This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
After completing this comment, I'll add a few quotes from Wallace Arthur's (1987) book Theories of Life, from notes I made on 19th March 1989, found during my library culling. This book made quite an impact on me at the time, such that despite the huge amount of reading I've done since then, Wallace Arthur's name, and the title of the book, was etched permanently into my memory (which is roughly how I like to run my memory: know where to find the info of interest, and how to think about it when I find it). From the limited information in this article stub, Arthur's works are worth reading for anyone with an interest in evolutionary-developmental biology.
There is doubtless much more to say on this fellow that could usefully develop this article: certainly from the perspective of his theoretical contributions. What a tragedy that some scientists have very very well developed articles not because they are or were good scientists (they are and were: the ones I have in mind), but because they represent a combination of celebrity and controversy, and many people contributing to their articles are converts, critics, or sycophants. If a portion of that effort was directed at lesser known mortals like Wallace Arthur (who is not lesser known in the world of biology by the way), Wikipedia would not be so full of stub articles like this one. Of the 3, 443, 000 articles that Wikipedia boasts, a large portion are stubs containing very litte information of use, and which could do with some of the effort that busy editors plough into already developed articles. Wotnow (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
