Talk:George C. Williams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] The "Williams Revolution" is a Wiki-original term

I've already noted this on the talk page for "Williams Revolution", but this term seems to be a strictly Wikipedia term, invented for Wikipedia. All the references I can find to it online, including in chat groups, seem traceable to the Wikipedia entry. I've never encountered it in the literature of evolutionary biology, or anywhere else in print. It's also not a terribly appropriate term. I have nothing but the greatest admiration and appreciation for Williams' contributions, most notably his Adaptation and Natural Selection, but his critique of group selection and advocacy of gene-level selection were much more a "restoration" than a revolution (Darwin clearly rejected group selection, with the clear exception that he contemplated it as a possibility in social insects); furthermore, a number of others at about the same time (e.g. W.D. Hamilton) and slightly later (e.g. Richard Dawkins) had as much or more to do with the elaboration of a strictly gene-centered view (especially as opposed to an individual selection view) as did Williams, so it doesn't seem as if it should bear his name, or at least not his alone.But, regardless, Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing terms.24.209.173.129 08:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I can see that this is not a good situation; however, whatever you do - do not credit Dawkins with the gene-centric view! He is merely a populariser. That would be like crediting "Darwin's bulldog" Huxley with the theory of evolution! - Samsara 14:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Dawkins' role has been more that of a conceptual clarifier and popularizer. I'm not in a position to carefully analyze and evaluate the contributions of the various people involved (that would be original research, anyway), but part of my point about appropriateness of the term "Williams Revolution" was that more people than Williams were involved, which is clear enough without doing historical research. So, don't worry, I won't be apportioning credit! (PS: I'm the same person as 24.209.173.129)-- MayerG 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The article Williams revolution has been put up for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Williams_revolution). See the extensive discussion in Talk:Williams_revolution. The content of "Williams revolution" has been incorporated into Gene-centered view of evolution.-- MayerG 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)