requested secondary or tertiary sources supporting the idea that Panksepp's "plasticity" theory is anything but fringe, and no one has offered a single reference. So until we get such a reference, let's leave Panksepp off the page, OK? Leadwind (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Logic has restored material from Panksepp without offering any evidence that his plasticity theory is anything more than fringe. Since that's a violation of WP:DUE, I'll be deleting it again, unless someone can provide a source that shows us Panksepp's view is notable. Leadwind (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be extremely odd if someone who has written textbooks in the neurosciences would advocate anything we would call fringe. And we are talking about some very highly cited papers. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind the distinction between evolutionary (adaptationist / ultimate) level of analysis, and proximate (neuropsychology, developmental, endocrinology, etc.) Panksepp primarily works in the latter area. He has provided no evolutionary based theory of the brain/mind that is a real alternative to general EP.

Moreover, this Controversies section is redundant with what is already in the intro to Criticisms of EP page, and it also focuses on issues that are really more relevant to the larger nature vs. nurture debate (and so is redundant with that page). Those here with strong antipathy toward EP, such as LogicPrevails, will no doubt wail and bristle at this suggestion, but this section needs to be condensed, shortened, should link out to general nature vs. nurture issues (which is a far larger controversy), and this section should be far less redundant with material that is already on the Criticisms page. Memills (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, several things here. Attaching labels to fellow editors isn't helpful, please don't do it again. This article should not have a Controversies section. Also, there should be no Criticisms of EP page; it should be merged with this one. Scholarly criticism of EP is relevant to the article and should be covered in various sections. It is not up to us to estimate whether Panksepp's work constitutes "a real alternative", and he might have a valid critique without providing an alternative. I understand that you are saying that Panksepp works in a different field of psychology to the EP writers. But that is not relevant either. People working in a number of areas of the social and natural sciences may legitimately construct critiques of a field of enquiry like EP, which intrinsically has a wide field of application. A statistician might have points to make, an economist might, a historian of ideas might make relevant points about the emergence of EP, a philosopher might have things to say. Once we have established that someone is an expert in the field that they write on, pertinence and notability are the criteria to use. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the points made by Judith. I will just add a couple more. Leadwind, Panksepp does not have a "plasticity" theory. Neural plasticity is a fact insofar as facts exist in neurobiology. If you want a couple good primers, I would suggest "Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology" by Kolb & Wishaw, and Panksepp's "Affective Neuroscience." Again, there is nothing new there and nothing 'fringe' like... unless you would consider human neuropsychology and neurobiology fringe fields. Panksepp is simply a neuroscientist using his particular theoretical lens to make a critique of EP. It would seem to me that Panksepp, or any other neuroscientist, can make valid criticisms of EP (though you also have the right to argue that they are unsound), without having developed an alternative 'explains-all' psychological theory. His theoretical alternative is human neurobiology and the evidence that his field has thus far accumulated. He argues that EP (and its assumption regarding modularity) is inconsistent with the neuroscientific evidence. I see no reason why his criticisms or views ought to be excluded. I also want to address MeMills, who is again wanting to view the criticisms as part of a nature/nurture dichotomy. Believe it or not, I understand what you are saying. If I thought like an evolutionary psychologist, I would tend to agree with you. However, non-evolutionary psychologists DO NOT see these criticisms as part of a larger nature-nurture debate and we need to cite their views. Logic prevails (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Judith -- the point about the ultimate / proximate distinction is very relevant here. One could argue that the eye is very complex (a proximate explanation), and therefore argue that the eye is too complex for evolutionary theory (an ultimate explanation) to explain. Note that by arguing this without providing an alternative explanation, isn't really too helpful. It is called the "argument from incredulity." Also, neural plasticity is not inconsistent with EP. EP is about explaining how what we call neural plasticity evolved, and what casual principles direct it. Neural plasticity is not random nor boundless. Otherwise, one is arguing for psychological 'magic' or 'spirits' -- basically what might be called "psychological creationism."

LogicPrevails, some of these criticisms predate EP. To wit: free will, reductionism, genetic determinism, ethical concerns about biological explanations, etc. They are indeed part of the larger nature vs nurture debate, and were not generated as criticisms of EP. Memills (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Mills, this is not a place to debate the merits of your arguments for or against your favored theory. We only need to reference and cite notable views in the literature. I have already engaged you in debate around these issues before and you have proven to me that you do not understand neurobiology in the least. A 'modular' eye is very different from claims about modules for rape-aversion, preference for blonds, etc... the brain is not massively modular. You say in theory that you agree, but in practice you don't. And yes, some of the criticisms predate EP, in the same way that some of the flawed arguments of EP predate Darwin. Most of the criticisms do apply to EP since they use the same ol' assumptions. Many are also new (specifically with regard to modularity). Logic prevails (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that a psychologist wrote a book-length critique. We need to provide that information to the readers, and say a little about what the critique was. Ripostes to the critique can potentially also be mentioned. As to the merits of the arguments on either side, NPOV requires that we limit ourselves to factual detail so that the readers can make their own minds up, or track down the literature that will enable them to do so. See WP:FRINGE, this is an difference of views within scholarship. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"The bottom line is that a psychologist wrote a book-length critique." I think the bottom line is that no one has offered any evidence that any expert takes Panksepp's criticism seriously. We're supposed to cover topics as they're covered in secondary and tertiary sources, and no one will provide any secondary or tertiary source supporting Panksepp's critique. When someone can provide a secondary or tertiary source, then I'll support including Panksepp. If our secondary and tertiary sources don't mention this critique, why should we? Leadwind (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the main issue here then is what we consider primary and what secondary. If this is primary then I will have a quick look for secondary-source notice of it. I think the source is cited though and could also look that up. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I guess you're right. If Panksepp's paper is a secondary source, then it's legit. But it's his paper about his viewpoint, so that seems like a primary source to me. He has a particular view about plasticity (that it's not the sort of plasticity that could be shaped into less-general modules by evolution, thus undermining EP), and I've never seen any secondary source say anything nice about that viewpoint. When there's disagreement in a field, we're supposed to look to secondary and tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a neutral viewpoint. We have some sources like that (psych textbooks, encyclopedia britannica), but none of them mention Panksepp's plasticity critique. If none of them mention his viewpoint, we need a good reason to do so. Leadwind (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sense of "targets"?

Can this sentence "Problems of survival are thus clear targets for the evolution of physical and psychological adaptations." be reworded, as it is not clear what "targets" would mean. Also not clear what "thus" refers to. I am tagging "clarify". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that sentence, and it is indeed awkward. Perhaps: "Physical and psychological adaptations have evolved to solve recurrent ancestral problems related to individual survival and reproduction." Memills (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Do adaptations evolve? And do we have a source for it? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't even need a ref, it is part of the definition of an evolutionary adaptation itself. But this slight redundancy in the sentence might be forgiven in that it helps to clarify the point to a novice reader on the topic Memills (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I found from the page adaptation, that you are using the word in a rather loose way. "Adaptive trait" is the more precise term, is it not? But, as you say, this is an obvious tautology, and I don't see that the sentence is needed. I know that you teach this stuff at higher education level. In the course materials that you write you have sole responsibility and can spell out concepts at the length and in the depth you deem appropriate. You are trying to get your students to grasp general Darwinian theory alongside the specifics of EP. This is only a short encyclopedia article and we have to come to the point quickly. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, I wrote that sentence at the start of the "Problems of Survival" subsection simply as an intro topic sentence to transition into the content of the section. I've no objections to simply deleting it (the same point is made earlier in the article). Memills (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Controversies section violates NPOV

The controversies section violates NPOV by having almost only criticisms while not including the counter-argument. It is also quite long for a summary of a main article. There are two solutions: 1) Include the counter-arguments. However, this will make this section even longer and in unnecessary since we have a main article. 2) Shorten the criticisms to a NPOV summary without going into long, exact details regarding the arguments and counter-arguments.Miradre (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"The Lead section violates NPOV by having almost only claims of EP while not including the criticisms." Double standard Miradre? You also create a false choice with your two options... I also do not see how shortening the criticisms entails a NPOV. I would suggest you actually read the policy on NPOV to understand what it means - your frequent reference to it suggests that you do not. Logic prevails (talk) 10:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the lead section of the main article should mainly present the topic and theories. Yes, there should also be notable criticisms and support for the theories, if any, but that is not the main the focus.Miradre (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative 1 done here with added counter-arguments. The section is much more NPOV now.Miradre (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, I agree that there is too little mention of the criticisms in the intro. Added more.Miradre (talk) 11:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

See this edit: [4] Seems to be a double standard. The exact criticisms are not explained in detail so why should the counter-arguments be explained in detail? That is more appropriately something for the main criticisms article.Miradre (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed this para due to vagueness: "Also the basic theoretical assumptions of the discipline are challenged by its critics. Some theoreticians argue that evolutionary psychology leans on misconceptions of biological and evolutionary theory which affects its claims to scientific validity." What misconceptions? EP is based on principles of basic evolutionary biology. Memills (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Memills it matters not a jot whether you think EP has misconceptions or not. What matters is whether or not there are any critics who think it has misconceptions. You're right that the sentence is vague. The solution is to look up what de Jong says, we have the page reference, and try and summarise his point more precisely. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I found quite a balanced peer-reviewed survey in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy here by Stephen Downes. It is an example of a dispassionate WP:RS which could be used to describe research in this area, together with criticisms. Rather than wikipedia editors making personal assessments using their own choice of primary sources (and the risk of falling into the trap of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), this is the kind of article that should be used. Mathsci (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The sources I have used are not primary.Miradre (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the subject is controversial, sources contain rebuttals written by evolutionary psychologists are primary, even if they appear in peer-reviewed journals. I have mentioned a general problem with this article and Criticism of evolutionary psychology on WP:FTN. Mathsci (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A subject with thousands of peer-reviewed articles, including in major psychology journals, is of course not fringe.Miradre (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There are also thousands of peer-reviewed articles on ESP and various hypothesized "para-psychology" phenomena. Yet, these remain largely fringe topics (for good reason, I think). A better criterion is needed...Jj1236 (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I again quote a 2010 review in American Psychologist: "Evolutionary psychology has emerged over the past 15 years as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science." [5] Miradre (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to address this solely from a style perspective. i think it is very poor style to write an encyclopedia article as if it is the transcript of a debate. What we need is an article most of which is organized into sections that lay out what readers need to know about EP - its emergence, what makes it different from other branches of psychology and what makes it different from the other human sciences, the kinds of questions it asks, the kinds of methods it uses, and any significant contributions it has made to our understanding of the problems it studies/and answers that have become widely accepted in the human sciences. It is through these sections that the "views" of EP should be explained. Then we need a section on controversies, because EP has been very controversial. But the "controversies" section does not have to include EP views "to provide NPOV" - the point of a controversies section is to add NPOV to the article which would otherwise provide only the views of EP from the EP perspective. To add EP views to the "controversies" section is unnecessary because all of that content ought to be explained in context and embedded in the explanation of EP, which after all should take up the majority of the article. To add those views to the controversies section is poor style because it disrupts the flow of the section, and it is redundant.

Mirardre seems to have made a range of major edits in a very short period of time. This is not the kind of collaborative editing Wikipedia is best at. I suggest that any major changes to the article (and making more than a few edits to an article that is not a stub in one day is usually pretty major) should be discussed on the talk page first, which is after all what talk pages are for. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It is of course impossible to answer many criticisms before the criticisms have been stated. Specific POV sections with only arguments from one side are also discouraged by WP:NPOV.Miradre (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting the policy, or my point. The policy says, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents" and it is precisely the "back-and-forth dialogue" which is unencyclopedic and that my point is arguing against. Moreover, the policy does not dictate structure, it lays out goals for the article that we have to achieve in the most effective way. You have to acknowledge that an encyclopedia includes different kinds of articles, and different kinds of articles call for different structures. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

"Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other." I see no reason for ignoring what WP:NPOV states.Miradre (talk) 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The kind of narrative you describe is suited to certain kinds of debates. But we are not writing an article about a debate. A controversy is not a debate, which is why this sentence does not apply.

Mirardre writes, "It is of course impossible to answer many criticisms before the criticisms have been stated." This sentence describes a temporal sequence; s eries of statements are made in order. This sentence only makes sense if it comes from the point of view of someone engaged in a debate. The sentence is applicable only to actual debates. I am referring to two people on stage arguing one against the other - then, obviously, has to wait for a point to be made before responding to it. But Mirardre, you are not here to participate in a debate. None of ue are here to debate. We are here to write articles on views other than our own. Also, we are here to write about views that already have been expressed in reliable sources. This is not a debate. All the views coexist in the same moment in time, they are all out there, already published. Our job is not to reconstruct the precise order in which different sources were written, and present information in the order in which it was published - what a silly way to organize an article. No, we look at all the information and views available at this time and then we write an article that presents it in whatever form makes it easiest for the reader to understand all views. Researchers in EP may at specific times engage in actual debates. But this article is not about any actual debates. It is about "Evolutionary psychology" which is a branch of science. As a branch of science, EP does not exist in order to have debates with critics of EP - to think so is fundamentally to misunderstand science. As an analogy: an evolutionary biologist may have a debate with a fundamentalist Christian. But the science of evolutionary biology is not pursued through debates with Creationists. Sciences - evolutionary biology or evolutionary psychology - work by raising questions about some part of the universe, proposing answers, and seeking means to test or confirm these answers, leading to a better understanding of that part of the universe. These elements - questions, observations, evidence, answers - make sense in relation to one another and are best presented in some way that makes these relationships understandable to readers. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it is easier for the reader to have the arguments naturally following each other as per WP:NPOV rather than having separate POV sections. See no reason for ignoring WP:NPOV.Miradre (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the important point that SLR makes is related to the temporal sequencing of our describing the literature. I am concerned about how the current criticism page is structured like a debate. Instead of weaving the criticisms and responses together in a way that describes the debate, we are falling into a trap where we reenact the debate ourselves. The current structure seems to be: criticism stated, followed by, "however, EP suggests that these criticisms are incorrect" (with citation). EP seems to get the 'last word' in these pages. Be aware that we could continue this form of editing by finding sources that support the addition of: "however, critics suggest that the EP rebuttals to the original criticisms are incorrect" (with citation), and that we could do so ad infinitum. The structure is anything but neutral. Logic prevails (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The current section is certainly much more neutral than the earlier version with only criticisms. If you have more sourced arguments, please add them. Note of course that the section here should be a summary of the main article. That an argument against another argument is presented after the first argument is usually necessary and does not necessarily imply that either side is correct.Miradre (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

May I interject a more general comment here? Much obliged.

Why is the EP page such a lightning rod for disputes among editors here? It is because EP starts with theoretical POV that embraces a certain set of prerequisite assumptions. If most everyone shared those fundamental assumptions, it would be an easy article to write. But there is another competing paradigm in the social sciences that embraces at the outset a different set of prerequisite assumptions. (See the set of assumptions of both here).

There is a tendency here for each EP theory, hypothesis or principle to be challenged by folks who do not share the fundamental assumptions of the discipline. And, it gets very tiresome. Folks who don't agree on starting assumptions end up in unproductive debates (to wit: don't talk politics or religion at a dinner party). This constant haggling is about as productive, as noted by Slrubenstein above, as the Evolution vs. Creationism debate. If you just don't share first principles, you will disagree with most everything that is derivative of them.

As I noted before (upstream somewhere -- I'll find it if someone insists) there actually is a WP policy that gives special exception to theoretical POV articles. They don't have to include the criticisms from the opposing POV at every turn. That is why you don't see Creationist arguments on the Evolution page (or, vice versa). Or, there might be a mention, but the args of the opposing perspectives are not interspersed throughout the article. This is why the main EP page should mostly describe EP. And, that is why it is ok (per WP policy) for a theoretical POV page to fork out to a Criticisms page. This is exactly what is done on the Evolution page. Note: I am not saying that that there should not be criticisms integrated in the EP main page, but the most appropriate ones will be by those who share the same first principles. Some of the most interesting EP debates, IMHO, come from within the field itself.

This distinction is important here, and it is why it is appropriate to have a main EP page (to describe the discipline) and a Criticisms of EP page where even those who do not share the fundamental assumptions of the discipline can take their best shot. Otherwise, without a common shared base of fundamental assumptions with which to start, it becomes a food fight on par with what one could imagine would happen if there was a combined Evolution and Creationism page. Precisely why such a page does not exist... However, note that there is a controversy page, Creation–evolution controversy, where both sides, with their conflicting starting assumptions, can throttle each other with glee and abandon. Memills (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This idea of opposing sides amongst contributors is not helpful, although there might indeed be editors with firm prejudices. If these users cannot contribute in a neutral way, which includes describing accurately the theory and its criticisms using secondary sources, they probably should not be editing the article(s). Mathsci (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Memills, it is not at all the same situation as with Evolution and criticisms of evolution, or with global warming and the global warming controversy. Evolution is accepted science, and although it is more recent and has more room for uncertainty, so is human-induced climate change. Or what about astronomy articles? If you want to see what happens there, you could usefully come over and comment on Algol; how much of the cultural significance and astrology should be in that article, and how much should be in Stars in astrology? Or look at some of the thousands of articles about politics where you can never ensure that editors have a "shared base of fundamental assumptions". Itsmejudith (talk) 08:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to MeMills: Your tactic here has been covered by critics. The SSSM is a false dichotomy created by Cosmides and Tooby. According to EPers, anyone who doesn't believe in EP, must follow the supposed 'SSSM' and are essentially blank-slate behaviorists or cultural determinists. The SSSM is essentially a strawman in both the larger context (since no one really follows anything called the SSSM or even closely related to it), and in this specific one (you suggest that I follow the SSSM when I have expressed to you numerous times and in numerous ways that I do not). Yes, I am extremely biased - toward science and reason. That is all. If there is consensus that my biases are getting in the way of healthy editing, then I will promptly take my leave. Until then, I stay. You are right - I do not agree with the fundamental assumptions of EP. Neither do a lot of your critics. But it goes both ways. You seem not to understand the fundamental concerns of your critics - and time and time again it has gotten in the way of the criticisms being presented accurately and you finding appropriate rebuttal references that fit the specific critiques. If EP has legitimate responses to their critics, they need to be heard. But you want them to have the last word regardless of whether they have a logical response or not. Most of your 'rebuttals' take the form of: "However, EP has shown these criticisms to be false. Please refer to Confer et al. 2010." You do not in any way show how the criticisms are addressed. And you just gloss over what the conflict is about, weaving Red Herrings throughout.

With regard to having the same fundamental assumptions... you seem to be saying that only criticisms from within EP are to be considered valid. Sounds like religious talk to me. Not that it matters, but I do share some basic assumptions as you. I am a psychologist. I teach at a university. I accept neo-darwinian evolution. I accept that the mind/brain was undoubtedly shaped by evolution. What I (and your critics) question, is what you believe nature selected. It involves a lot of assumptions... long before you start doing 'science.' Logic prevails (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is important to remember that in psychology there are many different approaches. There is no single mainstream one. EP is not less accepted than other approaches.Miradre (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop WP:SOAPBOXING. This talk page is not a WP:FORUM. Your personal opinions (cf above) have no relevance to this encyclopedia. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

From American Psychologist: "Evolutionary psychology has emerged over the past 15 years as a major theoretical perspective, generating an increasing volume of empirical studies and assuming a larger presence within psychological science." [6] Miradre (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That, however, does not justify the comments in your previous message. Mathsci (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That there are several different approaches in psychology? See any introductory textbook. That EP is a "major theoretical perspective" shows that EP is one valid approach.Miradre (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not a WP:FORUM. Evolutionary psychology might be an emerging subject, but not one without its problems, according to WP:RS. The article by Downes does not suggest universal acceptance as a viable alternative theory by mainstream psychologists in academia. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Many of the replies to my comment above I feel missed my main point. It was pretty simple: it is hard to argue productively when the debaters do not share fundamental starting assumptions. Debates about topics that are derivative of those different set of assumptions are bound to be unproductive. Thus, better instead to focus argument on the fundamental assumptions.

For example, if one's starting assumption is that humans have 'transcended' biology because they have evolved impressive general, content-free intellectual capacities that give us a free-wheeling capacity for culture, then of course one won't agree with the EP proposition that evolved psychological adaptations that were designed to solve specific ancestral problems have produced a modular brain/mind that channels behavior and results in a shared, universal human nature.

My main points given the above:

(a) Because EP is a theoretical POV, it is appropriate that there be both a main EP page that mostly describes EP and a EP Criticisms page that describes all aspects of the debate, even those arguments derivative of different starting assumptions.

(b) I think the Controversies section, and the start of the Criticisms page should first focus on describing those fundamentally different sets of starting assumptions -- the two basic positions on the nature vs. nurture debate. Call them what you will, I think the list of basic assumptions contrasted by Standard Social Science Model vs. the Integrated Model are basically correct. Even if you dislike these labels, they do describe the fundamentally different set of starting assumptions (if it walks and quacks like a duck... regardless of the labels used). So -- again, I think, readers would better served if they were provided with a brief overview of these different starting perspectives. This is inadequately covered now. Memills (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to what you states above but may not the starting assumptions be much deeper than what you suggest? For example, someone wanting to have a world with really true equality between individuals (certainly a noble dream) may prefer to deny that there are significant genetic psychological differences between individuals and that genetics have a significant role in psychology. In this view EP is just another roadkill on the general quest of such denial.Miradre (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Many of the primary early opponents (including Gould, Rose, etc.) were arguably travelling down the moralistic fallacy pathway. And, this remains true today -- IMO, some of the critics of EP are not so much interested in the basic theory, but what they view as the negative social consequences if the theory were to be validated and become widely known. Memills (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

We are now moving away from form to substance. I think that there is some kind of conflict between EP and social scientists. We have to acknowledge this. The question is, how best to write about it? My view: in this conflict each "side" constructs a view of its opponoent. And much of the conflict or rather lack of actual debate is, both sides believe that the image that the other side has of its opponent is wrong. That is, social scientists think that EPs misunderstand social science, and EPs think that social scientists misunderstand evolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, a real social scientists REALLY believes that social forces are real. But most evolutionary psychologists do not. This means that a truly sociological explanation of EP will never be taken seriously by psychologists. That is why no one ever bothers to voice the sociological explanation of EP (even as a criticism). All of these arguments and explanations were aired decades ago in the debate over sociobiology. And they yeilded no results. So, social scientists for the most part just don't bother any more to debate EP. They just go on doing th kind of social science they believe in. This is not a criticism or controversy, it is just a profound divide in the academy and in public understandings of the academy. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there is a profound divide in the social sciences.

And, perhaps each side creates caricatures of the other side.

As an EPer, I can tell you that our side definetely feels misunderstood. Robert Kuzban regularly blogs about this (see, in particular this recent post).

However, it may be more of a difference in interests. Some scholars are interested in how people differ, others are more interested in how they are similar. Both are valid, but each side may come to the conclusion that what they do is "more important."

(And, can't resist -- EPers do believe that "social forces are real." But, with the caveat that social forces do not spontaneously arise de novo, but rather are channeled by the evolved psychological adaptations that characterize human nature.) Memills (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

SLR, "Also, a real social scientists REALLY believes that social forces are real. But most evolutionary psychologists do not." I'd sure like to see a citation for that because that's not the impression I've gotten in my reading. Pinker, for example, is an evolutionary psychologist, and he is outspoken about how social forces have changed society (e.g., leading to a dramatic drop in homicide over the last several centuries). If the kind of EP you're opposed to is the kind that doesn't acknowledge the reality of social forces, then I'm opposed to that kind of EP, too. Maybe you and I don't disagree as much as we seem to on this topic. The kind of EP that I support is the kind that Pinker advocates, the kind that also acknowledges the power of social forces. Would that sort of EP be more to your liking? Leadwind (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am expressing my own point of view which I seldom do. So while I would happily answer your questions, I hesitate to, because it is my own view and I am not sure I can give you any citations. But I will say: I am not opposed to EP and that is not why I said what I said. I was stating what I believe to be a fact. It is not an argument against EP nor is it an argument for it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

SLR, "I am not opposed to EP." Excellent. Welcome to the club. Leadwind (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you seriously think this is a club? If you think EP is a club, let's rewrite the lead of this article to say it is a club and not a science.

Or do you think editing an article is something to do with clubs? Do you belong to some club of editors? What a disingenuous way to edit articles. I want no part of that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Memills writes, "social forces do not spontaneously arise de novo, but rather are channeled by the evolved psychological adaptations that characterize human nature." No social scientist claims that social forces arise spontaneously de novo (if this is nor a redundancy). But Memills claim may help us identify one critical point of controversy: how does one distinguish between behaviors that are best explained in terms of evolved psychological adaptations, and other social dynamics? What kinds of evidence are demonstrative of one explanation or the other?

Memills statement points to a second point of controversy: at what point does this become tautologous? No social scientist questions that the human brain is the result of evolution. Therefore, all human behaviors must be possible within the limits of our evolution ... just as all of our behaviors must be possible within the laws of physics. But the fact that people who fly and people who swim and people who walk are all obeying the laws of physics does not mean that the laws of physics are at all helpful in understanding this variation. So now let's look at a society that considers cannibalism abhorrent; people who practice a kind of highly constrained form of cannibalism (e.g. Catholic and orthodox Christians who drink the blood of Christ); people who practice endocannibalism, and people who practice exocannibalism. Obviously all four kinds of behaviors must be possible within the terms of human evolution. Wny one society holds a practice normative, that another society considers unacceptable, is precisely the kind of question social scientists believe they can answer without reference to an evolved mind, beyond very basic points that both societies are composed of people with minds capable of symbolic thought through which contrasting behaviors are construed to be meaningful or disgusting. But beyond that they claim that the theory of evolution is no more necessary than the theory of gravity. Does EP claim that in this case social scientists are wrong? I think this is an issue that any controversies section has to address. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So what's so wrong about cannibalism?  :-)

Let me comment on your statement: how does one distinguish between behaviors that are best explained in terms of evolved psychological adaptations, and other social dynamics? What kinds of evidence are demonstrative of one explanation or the other? This betrays a nature versus nurture dichotomy. But that debate is over: it is always both. The fact that some social scientists believe that we have transcended out biology, and social forces act independently from biology (or, have such minor effect that they can be largely ignored) is incorrect. They cry reductionism! Reductionism is standard scientific procedure, as long as one appreciates that the interactions among the parts of a system can produce emergent properties (interaction effects). But those interaction effects, while damn complex, are still not random or unconstrained.

You are not responding to my point. You are raising a red herring. I did not say anything about nature versus nurture, and it is a misunderstanding - perhaps sincere - to suggest my comment implies anything about nature versus nurture. I was raising a question about disciplinary boundaries - anthropologists and literary critics may both look at a novel as "data" but they will ask different questions, that are answered using different methods. EP cannot explain everything, just as physics and biologic cannot explain everything. So there must be limits. I am now repeating myself. I am sorry if you do not understand, this is a basic matter in any science and it has nothing to do with nature versus nurture. But we have been discussing the best way to organize the controversies section, and I was suggesting one point of controversy worth addressing. Talk pages are for talking about ways to improve the article. If you do not think this is a real debate between evolutionary psychologists and non-evolutionary psychologists, e.g. social psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, then just say "I do not think that this is appropriate for the article." I am not here to have a chat with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

So, why is there variation among cultures re the acceptability of cannibalism? Can human nature be safely ignored when this variability is studied? No. The question becomes, given human nature, under what conditions is cannibalism more likely to be accepted by a culture? Certainly, eating out-group members is generally far more common that eating in-group members (especially high status ones) due to human nature. This fact belies a evolved psychology that we would do well to take into account when we try to understand cultural variability. Bottom line: cultures don't vary randomly, nor could they engage in any possible conceivable behavior, because they are a distal product of human nature.

With that said, I'm in the mood for nice glass of Chianti. Memills (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You introduce nature again, which is not the question. I can tell you that anthropologists who are experts on this topic will tell you that your claim "eating out-group members is generally far more common that eating in-group members (especially high status ones) due to human nature" is silly. Do evolutionary psychologists really say this? If they do not, why did you bring it up? if they do, then, as I said, this may be an important point of controversy worth highlighting in the article. Your answer certainly shows a real ignorance of the answers provided by anthropologists, so are you saying that Evolutionary Psychology is answering a different question than anthropologists, or that EP claims to displace anthropology? The question is, how to improve the controversies section. I am assuming your comments come from somewhere, so I am trying to use them as a basis for making serious points for improving the article - not, as I said, to have a chat with you. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

SLR, when there are reports of cannibalism, it's usually a case of eating outsiders, not eating insiders. There are exceptions, such as the people who eat the brains of the dead and contract kuru kuru. But overall cannibalism toward outsiders is more common than cannibalism toward insiders, wouldn't you agree? Alternatively, if MeMills has said something silly, here's the chance to find a good source and put him in his place. Leadwind (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not making my quantitative claims. In the Amazon, the Tupinamba practiced exocannibalism, an the Wari practice endocannibalism. I personally am uninterested in the question of which one is more common, although I am sure there are some researchers who care about precisely this question - this gets back to my point about how one difference between EP and social psychologists or sociologists may be what questions they ask even when looking at the same phenomenon. My point stands even if only one society in the world practiced exocannibalism and only one practiced endocannibalism - the question is still, why do they do it? My point was that many social scientists believe that they can believe in the the theory evolution, much as they believe in the theory of gravity, without believing that it is at all helpful in understanding why the Tupinamba and the Wari had such contrasting forms of cannibalism, an why the Mehinaku don't practice any form of cannibalism at all. Do EPers accept the validity of this position or not? This page is to discuss improvements to the articles. I am trying to suggest an improvement to the controversies section. If EP-ers DO accept the validity of this position, there is no controversy (in this regard). If they do not accept the validity of this position, then this would be a real controversy and one we should cover. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My in- vs out-group distinction was derived from inclusive fitness theory (don't know if EPers have actually studied cannibalism in relation to inclusive fitness or not). That's my point -- basic EP theories are heuristic in that they can be used make predictions that a pure 'blank slate' or 'culture is free from biology' perspective could not make. Memills (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Abnormal section, revisited.

Judith deleted the table in the abnormal psych section. In previous long debates about it, the conclusion was that Maunus volunteered to write prose equivalent to the content in the table. He did not do so.

LogicPrevails now complains of SYN. No surprise. His previous complaint about it was OR... but whatever sticks on the wall, eh?

Without the table, the section does not adequately describe this subfield. In fact, what is left is mostly the lengthy critique written by LogicPrevails, who has previously state that he thinks these hypotheses are incorrent and dangerous.

But folks are coming to this page to learn about EP theories and hypotheses. Doesn't matter if the postulates are wrong or not -- that's not our job to decide here. Let's not eviscerate the article by deleting relevant content.

I think the table offers advantages of clarity and brevity over equivalent prose for a brief subsection, so keeping it is obviously my preference. However, if someone wants to replace the table with equivalent prose, go for it. Perhaps Leadwind, who has perhaps written more new content here than anyone (a pretty thankless job at times)? Memills (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you could avoid charges of WP:SYN (or more correctly unclear sources) if you exactly sourced each specific argument to one or more specific sources instead of there being at the top an unclear "Summary based on information in" [several sources].Miradre (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's right. Compiling info, even good info, into a table violates policy on original synthesis. Instead, you should summarise what the sources say. Just one caveat before you start on that. I am bearing in mind that we are being told that Panksepp's work can't be used because it is a primary source. The same criteria must apply to psychologists sympathetic to EP and those unsympathetic to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the policy regarding primary sources: WP:PSTS Miradre (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I know the policy. We have a slight difficulty, of nobody here's making. That is, that the definition of primary is different in the social and natural sciences, and this topic sits squarely over the two. In the natural sciences, as the policy says "papers reporting on experiments" are primary. We prefer systematic reviews of the scientific literature. In the social sciences systematic reviews are thin on the ground and academic papers tend to incorporate literature reviews. Virtually all the sources here are ordinary peer-reviewed academic papers and academic books. If we declare all of them primary, then we could be left with no article. One way forward is to take more notice of the citation indices, book reviews and so forth. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Given these concerns, I will research and reference primary sources for each hypothesis in the table. This would be a helpful addition. But, some forbearance, please. It might take me a bit of time since I have some deadlines approaching on some other writing projects. Should any others find that this topic piques their curiosity / interest, feel free to join in the fun. Memills (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MeMills, for reasons that we already argued way back when, I think the editors here would prefer to see you change the format from table (which is your synthesis and original research) to prose, where editors can more easily make edits, changes, and revisions. I never objected to the material being presented - only the format. Logic prevails (talk) 09:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Memills, you likely do not need the primary sources. The sources already given are likely fine if you just specify for each statement which of the source(s) that apply.Miradre (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Judith, "Compiling info, even good info, into a table violates policy on original synthesis." Really? Could you cite the policy that says that? My read on synthesis is that it's wrong when you're trying to make a point that the sources don't make. When we put information from multiple sources into a table, that's like putting information from multiple sources into a paragraph. It's not synthesis unless you're trying to make a novel argument that the sources don't make. Leadwind (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone can show us that assembling information into prose is OK but assembling the same information into a table violates policy, I'll reluctantly assume the job that Maunus didn't do and put the same material into text. Leadwind (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A new synthesis of material is arguably WP:OR, and is against wiki policy. We've had this discussion before. Reproduction of an existing table (by a legitimate source), is one thing, but a single editor synthesizing controversial information into a compressed format is inappropriate and against WP:SYNTH. Synthesizing information into a table involves some degree of editor bias (in what they choose to include/exclude). It also means that information becomes 'nested' in the table; it is more difficult to make changes, additions, corrections, or refutations down the road. Think about it this way... would you be okay with me constructing a massive table detailing the criticisms of EP? Of course not, because it would involve my personal opinion/bias of what the criticisms are, and it makes it difficult to weave what you might view as neutral content into the table. Since the table is treated as an entire 'unit,' it is harder to refute without rejecting the whole table. Prose makes it easier for other editors to make changes, additions, corrections, (e.g. collaborative editing) and it also makes it more clear as to where the information came from (more easily verifiable). Logic prevails (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

LogicPrevails -- I would have no objection if you created a table that accurately summarized and referenced both the criticisms of EP and the rebuttals. In fact, I think that would be a great addition to the Criticisms of EP page. Also, multiple editors can, and should, edit a summary table in the same way that they edit prose (all of the summary tables on this page indeed have been edited by multiple editors). As long as someone doesn't interject something new (conclusion "C") that isn't in any of the original sources, I don't see it as SYN. Memills (talk) 00:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Further to this. Since the table is derived from multiple sources, and gives no indication of where individual sections are derived, it isn't properly cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy -- as I noted above, I have already volunteered to do just that. Memills (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there are some cases where it's OK to compile a table. You can arrange sports players into their teams, so long as everything is cited. But making up a table like this is both OR and SYNTH because of the amount of selection involved. We had a long and acrimonious dispute a few years ago on solar energy because someone wanted to put different sources together to show how much solar can contribute compared to other kinds of energy. That was ruled OR in the end, and this is even more OR than that was. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If a table is a condensed summary of information from sourced textbooks, and, in addition if specific primary sources are referenced for each hypothesis as requested, I see the table as no more OR or SYN than the equivalent information presented in prose (as Leadwind noted above).

Reluctantly, I must admit again to some skepticism that the underlying motives for a couple of editors here is really just limited to following WP policy. There have been too many previous instances where the addition of most any substantive new and sourced information, in whatever form, has been resisted and challenged, or, appropriate and sourced material has been wholly deleted. In fact, as is well documented in the archives, most every substantive contribution Leadwind or others have added in the past year or so has suffered this obstructionism, by the same couple of editors who arguably or admittedly have some antipathy toward the discipline.

I have volunteered to provide primary references for each hypothesis, as several editors above have suggested. However, again, if Leadwind, or someone else, would like to translate the table into prose, fine by me. In the meantime, the deletion of this content leaves mostly a critique of material that isn't even there -- and makes the subsection misrepresentative and incomplete. Memills (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. Further, as stated earlier, there is no need for other sources than those already given if it is clearly shown which statement has which source(s).Miradre (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Judith, "But making up a table like this is both OR and SYNTH because of the amount of selection involved." If you can back that statement up with a reference to policy, I'll support your efforts to exclude the table. Please back that statement up with a reference to policy. Leadwind (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not a domain expert by any means but I can see there are many ways that synthesis and OR are likely to occur in developing a table that structures knowledge about a topic, especially one that is as complex as EP. The most obvious synthesis in this case is the assumption that each of the sources means the same thing by each of the terms that label the rows and columns. (I am not familiar with the sources but I doubt they actually use the same terms.) I suggest converting the table into a plain list that will allow editors to draw the distinctions that may be required to present the material without synthesis or OR. Jojalozzo 23:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The edit war is beneath you guys. Jojalozzo 23:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

1, please cite policy. 2, please propose alternative text. Leadwind (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not making a blanket statement about policy concerning tables, synthesis and OR. The policy I am working from is standard OR and SYN policy. I consider the table likely to include SYN and OR because it inherently "says" that all the sources are of one voice with respect to 1) the way the material is organized and 2) the interpretation of the terms that label the rows and columns. Here is a draft list form of the information in the table. Please address the issue of the table as a hindrance to editorial refinement. Jojalozzo 01:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Leadwind, it is pretty obvious from WP:SYNTH.

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.[6] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.

Note that policy closely relates the concepts of OR and SYNTH. The table I deleted was certainly a combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply conclusions that none of the sources reached on their own. Memills is fully entitled to compile info in this way for the enlightenment of his own students, who have paid tuition fees in order to benefit from original research. As far as I know, he could put it into Wikiversity. He can write it in a scholarly article which we might then cite. But he can't put it straight into Wikipedia. Could you please help me explain that to him.

We could also post on WP:NORN for opinions, but there is a bit of a backlog. I comment there myself sometimes, so I have a feeling for the kinds of advice usually given. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Judith, "The table I deleted was certainly a combination of material from multiple sources to reach or imply conclusions that none of the sources reached on their own." What's the "conclusion C" that Memills is promoting? If there's no "Conclusion C," then it's not SYNTH. Where does the policy say that you can assemble information from different sources into paragraphs but not into tables? Leadwind (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

In paragraphs, we move from one point to another in a linear way. In a table, there is juxtaposition in columns too, and that juxtaposition implies connection. If the source presented in the information in text format then we should stick to that. If the source has a table, then we can reproduce the table if that doesn't raise copyright concerns. Usually, we leave out the sources' tables because that is part of the normal process of summarising. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Leadwind that there is no OR or SYN new "conclusion C" that is not in the original sources. A foundational idea in evolutionary psychiatry is that the causal underpinnings of psychological adaptations and their failure/dysfunction are analogous to physiological ones. As noted in the table, there are several different types of causes of physiological adaptation failure/dysfunction, and, again, understanding how these might be analogous to psychological dysfunction might be productive. One particular value of the table is that it makes this analogy clear by listing a type of dysfunction cause, a physiological example is listed, and a possible psychological example is listed. Imho, I believe the table format helps to summarize and illustrate these analogies better than could equivalent prose).

What I find particularly disconcerting is the eagerness by a few editors to jettison sourced content without providing for its replacement, and doing so based on reference to fairly fine print policy that editors could legitimately interpret differently. Memills (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Taking this to WP:NORN for attention. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The citations for this table are cryptic and appear incomplete (page numbers? publishers?) and I do not see them in the list of references: Buss, D.M. (2011), Evolutionary Psychology; Gaulin & McBurney (2004), Evolutionary Psychology; Workman & Reader (2004), Evolutionary Psychology. Please help me out and consider improving the refs. Jojalozzo 18:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, I have agreed to add primary source references for each hypothesis in the table. Also, will check the textbook refs and make sure they are complete, with page numbers. Also, I just clarified the headings in the table Memills (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind just knowing what the three sources that are mentioned are referring to. Please tell me. Thanks. Jojalozzo 19:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The three sources are all textbooks with the same title Evolutionary Psychology. I have fix the references in the table heading to note that, and included the publisher in the refs. Memills (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good start. In principle every cell needs at least one source, including the physiological information. Is this the way that the best sources on animal physiology lay out the different kinds of adaptation, exaptation etc.? Do psychologists agree on the human psychology/behaviour parallels given in the right hand column, or do we need to point out disagreements on those? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The psychological dysfunctions noted in the right hand column of the table, labled Hypothesized Psychological Example, are best described as hypotheses, rather than principles, at this point. However, there is some empirical corroborating research for most all of these (again, I'll provide the refs to the specific studies in each cell of the table).

Most clinical psychologists have had no graduate level training in clinical evolutionary psychology / evolutionary psychiatry, so they are generally unfamiliar with it or have scant knowledge. LogicPrevails has provided a critique of this approach in this subsection. Memills (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the language from SYNTH is not summary:

SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. It's likely that none of the sources summarize exactly the same set of information. But if it's an accurate, neutral summary, then it's verified by the sources for the statements being summarized. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".

The table is consistent with this policy. It is a summary from reliable sources (textbooks, and soon, primary sources as well), it is NPOV (simply describes EP hypotheses), and it is doesn't make any proposals / conclusions that are not the sources. Memills (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am new to this discussion but I do not see where the synthesis problem has been related to the summary nature of the material. My understanding of the synthesis issue for tables is that they may categorize and organize information in new ways that go beyond what the sources do. This is subtle because meaning is inherent in the structure and layout of the information in addition to the linear wording of plain text. Do all the sources agree on the terminology used to label the rows and columns? If not there may be synthesis. Is there any source that has similarly organized this information at least in plain text? If not, there may be synthesis. Until I find out what the sources are, the rest of you will have to answer these questions. Jojalozzo 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, the secondary sources are listed in the table heading. These are evolutionary psychology textbooks that present this information as is reflected in the table. (Also, available online is Evolutionary Psychology and Mental Health, a book chapter by evolutionary psychiatrist Randy Nesse.) I don't think anyone in the field of EP, or evolutionary psychiatry, would find the hypotheses listed in the table as unrepresentative of the published literature in the field (although someone might be aware of more recent research or hypotheses that I've yet to read).

Again, as noted above, primary references for each cell in the table are to be added.

So if you think the table is a representative summary, you too just might be an EPer. Memills (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Memills wrote: "I would have no objection if you created a table that accurately summarized and referenced both the criticisms of EP and the rebuttals." You are proving one of my points here. You would want a 'column' that has rebuttals in a table that summarized criticisms of EP. If this abnormal table stays, rest assured I will create another column that consists of just that in your table, which will make an already large table absolutely ridiculous.

A second point I want to draw attention to, is the use of the word 'hypothesis' in this table. What is presented here are 'speculations' or, if we are generous, 'working hypotheses.' It is disingenuous to suggest to the reader that these speculations have been developed into testable theories. Logic prevails (talk) 09:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

This may surprise you LogicP, but I generally would not much object to you adding an "objections" column to the table (or, perhaps a less confrontational label, a "contrary evidence," column). In fact, many review articles do have such tables with columns that list studies that, for each hypothesis, have found either corroborative or non-corroborative empirical findings. However, the problem with doing so here is that (a) this is not a Criticisms page (there is one already), (b) these are EP "working hypotheses," not yet firmly established conclusions, and this is so noted in the table header, and (c) the objections of critics are not so much to any specific hypothesis in the table, but to the more general application of adaptationist thinking to the field (based on a contrary set of 'starting assumptions,' as I discussed above), and so such general criticisms would not fit neatly in any specific table cell. But, you have already provided prose that describes these general objections in the subsection, and, thank you for that.

Contrary to your assertion that none of the hypotheses are testable, several of them already have been. And many of the empirical research findings are generally corroborative. For example, there is good evidence that mild depression triggered by a recent personal setback is functional (and, I will provide these refs in the table). Memills (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

"Evolutionary Psychology at the University of Texas"

This source for the Premises section is a self-published web page for an EP program at UT. I understand it makes a convenient source for a summary of the field and I suppose it's technically reliable (at least implicitly approved by David Buss if not his own words) but it's not a stable document and generally a weak source. The other summary (EP Primer) for that section is also self published but at least it lists primary sources and names the authors. Isn't there a summary that's been published in a peer-reviewed journal, a book, or a magazine like Scientific American or National Geographic? Jojalozzo 20:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources by an already established expert are not unreliable. Although something better would of course be preferable.Miradre (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, though the page is not clearly authored by Buss. I would guess the page text came from something he's gotten published elsewhere with clear authorship. I suggest using that. Jojalozzo 20:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The authors of the article (among whom I no longer count myself) also need to make a decision about whether to define EP broadly as all evolutionary approaches to psychology (in which case even Freud would require mention - as well as all the non-modular mind psychologists that use evolutionary approaches)or narrowly as the Santa Cruz/UT school. If they want to use the broad definition (which has previously been the stated opinion of the authors) then they need to address the fact that Buss does not speak for Ep broadly construed. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Textbooks in the field list these EP principles, and, reference the same websites. There are additional published sources, but don't think we need them here if the textbooks use these too. Memills (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there an agreed referencing style?

Looking over the Notes I can't tell if there is a predominant referencing style. Has there been any attempt to arrive at a consensus as to how to manage references? If not I think it would improve both the article and the editorial climate. Jojalozzo 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

No and yes. People have been too busy editing to worry about minutiae like referencing. I started working through them but came to a stop because of the page number question. Any work on consistency would be really good, just choose what style you are most used to, start adopting it throughout, and I will join in when I have a minute. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Page numbers II

As I think we all know, the onus is on those who want material included to provide full bibliographical details including page numbers in books. Take a month, when I wont' be on Wikipedia much anyway. Add all the page numbers. In September I will go through and remove all statements that aren't fully supported. That's reasonable, I think. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Even formal scientific publications don't use page numbers, unless one is directly quoting from another source. And WP policy only says "use page numbers when appropriate." Sounds like a set-up for WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT motivated removal of material on a flimsy justification that no page numbers were given. NMemills (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AGF asking page number is not unreasonable especially when 900 page book is a source. Secondly she is suggesting doing in a month and half from now giving you time to add it all in. Removed material can re-added with appropriate source at any time. Cite it properly and the issue is done. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Not much would be left of WP under the "cite the page number or I will delete it" rationale. Shall we start with the Cultural Anthropology page first? And, even with large books, most do have indexes at the back to track down particular topics. Memills (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You will find that this is standard. Please do work to improve the Cultural anthropology page in whatever way is called for. I don't think I have ever visited so don't know what its problems may be. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. Where is the policy? Miradre (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the policy would be WP:VERIFY. If you cite a book and no one can find the text in the book that supports the statement in the article then the statement fails verifiability. Adding page numbers will help ensure the statement can be verified. Jojalozzo 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the relevant policy -- WP:Page numbers: "Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole."

Should an editor wish further verification with a page number(s), rather than deleting material, a reasonable request would be to simply ask for the page number(s) (perhaps with a tag, if there is one, or, on the Talk page), or ask for additional supporting references. Someone may have easy access to the reference source (e.g., a book), or other relevant ones. Also, the editor making the request can do a bit of research and find the relevant page numbers (again, a book index is a nice tool for this).

Tags are used in WP to ask for further clarification, or for a supporting reference, etc. without deleting content. AGF suggests that content should not be deleted when a reference is given, but only lacks a page number(s). Only when it is determined that the reference does not support the statement after thorough vetting on the Talk page should such content be deleted. Memills (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This policy makes sense to me. I suggest that we list statements whose refs cannot be verified here on the talk page with a request for sufficient information about the source(s) to allow verification. For requests that are addressed, the related statement would then be subject to normal verification. We delete statements whose request is not addressed within 4 weeks. Jojalozzo 22:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

A more constructive and helpful approach would be to do the research needed to add page numbers for references that lack them, and add it. By analogy, if you find a book reference that lacks information about the publisher, find that information and add it.

The default perspective is to respect AGF (assume good faith of the editors). Given AGF and the policy that page numbers are used "when appropriate" and are not required when the source is an entire book or article, the onus of doing page number research falls on the editor who would like to add that information, not on other editors. The lack of a page number(s) for a reference is insufficient basis to delete content (with the exception of a direct quote). In this case, it is only appropriate to delete sourced content when it is clearly determined that the reference does not support the claim or fact. AGF creates the default assumption that the reference does support the target prose.

A request for page numbers is fine, but it does not create an obligatory burden for other editors, nor create a default justification for removal. Given the WP policy on page numbers and AGF, a "threat" to remove content is inappropriate: "someone find the page number(s) for this (in X amount of time), or I will delete it." Again, with the exception of a direct quote, the lack of a page number(s) in a reference is in itself insufficient grounds for deletion of content. Memills (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If a source cannot be verified because the citation lacks page numbers then it violates policy. Page numbers should be included when citing specific material in a book. The only time page numbers are not required is when citing the whole book. In addition, enough information should be included to allow someone to be sure they have the same edition of the book. It does not violate AGF to require sources be specific enough so a reader can verify it. AGF means providing a reasonable period for verification to be established before deleting a reference. Remember: "Trust but verify." Jojalozzo 21:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that what prompted this issue was that Judith requested a reference via a tag for the statement that EP suggests that females are more sexually "coy" than are males. I provided a book reference (Symons, The Evolution of Human Sexuality). Judith then started this subsection here on the Talk page because she may have thought that a book reference without page numbers was insufficient in this case. Actually, it is sufficient. The issue of female coyness is addressed many times throughout that book, and providing all of these page numbers would be impractical and unnecessary. Further, the index lists page numbers related to that topic. Had Judith looked at the reference she would have noticed this. It is not incumbent on me to provide page numbers for this reference.

Policy only states to use page numbers "when appropriate." "Verifiability" does require one to provide a specific page number(s) for a reference, unless it is a direct quote. It might be helpful when possible and when "appropriate" (which is open to some interpretation). The default policy is that the only time deletion of material would be appropriate on this basis is when (a) an editor has researched the source (looked at the index, etc.), (b) could not find any material in the source to support the content that is referenced, and, preferably (c) has asked other editors for help on the Talk page.

The default deletion of material that is otherwise properly referenced is not WP policy. If you wish, we can submit this issue for review. Memills (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. Let's get some other opinions. By my reading, policyis clear that page numbers are required for books and long articles unless the ref is for the whole document. Jojalozzo 19:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How can one tell if the ref is for the whole document? For example, the book I mentioned above is about many other things than just female sexual coyness (and that topic is mentioned many times in many places). How is this so noted in the reference citation? It isn't. So the default is to assume that the situation is as I described (the reference refers to the entire source, or the topic is mentioned in many different places in the source), which is not against policy. The only way to tell if it against policy is to actually look up the reference, and either (a) find the one page (or one page range) where the topic is discussed and edit the reference citation to add this, or (b) look up the reference and document that the reference is not relevant. One cannot, by default, assume that it was inappropriate to have a reference citation without page numbers. Memills (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the responsibility of the editor citing the source to add the page numbers. If there are multiple pages that could be used then pick the best pages for verifying the statements and list them. The whole document should be referenced (without page numbers) only when the topic is the document. For particular content you must supply page numbers. This is very basic verifiability policy, not worth arguing about. Let's get some authoritative opinions and settle it. Jojalozzo 03:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Just visiting today, may not be back for a while. I did ask nicely first about page numbers. It wasn't in relation to the coyness thing. I have done other donkey work on referencing, and I don't mind that, so long as others are willing to do their bit too. We ask those who add material to add the page numbers because it is easiest to do this as you go along. It means that we can take on trust that the material really does come from the book without having to obtain paper copies of everything. Try searching for "page numbers" in the archive of the reliable sources noticeboard. It has come up before, believe me, and on articles far more controversial than this. History of Gibraltar, anyone? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I happen to have the Symons book, it is a classic although a bit old. But I certainly agree we need to provide page numbers. The point of the book is NOT that women are more coy than males. It is standard practice to provide just the book or article title if the claim being cited is the central claim of the book or article. That does not apply to Symons, which runs through a whole set of hypotheses based on sexual selection. For any specific claim to be verifiable, you need to provide a page number. Now, I did not add this to the article but whoever did should add the page numbers. It is not a claim made throughout the whole book. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you have the book, why not just add a page number(s)? End of story. But, I'll do it myself, since I am the editor who added the reference. The problem is with references that were added by editors no longer here.

From WP:CITEVAR#Style_variation "Citations for books typically include: ...chapter or page number(s) where appropriate." Again, "appropriate" is not defined. Also: For "Citations for individually authored chapters in books: ...the chapter number or page numbers for the chapter are optional." Note "optional." WP:BURDEN#Burden_of_evidence says nothing about page numbers.

I've nothing against including page numbers in references when possible or "appropriate." My point is that lack of page numbers for books is insufficient justification to declare the reference is "unverified." AGF suggests that it is appropriate. Sure, it might be improved if an editor wished to add page numbers. By analogy, if a book reference lacked the name of the publisher it would be more appropriate and consistent with the mission and spirit of WP to add that information than it would be to delete valuable content that a previous editor worked hard on to research and write. Memills (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Style guidelines are not policy. The policy on page numbers is unambiguous. The foundation policy is WP:Verifiability. Page numbers for long articles and books are required for verifiability unless the topic itself is the whole work. WP:BURDEN says that the editor adding the material to the article is responsible for verifiable references, i.e. references with page numbers.

It's clear that the editing community here has been slack in adhering to policy. Nevertheless, if a reference is unverifiable then policy requires that we remove the material. I think setting a 4 week deadline for compliance is reasonable. Jojalozzo 20:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Any time something is contentious - and the idea that females are more coy than men is pretty contentious - our standards of verification go up. It is more important to be very precise not only about the citation (e.g. page number) but about the view (what exactly does Symons say) and the context. What makes something contentious? more than one editor questioning. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I was invited to join and apologize for not reading carefully through this thread. Pages numbers are required for books (and other lengthy sources; I know no definition of "lengthy", but something more than 1-2 dozen of pages). There are obvious reasons for that and I will mention just a couple: (i) imagine there is a ref to a google book on the use of some chemical. I search that book and find a dozen of pages to that chemical within that book. Which one should I read? This is especially annoying when Google preview is limited and it is a daily wikipedia reality for me. (ii) Some refs can be identified as broken simply by comparing the provided page number with the book source (no such page; another, similar book or edition was meant), i.e., having a complete reference does help. Materialscientist (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Jojalozzo asked me to voice my opinion here. Although I know nothing about the article or the specifics of this problem, I agree that WP:V requires that all contested content is made verifiable through references, and per WP:Page numbers, such references must include page numbers unless the book as a whole supports the contested statement (which is rare). If requested page numbers are not provided, policy requires that the contested material is deleted until they are provided.  Sandstein  08:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Same request and in fact the same answer. It's rare not to need page numbers. Dougweller (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Caution: The spate of new editors to this discussion seems to have been initiated at the invitation of Jojalozzo. This could be interpreted as a wp:Tag team. Also, the above comments do not directly address my primary concerns, which I have outlined several times in this section. These concerns are focused not on interpretation of policy or wikilawyering, but with the goals and spirit of Wikipedia. This includes respecting the contributions of previous editors, and, in all but clear cases of mis-referencing or inaccurate information, improving rather than deleting their contributions. Memills (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You were the first to suggest getting help ("If you wish, we can submit this issue for review."). I agreed and asked some administrators to offer their expert opinions and they put in the time and effort to help us out. I apologize for not reiterating my intentions, but your suggestion that they are meatpuppets is uncalled for, especially when each of them announced that they were asked/invited. I think your dismissal of the advice of administrators on the basis that I invited them is definitely not in the spirit of the project. As far as I am concerned they have made it clear that policy 'requires' deletion of book citations that lack page numbers (once page numbers are requested). Jojalozzo 18:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)]

Submitting for review is different from inviting a hand-selected group of folks to comment on the Talk page (and, FYI, I did not refer to them as "meatpuppets.") If you wish to submit it for formal review, fine by me. About 90% of Wikipedia would be eligible for deletion were policy as stated in your last sentence enforced rigorously. Again, a goal of WP is to respect contributions of previous editors, and to improve their efforts. It is not wholesale deletion of material because an editor with a trigger finger on the delete button isn't willing look at an index to find a page number, or, at least insert a tag in the text to request that information. Memills (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with this discussion.

• You could have submitted this question for review but you did not. I said I would ask for help and I did. I think those who responded deserve your good faith, not dismissal as participants in a conspiracy.
• FYI: You used the term, WP:Tag team, whose lead sentence is: "Tag teaming (sometimes also called a "Travelling Circus") is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." (my emphasis) I assume you read the article before you referred everyone here to it.
• Your interpretation of the situation (lazy, trigger-fingered editors) is hyperbolic. From my perspective, a reasonable request for reliable citations with page numbers has been made with a reasonable time period provided in which to comply.
• If it is so easy to look up and supply the page numbers please do so. I have not seen where you have supplied any of them so far, though you apparently have time enough to dispute this issue here on the talk page.

I'm finished at least until Judith returns. Jojalozzo 00:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to supply page numbers when requested, especially for my own edits. Just ask. In fact, there should be a WP tag specifically to request page number(s) for a reference (to my knowledge, there is not).

There is a bit of history here, archived in the recesses of these Talk pages, of which you may be unaware. To wit: a few editors with strong antipathy toward EP have previously used a variety of pretty suspect rationales for deleting (and/or suppressing the addition of) relevant content. My concern is avoid a repeat of that type of situation.

WP:Deleting: "Deleting useful content. A piece of content may be written poorly, yet still have a purpose. Consider what a sentence or paragraph tries to say. Clarify it instead of throwing it away. ...Deleting anything that isn't trivial requires some justification..."

I think we pretty much agree on this, but we are talking past each other. Hopefully, this helps to clarify my concerns. Memills (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: the {{Page needed}} template has been in wide use since 2006. Prior to 2009, it was called {{Page number}}. This tag is used to request page numbers for a reference. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

And Memills? You've been asked, repeatedly, to stop saying that editors who disagree with you have a "strong antipathy toward EP" and "have previously used a variety of pretty suspect rationales for deleting (and/or suppressing the addition of) relevant content". To my knowledge, there are no such editors, and that is something you invented. Please stop saying it. Viriditas (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Several editors have admitted to such antipathy.

In the archives of the Talk pages is also documentation of concerns expressed that a few editors were attempting to suppress relevant and referenced info from being added, and/or who had made attempts to delete such info.

Thanks for the info re the {{Page needed}} tag -- should be helpful. Memills (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)