# Talk:Group selection

An editor has revived a years-old tag "This section needs expansion with: specific examples of biological phenomena that indicate that groups of organisms neither serve as a unit of selection nor as a vehicle for gene replication. You can help by adding to it. (September 2023)". 
This was removed because it is highly doubtful that it makes sense to add examples that show something does not occur; it's a bit like choosing the colour of paint for a wall that does not exist. We could give any number of examples of natural selection at individual organism level, but a thousand of those would not show that group selection cannot occur. The section quite rightly quotes biologists who say that individual selection will be much faster than any group selection that might occur, thus drowning it out. That is much better than attempting a WP:SYNTH from multiple examples to construct an argument-by-example, and far less likely to fall foul of Wikipedia's rules on Original Research. I think we should simply remove the tag as inappropriate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

In addition, the restored section has the heading "Criticism". Back in 2015 I posted: "And by the way, I'd merge the "Criticism" section into "Group selection revisited" - sections called "criticism" or "controversy" are always more trouble than they're worth, and they tend to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE ragbags because, after all, the title doesn't say anything about which point of view the section is supposed to be covering. Thoughts?", eliciting no replies, so there was a clear mandate for removing the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Silence is the weakest form of consensus because a lack of response to an edit does not necessarily imply community consent. After reading the specific chapters in Adaptation and Natural Selection that discuss group selection, I can readily say that George C. Williams did review examples of biological phenomena in determining that group selection does not occur rather than mathematical models and was doing so in response to arguments made by V. C. Wynne-Edwards and many others who cited certain biological phenomena in favor of group selection. I had intended to expand the section myself with examples from Adaptation and Natural Selection, as well as Group Selection, The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, Pinker's essay, subsequent books Williams and Maynard Smith wrote about the evolution of sexual reproduction, and a few other sources, but for a non-biologist, summarizing them all with the brevity that Wikipedia requires is not easy since they cite numerous examples, often in technical language, and across hundreds of pages. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I would add that undue weight can be given with greater depth of detail and quantity of text, and if group selection is notable enough of a topic to have a Wikipedia article, the article needs to devote more of its text to explaining why most biologists reject it (per the reference cited for the last sentence of the lead section) since most of the article's current content appears to summarize research that has been conducted in defense of it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
OK I'll take a look. I would say simply that an article about X has to explain what X is and how it is supposed to work, even is mainstream doesn't believe it; and that the arguments against it can be in each section, not necessarily in a chunk at the end. There is policy in due weight of course, but it is a rare thing that an article is 50% against its subject. We already have clear statements against, and they lay the axe to the root of the tree, undermining its theory. That is far more powerful than examples could ever be. My recent additions do that and more, indeed saying that while GS might imaginably add some small increment to inclusive fitness, it does so with a confusing muddle of vague mathematically intractable jargon, which is about as rude a dismissal of any biological theory I can think of. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Two things. I've boldly renamed the section "Opposition", as that's what it is. And I'm increasingly convinced that it will be much better to divide the article's discussion by theme, e.g. 'Altruism', 'Mathematical intractability', 'Failure to distinguish replicators from vehicles'. We already have 'Kin selection and inclusive fitness', and these other sections could smoothly fit in alongside that. It's much tidier than having an 'anti' section trailing along at the end, and named section headings would be clearer and easier to access, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
What you're proposing is more consistent with WP:STRUCTURE than the current layout, but I would still say that the wording of the existing content does not fully articulate why most professional biologists reject group selection and mostly just states that they do in an argument from authority fashion. If the now-titled "Opposition" section were omitted and its content were sprinkled throughout the remaining sections, I think readers would be left with an even more muddled understanding of why most biologists reject it than they are with the current revision given the low ratio of critical to supportive content. It's why I'd argue for keeping a single critical section of the topic until the section is expanded with enough detail to justify separate sections that more extensively detail the major points of criticism that led to its rejection. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I mostly agree. I've held off restructuring but will continue to add evidence. On the "enough detail to justify separate sections", we should note that much of that detail, such as on altruism, is already scattered about the article (not just in 'Opposition'), and would be presented more clearly when regrouped. On argument from authority, not really, as we're reading their arguments, not their degrees and professorships. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
What I meant by "argument from authority" is not degree or professorships but the following content from the article:From the mid-1960s, evolutionary biologists such as John Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton, George C. Williams, and Richard Dawkins argued that natural selection acted primarily at the level of the gene. They argued on the basis of mathematical models that individuals would not altruistically sacrifice fitness for the sake of a group unless it would ultimately increase the likelihood of an individual passing on their genes. A consensus emerged that group selection did not occur, including in special situations such as the haplodiploid social insects like honeybees (in the Hymenoptera), where kin selection explains the behaviour of non-reproductives equally well, since the only way for them to reproduce their genes is via kin. ...However, the vast majority of behavioural biologists have not been convinced by renewed attempts to revisit group selection as a plausible mechanism of evolution. ...From the mid-1960s, evolutionary biologists argued that natural selection acted primarily at the level of the individual. In 1964, John Maynard Smith, C. M. Perrins (1964), and George C. Williams in his 1966 book Adaptation and Natural Selection cast serious doubt on group selection as a major mechanism of evolution; Williams's 1971 book Group Selection assembled writings from many authors on the same theme.
It identifies notable biologists who rejected group selection, the broad thesis they make as a counterargument, and some of their methodology, but does not summarize the full rationale and what evidence they cite. Moreover, the content in the "Kin selection and inclusive fitness theory", "Multilevel selection theory", and "Applications" sections include content mostly supports group selection and does not clearly articulate the criticisms. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Two things.
1) You are quoting from the 'Early developments' section, which is more or less a background and introduction to the detailed argumentation and explanation of inclusive fitness that follows. Readers who want to go further (or even to get a reasonable handle on the whole GS debate) certainly need this much background, and to know the authors and their books that kicked the whole thing off.
2) On the contrary, I'm doing my best to summarize their arguments, which are both complex and numerous. Most of those arguments are theoretical, though (as with pursuit deterrence theory) it is possible to adduce evidence in its favour. The real evidence is in my view mathematical, i.e. plausible models (or stochastically varied families of models) consistently predict that an inclusive-fitness explanation for each phenomenon would work.
I'm adding a bit more evidence, but given that (as you've commented) there are hundreds of pages (no, thousands if we include all the papers) to summarize, we can't do more than give the briefest of sketches here. If there's any particular titbit of evidence that you find particularly satisfying, feel free to add it, or indicate to me what it is and I'll do my best – we all want this to be a wonderfully clear and informative article – but I think you're going *way* beyond the GA criteria here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
BTW on the Replicator–vehicle problem (which seems to have started you off here), I've had a go at stating Dawkins' view simply and plainly as it pertains to group selection. Much of the material in the section, while true, is off-topic for this article, where we just need to say how the replicator-vehicle distinction applies, not its history in evolutionary time etc. Sometimes making an article clearer means making it simpler, so material sometimes has to go, sorry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, first of all, the content you removed reflected the views of Dawkins and George C. Williams. Considering that their views about group selection (along with Maynard Smith and Hamilton) were the ones that became more widely accepted following the group selection debates in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s (per the article's lead section), it is hardly clear why a more detailed summary of them is off-topic per WP:DETAIL and WP:OFFTOPIC and especially where the article's word count is less than 3,900 words—which WP:SIZERULE recommends is a length which "alone does not justify division or trimming". Moreover, Dawkins and Williams explicitly reference abiogenesis and the stability, fecundity, and high-copying fidelity of genes over evolutionary time as part of the explanation of why genes are replicators and groups are not so that is part of why "replicator–vehicle problem" represents a theoretical issue for group selection. As such, I would argue that the content's removal makes the article less clear about why group selection has been rejected by most evolutionary biologists rather than more. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks, but you're missing the point here, which is that the cut text does not speak clearly and directly about the link between the replicator/vehicle distinction and group selection, which is the section's subject. Dawkins and Williams said many cogent things about evolution, but most of them aren't for this particular article, and specially not for this one section. If you have found more from either man that directly concerns the section, or if you think you can rephrase some of the cut material in a way that assists the general reader materially to understand the R/V—GS connection, feel free to go ahead with summarizing it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Many thanks, but you're missing the point here, which is that the cut text does not speak directly about the link between the replicator/vehicle distinction and group selection, which is the section's subject. Nope. You are missing point and simply talking past what I said. Williams explicitly refer to those subjects in the chapters of his book that critique group selection. It is hard to understand how I could be more plain about how what you suggesting goes against both the sources and Wikipedia P&G. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, but my point is simply that the cut wording is (to a biologist) complicated and wandering, and not remotely comprehensible to the average reader. It is therefore simply not satisfactory as encyclopedic wording. If you wish to rephrase some of it to make its purpose and effect clear, then feel free; it is not usable without modification, possibly substantial. I am not challenging Dawkins or Williams, who are great scientists; I'm saying that the cut words are not an adequate summary for the purpose of this section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Any rephrasing of the discussion of the origin of life (for instance) would have to show why that distant topic actually matters for group selection. The fact that Williams mentions it is not sufficient to make the connection clear; instead, the cut wording would sow confusion, not understanding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
This is what the content you removed explicitly said (with emphasis added):
Along with George C. Williams, Dawkins notes that the Miller–Urey experiment indicates that the origin of life from inorganic matter occurred with the emergence of the first self-replicating molecules as proto-genes in a primordial soup through an autocatalytic process, and which eventually formed into cells and single-celled organisms as a consequence of competition for the resources of the primordial soup.
Whether to a biologist it seems wandering is irrelevant per WP:TECHNICAL. Considering that it summarizes Dawkins and Williams with the phrase "self-replicating molecules as proto-genes" that should be sufficient for inclusion in the section titled the "replicator–vehicle problem" which explains why genes are replicators and groups are not. As a non-biologist, it is hard for me to see how that could be written any plainer for a fellow non-biologist. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Moreover, Dawkins makes explicit on the last page in the last paragraph of the first chapter of The Selfish Gene that the book as a whole is both a defense of gene selection and a critique of group selection, and is primarily influenced in the arguments that it makes by Adaptation and Natural Selection by George C. Williams. Then, in the very last sentence of the first chapter, Dawkins explicitly cites the origin of life as the first part of his argument and provides his explanation of why over the whole of the second chapter. So, by your own reasoning, the content should be restored. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Likewise, Williams makes explicit across the first three pages of the first chapter of Adaptation and Natural Selection that the purpose of the book as a whole is to present an Occam's razor critique of group selection and other then-recent proposed qualifications to natural selection as unnecessary explanations for producing adaptations in favor of gene selection, and Williams likewise cites the origin of life from inorganic matter as part of his defense of gene selection. After stating explicitly on the fifth and sixth pages of the first chapter that the fourth through eighth chapters of the book as a whole are where the book presents its most extensive critical review of group selection, Williams revisits the origin of life from inorganic matter in greater detail in the fifth chapter when he reviews arguments made by other biologists that the evolution of sexual reproduction occurred by group selection. So, again, it is unclear by your own reasoning why the content should have been removed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, and more to the point of this entire dispute, Williams explicitly states in the last paragraph of the fourth chapter of Adaptation and Natural Selection (which is titled "Group Selection") that the fifth through eighth chapters are a critical review of adaptations cited by other biologists as examples of adaptations produced by group selection—which should justify including specific examples of biological phenomena in the Wikipedia article about group selection as a description of the debate over group selection in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, and particularly since (1) Williams arguments are among the ones a biologist today would still reference as why most biologists reject group selection (as Pinker notes in his 2012 essay); (2) would only be being used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that could be verified by any educated person with access to Williams book (with The Selfish Gene and other texts being used to support any interpretation of Williams) rather than to combine parts of Williams book and/or others to state or imply conclusions Williams and others did not explicitly state; and (3) would only involve paraphrasing and the kind of summary that no academic journal that publishes original research would publish as original research. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
You are arguing with great passion and at great length, but without addressing the key issue, which is that the passage as written and wrongly restored into the article while discussion is under way fails to show why it is relevant. Stating that whole books by scholars say a vast mass of material is in some way pertinent to the book-length argument (an argument from authority, not from reason) does not answer the now oft-repeated question to you, which is "How does that help the ordinary reader to see that the replicator-vehicle distinction is relevant to group selection?" At the moment, the R-V section goes into all kinds of complex details without actually saying why any of it matters. It urgently needs rewording. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Just on readability, I put the text "Entities can only ... and extinction." into the Hemingway readability checker: it scores "Post-graduate. Poor. 5 of 5 sentences are very hard to read." That is in addition to the issue I've raised above: on that issue, I recall a colleague who used to write "Which means that?" on complicated sales proposals, telling people to connect their elaborate arguments to the practical matter at hand. Putting things intelligibly is *not* WP:OR as you have pointlessly and insultingly stated multiple times just above: that is simple rudeness, and it will not be tolerated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
What is the "Hemingway readability checker"? -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
An online app that checks whether text is likely to be understood by ordinary humans. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Found the free online version. I've checked some other things that I've written on Wikipedia with it. Seems like everything I write is "post-graduate". I don't know whether to take this as a compliment or as a sad indication of a screen time-induced reverse Flynn effect to which the AI clearly must have been trained to appeal appease. :)
I don't try to make my writing any more difficult to read than a broadsheet newspaper article or a non-fiction book about current affairs or social science that are intended for the general reader, but then again most of the public doesn't read their news anymore if they follow the news at all and not past the headlines if they do (or and certainly they don't read something as long as a book books much either) so what used to be considered high school vocabulary and sentence structure must now effectively be PhD-level. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Maybe so. We can all work to write more simply. The main issue here is however that the paragraph does not say why all the technical material is relevant to group selection. Try the "which means that" test on the paragraph, and we may get an account which readers will be able to follow. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see that feature on the free online version. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a signal that I should just give up Wikipedia editing for good. Clearly, I must be wasting my time trying to communicate anything to the general public. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 14:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Nothing to do with the app. FWIW I think you're an excellent editor, even possessing the rare gift of self-reflection. The material in this particular section is a knotty problem, trying to summarize and paraphrase hundreds (thousands?) of pages of dense and complicated argument. Dawkins can make things *extremely* complex and intellectual. I suspect here that my simple diagram says about 80% of what needs to be said; most of the text about how replicators and vehicles came to be is not necessary for an introductory article on group selection. If it is necessary, go ahead and show me why; if not, let's cut it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Checked the lead section to the Abraham Lincoln article to which I did not contribute. It gets a Readability Score of "Grade 13" (which means "undergraduate freshman"?), and still recommends that the writer aim for Grade 9 ("secondary school freshman"?). Frankly, I found The Selfish Gene to be a fairly easy to read, while Adaptation and Natural Selection took me several weeks to read since I often had to look up the definitions of multiple words per page (which shouldn't be surprising since it was intended for graduate students and I'm not a biologist). At the same time, I didn't find the chapters in The Extended Phenotype pertaining to group selection particularly difficult and that is also intended for graduate students (though still with some terminology requiring a dictionary at hand).
I suppose we can cut the abiogenesis-related content, but I still feel that the article's "Criticism" section (now "Opposition") needs at least the subsection on the replicator–vehicle problem (which now exists) and a subsection an Occam's razor subsection because the rest of the article still appears to provide greater coverage to the arguments in favor of group selection rather than the arguments that led to its rejection by most biologists—which is a due weight issue. After reviewing the sources I mentioned before, those appear to be the two broad theoretical issues with group selection, while kin selection, inclusive fitness, reciprocal altruism, the Red Queen hypothesis, and Pinker's critique of multilevel selection are just parts or extensions of the Occam's razor argument because those are all arguments of why groups of organisms don't serve as vehicles for gene replication.
I'd also argue for changing the title to "Theoretical issues" and making it the first section after the "Background" section per NPOV. I don't know that the article needs all of new subsections; sections can be multi-paragraph per WP:DETAIL. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. For me, the readability score is just an aspect of the overall lack of connectedness of the section to the topic "Group selection": glad we agree that abiogenesis is too far removed from the basic argument against GS; I've removed it and recast the text to emphasize the argument's relevance.
On weight, I've no objection to saying a bit more about the arguments, though I will repeat that in an article about X, it is not wrong that much of the article explains what X is and how it is imagined to work, and the arguments for it; due weight can then balance the arguments for part with arguments against, which is very unlikely to take up half the article.
The "it might theoretically work but it's not necessary as an explanation" could be spelt out in more detail, again no special objection, but I'm not in favour of calling a section "Occam's razor" as that will seem quite obscure to the overwhelming majority of our readers who did not study medieval philosophy and theology at school or university: we simply can't assume they already know what it is. We could call that section "An unnecessary explanation", or something of that sort.
Vague section headings like "Theoretical issues" do nothing for the ordinary reader, except to say "Don't bother your pretty heads trying to read this, it's all terribly complicated", which isn't a message I'd ever wish to send in an encyclopedia article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
glad we agree that abiogenesis is too far removed from the basic argument against GS; I've removed it and recast the text to emphasize the argument's relevance. I thought you wanted to cut the content altogether. Your revision hasn't removed the discussion of abiogenesis. You've just changed the wording so that it's a less precise summary and less direct paraphrasing of the sources cited. It's not clear to me that's what readers would really want either.
The "it might theoretically work but it's not necessary as an explanation" could be spelt out in more detail, again no special objection, but I'm not in favour of calling a section "Occam's razor" as that will seem quite obscure to the overwhelming majority of our readers who did not study medieval philosophy and theology at school or university: we simply can't assume they already know what it is. We could call that section "An unnecessary explanation", or something of that sort. We could include a summary hatnote that links to the Occam's razor article since that's what they're for per WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE (along with links in general), and especially since it has a section about its application to group selection in biology specifically.
Vague section headings like "Theoretical issues" do nothing for the ordinary reader, except to say "Don't bother your pretty heads trying to read this, it's all terribly complicated", which isn't a message I'd ever wish to send in an encyclopedia article. It's unclear to me why someone would interpret "Theoretical issues" as a section heading to be patronizing to anyone. I would hope that a reader who has an interest in the subject matter would interpret to mean "theoretical issues" as intended (i.e. theoretical rather than empirical) since the replicator–vehicle problem and Occam's razor are not disputes about conflicting observations or experimental findings but how observations and other findings are interpreted and analyzed. Moreover, per MOS:SECTIONHEAD, section headings are supposed to broadly follow the same guidance for articles titles. "Theoretical issues" is precise, concise, and neutral per WP:AT. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Just as an aside: I would also just say if that "Hemingway readability checker" is going to become a standard tool for evaluating content in light of Wikipedia P&G in general, I don't believe I will be willing to continue to participate in the Wikipedia project anymore. In its use here, it appears to me that rather than improved the writing, it instead appears to have muddled the summary of the sources that was written to articulate nuances about the subject matter that are arguably necessary for understanding it. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, obviously that's your choice. I guess you already know that I believe an encyclopedia for ordinary folks has to be written in language that ordinary folks can understand. I find it difficult to see what alternative there is to that. I further believe when a subject (like evolutionary biology) contains some inherent difficulties, we have a duty both to choose simple words to explain it, and to use simple diagrams. I was in fact thanked by a professor for my Lamarckism diagrams, so perhaps they're not just simple but also accurate. FWIW I think the article is already clearer and more useful to its readership for our joint efforts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
By the way, I just checked the first three paragraphs of David Copperfield and the first paragraph of the "The Fall of the House of Usher" in the Hemingway readability checker. It rates them as "Grade 15" and "Post-graduate" respectively. The first two paragraphs of the United States Declaration of Independence are also rated as "Post-graduate", while the first dozen paragraphs of Wuthering Heights are rated as "Grade 13". The first inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln is rated as "Grade 14". At least when I, an American Millennial, was receiving my secondary education, these were the types of texts that were assigned readings in literature and history courses. Among other reasons, this is why I believe Hemingway editor's assessments of readability are a load of rubbish. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The first chapter of A Tale of Two Cities and the first paragraphs of Isabel Florence Hapgood's 1888 translation of The Hunchback of Notre-Dame are also considered "Post-graduate". At least the first paragraphs of the "Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde", the Gettysburg Address, and Frankenstein are considered "Grade 12" and the first paragraphs of A Christmas Carol and Little Women are "Grade 7" (although I would think they would "Grade 7" and "Grade 4" respectively). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
The Victorians liked complicated novels, just as the Anglo-Saxons liked complicated poetry, but that doesn't mean we should write unintelligibly abstruse treatises in a global 21st-century encyclopedia. We're writing for the average modern Joe, who doesn't read long difficult stuff: tl:dr, as they say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:DETAIL, the typical reader does not read past the lead section. The lead section of articles are for your "average modern Joe"—whom as far as I can tell is a fairly incurious person rather than a busy one (given how many hours per day he spends watching screen-based entertainment and using social media). The body of the article and its sub-articles are for curious non-experts who want a greater degree of detail because they actually do want to understand something, and who are often not college-educated professionals themselves any more than your "average modern Joe". I cite those examples primarily because they are in the public domain rather than because of their time period, but also because they are things your "average modern Joe" is still expected to be able to learn as part of his secondary education if he is willing to apply himself. If he is not willing to apply himself, there is no reason it is not in the interest of the encyclopedia as a putative educational resource for us to dumb down the majority of the content in our articles to appease his incuriosity because there are other readers who are no more educated than him who do want greater detail and a nuanced summary of the topics presented. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
CommonKnowledgeCreator, methinks thou doth protest too much. You are not persuading me in the slightest. I have an 'A' in my Use of English, a Biology degree, useful knowledge of Latin and Greek, wide reading in Biology, and over 10 years' experience editing Wikipedia's science articles. I found the text in the section obscure, and its relevance to the article's theme indiscernible. I've rewritten it so that at least I can understand it. I do not believe that all readers should be required to exceed my qualifications in order to follow the article's text: far from it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
Well, I would first recommend that you assume good faith—unless, Madam Queen, you actually did assist your second husband in the murder of your first as your son and many literary scholars suspect (which would suggest that we should be doubting your sincerity rather than mine as one of the players in The Murder of Gonzago). :) However, since I doubt that analogy is even remotely applicable for this conservation, I would simply say that the evidence you present for your complaint (i.e. Hemingway readability checker scores) is simply too flawed. Perhaps you found the summaries I wrote abstruse and unintelligible, but I believe that any summary must follow the sources cited as closely as possible, and that involves using the terminology used by experts with links to other articles that explain what the terminology means per MOS:UNDERLINK. We should be aiming to bring the reader's understanding to the level of an informed non-expert (i.e. scientific literacy), and I don't believe that the way you have reworded the summary of the sources cited does that. I would add that I have also been editing Wikipedia for years, and reiterate am a non-biologist. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
I totally believe you are acting completely AGF; I just think you are honestly mistaken. As usual, your replies miss the whole point of what I just said. I'm not saying I'm great: I'm saying I have sufficient competence in English to know when stuff is hard to read. Hemingway is basically a red herring: I'm using my native-speaker abilities here. We can't bring readers up to an informed level by talking above their heads in language they can't follow. Since we are not converging in this discussion, I suggest we now stop this thread. You know my view: I won't repeat it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

In any article, we must present the basic thesis of the topic so that the reader knows what it entails, before we start on rejecting it. That way, the reader sees that in this case group selection entails XYZ; then the Rejection or Opposition section explains that XYZ are wrong for reasons ABC. Rejection cannot come first because we're then saying that Unexplained Thesis is incomprehensibly wrong for Out-of-Nowhere reasons ABC, which cannot be a good way of presenting anything. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)