File talk:Editorial cartoon depicting Charles Darwin as an ape (1871).jpg

repro?

This actually appears to be a reproduction work - the original is here: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=image&itemID=CUL-DAR141.5&pageseq=1 (continue to image 3) W@ntonsoup (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Darwin as ape overused

I call this RFC for the reason that this image has proliferated in an unwarranted manner (10 mainspace articles), and to find suitable replacements for this image in as many of the articles as consensus indicates. Anarchangel (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Responses

No fewer than 10 mainspace articles use this image. Would not have made it into any of them were it not for the unhallowed ground that is the inevitable 'Criticism' and 'Response to X's theories' sections? :) I propose that a free use version of the familiar image of the Ascent of Man (a version shown here) might be a suitable replacement for many uses. I support the image's inclusion in Charles Darwin, as it includes his image, albeit a caricature. It obviously belongs in Portraits of Charles Darwin. It also could exist side-by-side with shall we say, more serious representations of Darwin and/or his theories. Anarchangel (talk) 03:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree totally. The main appeal of this picture is that it makes evolution look silly, and also ape-men are funny. There aren't all that many places it could comfortably fit in. BTW, this does look to be a reproduction of this. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I also agree completely. It is clearly being used in ways that don't benefit Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree and suggest that the ideal number of articles for the image to appear in may be about one to three articles (not zero!). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good call! Is definitely overused. I commend the user for even finding this. Seb az86556 (talk) 15:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the complaint here. In which ways that "don't benefit Wikipedia" is the image being used? Anarchangel, you list some articles which you say the image is appropriate for, but why exactly do you (or anyone else who's commented) think it's inappropriate for the others? I'd say that it's eminently appropriate in Reaction to Darwin's theory and History of the creation-evolution controversy, for example. I disagree that its main appeal is that it "makes evolution look silly". That was obviously its author's intent, but in the context of an encyclopedia its role is to show one of the ways that critics of evolution have tried to make it look silly, including the fact that criticism of Darwin often included ad-hominem attacks as well as scientific or religious arguments.

Or is the objection directly to the number of articles, not to specific ones? I can imagine the argument "people browsing through the evolution/creationism articles will get fed up of that image and we should have some variety" being proposed, but since it hasn't been explicitly put forward I'm not sure what you think is wrong per se with having it in so many places (if indeed you do).

I'd be interested to hear your motivation for objecting. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The reaction to Darwin's theory is, as they say, history. The vast majority of scientists support it, and although the charicature of Darwin may represent a minority of popular opinion at the time, it is by no means a mainstream reaction to his theories. I don't support its inclusion in "Reaction to Darwin's theory" just for the sake of supposed balance, in fact I think its inclusion is imbalanced. Of the inclusions that I oppose, "Reaction" is by far one of the weaker ones, as there is some basis for it. It's all very well to take its inclusion on a case by case basis, but something is very wrong with the assessment, I feel, if it is considered the best picture available for all of them. So the answer to, do I object to individual inclusions, or as a whole, is, 'both'.

More important than which are to be deleted, to me, is finding a substitute of the kind I described above. The progression from ape to Man is an iconic 19th and 20th century image that a cartoon cannot hope to match; if anyone knows of an example of this image we could use, please let us know. Anarchangel (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. My understanding is that, at the time, the viewpoint this cartoon represents was pretty widespread and its inclusion isn't therefore unbalanced (though obviously we shouldn't include it to give actual Creationist viewpoints balance - just balanced coverage of the history).

I agree though that looking at alternatives is likely to be a more profitable route. Hopefully we can find a good one, and then come back to discuss for which pages it's better than this cartoon. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that any substitute image would have either the same problem, or a total lack of relevance. A better approach would be to simply remove the images. For example, substituting one of the versions of Ascent of Man with Darwin in the final position would not improve matters, and any other version would not be relevant to a discussion of the critical reception of evolution. Ben Standeven (talk) 19:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

While the image isn't suitable in articles about evolution as science, it's a significant aspect of Charles Darwin's life, and as such this image or similar cartoons appear in the biographies of Darwin. The interesting point is that British cartoonists used them to present Darwin's theory in an unthreatening way, and emphasised his significance in transforming ideas, thus contributing to widespread identification of evolutionism with Darwinism: see Janet Browne's Darwin: The Power of Place pp 376–379. Thus, there's historical significance to the iconic image of Darwin as a bearded ape, and modern perceptions of problems or of the cartoons supporting creationism are rather mistaken in that context. Darwin himself seems to have rather enjoyed the cartoons. Haven't decided what to do with the Charles Darwin srticle, but am inclined to leave out Huxley's ape–man progression which says more about Huxley than about Darwin. . dave souza, talk 20:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! This image is iconic in terms of the 19th century response to Darwin's ideas. It may indeed not be the best choice for a purely scientific article about evolutionary biology, but it is highly appropriate for articles like Charles Darwin and On the Origin of Species that discuss the historical context of Darwin's ideas, and the 19th century debate over them. I am restoring it immediately to Charles Darwin and I would suggest that in the future that before changing images in a featured article, you discuss what you are proposing to do on the talk page of the featured article in question! Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally the reason this image is so iconic is that it symbolizes for a couple of the most profound issues raised by Darwin's work. Namely, its implications for our understanding of man's place in nature and human nature. This issues were at the very center of the 19th century debate over Darwin's ideas. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No. You are mistaken. Janet Brown is mistaken. I will not be restoring. Enough purple prose about this, I am not impressed. Take a look at the URL at the top of this page for the text that accompanied the image: it is straight up farcical caricature, not some Fun With Darwin ad campaign. The Huxley diagram illuminates the fact that the progression of ape to man, printed in a million textbooks, came from Huxley, not Darwin. That remedy to misinformation needs to be where it will do the most good, as well as Huxley's article. Anarchangel (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is uninformed original research: Browne is someone to take very seriously regarding Darwin, and having slept on the problem I fully support Rusty on this. As it happens, Browne discusses this specific image as appearing in March 1871, one month after publication of Descent of Man, and as typifying cartoons that readily identified Darwin as the author of the theory. He responded to a similar cartoon in the same paper by asking a visiting guest "Have you seen me in the Hornet?" Darwin showed it off very pleasantly, saying "The head is cleverly done, but the gorilla is bad: too much chest, it shouldn't be like that." . dave souza, talk 10:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)