Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Poor source

@Dave souza:, I'm wondering why you restored the link to a poor source: an amateur historian's webpage. I accidentally removed a link to Desmond and Moore 1991, which David J. Wilson quickly restored. (Thanks!) Darwin's burial in Westminster Abbey is not the least bit controversial and doesn't need multiple citations. Imo, citing to Leff cheapens our article. YoPienso (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I should have included: The link I provided to Westminster Abbey's own site says, "The chief mourners then followed the coffin into the north aisle of the Nave where Darwin was buried next to the eminent scientist Sir John Herschel, and a few feet away from Sir Isaac Newton." So there's no need to turn to Leff for placement. YoPienso (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Westminster Abbey's page does indeed cover the points in writing, and it's an excellent new source. However, I feel Leff's page provides accessible detail about the occasion, and images showing the location. It's not essential, but in my view provides useful online context. . dave souza, talk 17:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. This presents a common WP dilemma--the choice between an informative but low-quality source or a less informative, more reputable one. A FA is supposed to have "high-quality reliable sources". But I've been unable to turn up an online source nearly as informative as Leff. See Westminster. We have this in Commons, but Darwin's grave isn't labeled. Surely there's a print source! Meanwhile, we seem to agree with a scholarly Scot that a guess (low quality source) is better than a gap. ("When the choice lay between a guess or a gap, I inclined to prefer the former, feeling that the ordinary reader for whom this version is designed would have a proper dislike of gaps."

Forgot to sign. YoPienso (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Difference between races

I would like to add the point that Darwin recognized differences between human races while emphasizing their similarities based on the following statements from The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex:

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate." [comment as of 19:07, 11 December 2015‎ by R3venans (talk · contribs)] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stan Giesbrecht (talk • contribs) 16:33, 24 December 2015‎

References

This is concisely covered by noting that CD was against "ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species", with more detail in footnote VI. Do you propose a published reliable secondary source supporting more detail, and some brief wording you'd like to see added? . dave souza, talk 17:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

First, this comment was originally posted by R3venans, who was falsely accused of being a racist and holocaust denier and blocked from editing. After he was blocked, this post on the talk page was vindictively deleted, which is against Wikipedia policy as blocks are not allowed to be punitive. I restored his comment as a matter of principle. R3venans has been unblocked, but I have no knowledge whether he is still interested in pursuing any changes to this page.

I have recently made a number of edits on the Descent of Man article. There were a lot of distortions and lies there about Darwin’s views on race that I felt had to be addressed. I understand that this is challenging the sacred orthodoxy a bit, and maybe I’ll be unceremoniously punted off Wikipedia like R3venans was, but hopefully not.

I haven’t had much time to review the Charles Darwin page, but footnote VI that you refer to is also dishonest. It says “Darwin did not share the … view that other races are inferior”, which is clearly and explicitly false. Darwin referred to the so-called savage races as being lower on the organic scale in The Descent of Man. Furthermore, the line you refer to about Darwin being “against ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species” might not be false but it is deliberately misleading. Darwin firmly believed in the distinctness of human races. The question for him was whether they should be considered species or subspecies. While Darwin ultimately held that human races were subspecies, it was somewhat of a semantic issue for him. He wrote that the definition of species is “so arbitrary”^{(Descent, 1874, page 177)} that “it is almost a matter of indifference” whether human races “are ranked as species or sub-species”.^{(1874, page 180)}

It is my understanding that I am not allowed to edit the Charles Darwin page, as it is protected. But any self-respecting encyclopedia article on Charles Darwin would include this information, as well as the point that R3venans was making: that Darwin recognized significant differences between the races. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Welcome to the club--I'm always thrilled when a brand-new editor walks in the door armed with some decent knowledge of the project and its guidelines, even if the interpretation is somewhat lacking. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 03:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome. I appreciate it. Charles Darwin was one of the 5 greatest scientists that ever lived, so hopefully we can work together to ensure accuracy in the reporting of what he actually said. There are some major inaccuracies in this article, so it needs some work as well.

You said I misinterpreted the project and/or the guidelines, but didn’t providing any specifics, so I’m not sure how to interpret that. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, you made a vague allegation that I misinterpreted something, but did not say whether it was in relation to Wikipedia policy and guidelines or to Charles Darwin’s writings or to something else altogether. I certainly could have made mistakes and errors and they should be corrected. There are also legitimate issues to discuss over style of presentation. But, I have spent many hours reading The Descent of Man and I am quite confident that my interpretations are substantially correct.

I would very much appreciate if you would specify the specific point(s) that I have misinterpreted along with evidence to back up the charge, or in the alternative, to withdraw the accusation. Baseless allegations are hardly appropriate on Wikipedia. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this isn't about Darwin--it's comments about blocks not supposed to be punitive, for instance, which not everyone knows by the time they made a half a dozen edits; the note about "vindictive" removals, which is a comment about motive which wouldn't be easily accessible to someone who just walked in; in general, one wonders how you got to delve into the history of this article talk page in the first place. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I am glad that you are not disputing my reporting of what Charles Darwin wrote. You questioned why I “delve[d] into the history of this article talk page in the first place”. This should be obvious from my post on the Descent of Man talk page where I highlighted my complete and utter disgust for the way numerous editors have been lying about and distorting Darwin’s views on race. Cleaning up this mess will not be an easy task as there are such inaccuracies in many articles, but it has to be done if Wikipedia wants to keep its excellent reputation. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The situation is obvious, and there will be no cleaning of the claimed mess in this featured article unless based on scholarly analysis by reliable secondary sources. What Darwin wrote 150 years ago should not be interpreted from a 21st century viewpoint. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq, for your post. I would like a clarification on your position, if you would please, only because neither you nor Drmies disputed my reporting of Darwin's writings. Focusing on one fact in particular, it is beyond doubt that Darwin wrote that human races are “distinct subspecies”. This is relevant to the Charles Darwin article, because determining the taxonomic rank of human races was 1 of the 3 questions which Darwin said that he would confine himself to^{(Descent, 1874, page 2)} in The Descent of Man, his second most important work. Furthermore, Darwin’s own writings are cited many times by this article, because, of course, Wikipedia allows primary sources when their reliability is firmly established.

So to clarify, you are saying that you would be willing to oppose any addition that doesn’t have a secondary source meeting your approval, even if the fact in question is (1) established beyond dispute, (2) relevant to the article, and (3) properly sourced according to Wikipedia policy. Do I understand your position correctly? Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes Stan Giesbrecht, as noted above it's Wikipedia policy to base articles on third party secondary sources, and refer to such sources for any interpretation of the primary source. You're not only basing arguments on a primary source, but seem to be taking words out of context. For some reason you're citing the 1874 second edition, but from p. 177 you've quoted "so arbitrary" but left out "is the term of species, that such early races would perhaps have been ranked by some naturalists as distinct species, if their differences, although extremely slight, had been more constant than they are at present, and had not graduated into each other." So here Darwin is arguing against these early races being ranked as species. Similarly, from p. 180 you quote that “it is almost a matter of indifference” whether human races “are ranked as species or sub-species” out of the context:

Whether primeval man, when he possessed but few arts, and those of the rudest kind, and when his power of language was extremely imperfect, would have deserved to be called man, must depend on the definition which we employ. In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term "man" ought to be used. But this is a matter of very little importance. So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate. Finally, we may conclude that when the principle of evolution is generally accepted, as it surely will be before long, the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists will die a silent and unobserved death.

So, CD is stating that "sub-species" is more appropriate from his evolutionary viewpoint, in relation to the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists. You seem to be misrepresenting his rather complex argument, and so we'll have to give careful consideration to the other edits you've made which may incorporate similar misrepresentation. To settle this, a good published secondary source is needed. . . dave souza, talk 20:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

1. It's true that I have been using the 2nd edition from 1874 (and sometimes the 2nd edition from 1882). I first started reading the 2nd edition, and now it’s what I know best. Most of the content is substantially the same as the 1st edition, so it’s usually not a big deal. Referencing is somewhat easier with the 2nd edition because there is only one volume, but I recognize that me using the 2nd edition makes it harder for people using the 1st, so I apologize for that.

2. Dave souza, you say that “Darwin is arguing against these early races being ranked as species” in the quoted passage from page 177. This simply isn’t true. He is actually saying that if early races were more isolated than they are now, they might potentially have been classified as different species back then. But that’s not the point. The point is, Darwin is saying that the term “species” is arbitrary, exactly as I reported.

3. You claim that “CD is stating that "sub-species" is more appropriate from his evolutionary viewpoint, in relation to the dispute between the monogenists and the polygenists.” This is patently false. There is nothing in this paragraph or the rest Chapter 7 that could justify your claim that sub-species refers to the monogenism / polygenism debate for 4 reasons. (1) This paragraph is a summary of some preceding paragraphs after which Darwin goes on to other topics. The first 4 sentences explain that Darwin thinks the term “species” is not well defined but that subspecies is more appropriate to describe human races (again, as I reported). The last sentence concludes his views of the monogenism / polygenism debate which he discussed on the preceding pages. (2) The last sentence comes after the first 4, but does not refer to them at all. It is a complete thought all on its own. (3) As Darwin explained on the preceding pages, the monogenism / polygenism debate was whether humans originated from a single source or had multiple origins. I won't go into the details, but it is an entirely different discussion than whether or not human races are subspecies. (4) If there is any doubt about what Darwin means by sub-species in Chapter 7, it is succinctly answered in the concluding chapter, where he wrote, “Through the means just specified, aided perhaps by others as yet undiscovered, man has been raised to his present state. But since he attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, subspecies.” ^{(emphasis added, 1874, page 608)} That’s very clear evidence that Darwin thought subspecies applied to present day humans and not the monogenism / polygenism debate as you claimed.

4. The truth is, you are the one taking things out of context, and then accusing me of what you are guilty of. I have seen this tactic used many times on Answers In Genesis. It can be very effective to distract an audience from a black and white situation. I hope my edits do get the careful consideration that you call for. I do make mistakes at times, but Darwin’s writings are not nearly as complicated as you pretend they are, and I am extremely confident that my summarizing of his work is substantially correct.

5. With all that said, this is mostly a diversion from my original comment to Johnuniq's post. I don’t think Darwin's comments about the definition of species being arbitrary should go in the Charles Darwin article. dave souza was replying to what I had posted in the Descent of Man article and not what I posted in the talk page here. Obviously the article on Descent of Man should substantially summarize the contents of the book, unlike the Charles Darwin article which should only focus on the important issues.

6. In my original comment to Johnuniq, I was focusing on the fact that Darwin wrote and believed that human races were distinct subspecies, which definitely needs go on the Charles Darwin page. Why the distinction? Because this was important to Darwin. In the introduction to the Descent of Man, Darwin lists 3 points that he confines himself in the book. The 3rd point listed was to determine the taxonomic rank of human races.^{(1874, page 2 + 166)} The Descent was the second most important of all of Darwin’s works. It is something that he had considered doing much earlier, but was scared of the backlash. The fact that the issue of ranking human races was one of his 3 mains points of such a hugely important book shows that this issue was very important to him. Furthermore, he gave a clear and succinct answer to the question he posed. So, in conclusion, any self-respecting encyclopedia article on Charles Darwin will report that he wrote that humans diverged into distinct subspecies, using a neutral point of view. That is what I am asked for. The world didn't end when he brought us the theory evolution, and the world won't end if we accurately report what he wrote. Thank you for your consideration. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum where editors swap opinions on the topic, nor is it a place to express personal opinions arising from examination of original documents. Here is the secondary sources link again—such sources are the only thing that will receive attention here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

1. It is not a “personal opinion” that Darwin wrote that humans have diverged into distinct subspecies. It is an empirical fact.

2. You wrote, “This is not a forum where editors swap opinions on the topic”. I wasn’t swapping opinions, I was pointing out inaccuracies in Dave souza’s post.

3. Here is the third-party secondary source that you have been asking for: Why racism is not backed by science, from the Guardian, states: “This article was amended on 29 June 2015. An earlier version said Darwin did not think human races might be separate sub-species. In fact he did refer to human races as sub-species.” (emphasis added). In the article, Adam Rutherford argues that race doesn’t exist. He claimed that Darwin didn’t think human races were separate subspecies to bolster his argument, but he and the newspaper acknowledged that this wasn’t true when presented with the evidence that his claim was false.

4. You are misapplying the Wikipedia policy on sources. From the link you provided: “Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.” (emphasis added) The Descent of Man is definitely reputably published, so there is no prohibition to relying on it for straight forward information, such as the quote I bolded and underlined in para 3 of my previous post, and this information is further verified by the Guardian.

5. The fact that Darwin wrote that humans have diverged into subspecies is true, verified, reliable, properly sourced, relevant, important to Charles Darwin, simple, and straight forward. It is only political correctness gone overboard that is preventing it from being reported in the Charles Darwin article. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't get to interpret what he wrote. It simply doesn't work that way as has been pointed out to you. Move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Stan Giesbrecht for producing a secondary source, which may be useful for supporting the point that CD was not a racist. This merits discussion in a new section. Regarding Stan Giesbrecht's other comments, it's not acceptable to make accusations of lies or "political correctness gone overboard" from editors, "assume good faith" is mandatory and more civility is needed for continuing discussion. . dave souza, talk 18:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

What’s unacceptable is to claim that I made a point out of context when I hadn’t. What’s unacceptable is to claim that Darwin was only referring to subspecies in the monogenism / polygenism debate, when he wrote in the conclusion that “[Man] has diverged into distinct … subspecies”. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Dbrodbeck, you’re absolutely right. It has been pointed out to me many times … in church: “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding” (emphasis added, Proverbs 3:5, KJV). In truth though, I am not interpreting anything. It is a straight forward reading of both primary and secondary sources.

2. But as you say, it is time to move on. I deeply respect the consensus building process on Wikipedia, and you’re correct that the consensus here is that the world is not quite ready for this much Charles Darwin. Which is kind of sad, but that’ll change in due course. People are hungry for knowledge. So, I’ll be back, and so will others.

3. With that said, I would like to request 2 deletions, both of which unsourced and inconsistent with Darwin’s writings. I propose deleting: (1) “not racial inferiority” in the sentence “To Darwin, the difference showed cultural advances, not racial inferiority.” in the section “Voyage of the Beagle”; and (2) “Darwin did not share the then common view that other races are inferior” in footnote VI. In fact, Darwin did refer to races as being higher and lower in the organic scale in The Descent of Man. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

1. Dave Souza, I waited over 23 hours before making these 2 deletions. You quickly reverted it, claiming that the first line (“not racial inferiority”) was sourced by the citation for the following sentence. I think that’s improperly cited. The sentence is completely inconsistent with everything in the Descent of Man. I'm not doing original research, I'm using common sense. Because it is likely to be challenge, it needs to be cited directly. How is the reader supposed to know that the citation doesn’t refer only to the one sentence it’s attached to? But I didn't come here to edit war.

2. I posted my intention to make the deletion. You didn't say you were opposed, despite having a whole day to do so, but it didn't take you long to make the reversion. That’s poor form. That’s what Wikipedia has a talk page for.

3. The second line, “Darwin did not share the then common view that other races are inferior” in the footnote isn’t sourced. Please advise me: Are you going to revert me again if I delete that one again? Are you going to tell me on the talk page here or will I only find out after I make the deletion? Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the edit summary, it is sourced to Browne. There is no consensus for this change. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not correct. The 1st line I deleted might be sourced to Browne, but the 2nd ("Darwin did not share the then common view that other races are inferior") certainly isn't. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You need WP:CONSENSUS to make the change. I just don't see it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Note VI in the article--Darwin did not share the then common view that other races are inferior, and said of his taxidermy tutor John Edmonstone, a freed black slave, "I used often to sit with him, for he was a very pleasant and intelligent man",--seems to be a mistaken synthesis: the fact that Darwin found Edmonstone "pleasant and intelligent" does not say Darwin did not consider the man inferior. (Edmonstone is unnamed in the Autobiography, p. 51, and not called a tutor, but simply referred to as a negro [who] lived in Edinburgh, who had travelled with Waterton and gained his livelihood by stuffing birds.)

In an 1862 letter to Chas. Kingsley, Darwin wrote, "It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the Human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank." Without a source to support the assertion in the note, this is sufficient to keep it out. Before somebody jumps on me for OR/SYN with a primary source, read on, please.

Marek Kohn's review ( tertiary source) of Adrian Desmond & James R. Moore's Darwin's Sacred Cause (a secondary source) says, "Darwin thus emphasised human unity and dwelt upon superficial differences, while acquiescing in the contemporary assumption that some races were superior to others." [Emphasis added.]

Steven Rose, in EMBO Reports, wrote, "Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy." [Emphasis added.]

Therefore, I think it's proper to remove Note VI from the bio.

NB: This casts no aspersions on Darwin, but only tells when and where he lived. YoPienso (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for these sources. I really appreciate it. I have made the deletion. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I meant to remove the first line from Note VI, which I have now done. YoPienso (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

As discussed below, the "higher races of man" were likely to have been cultural rather than biological, but CD didn't have that modern distinction. The other tow sources are reviews of Darwin's Sacred Cause, another review (should be a free download) discusses among other things how "Because of the rapport [CD and Edmonton] developed, young Darwin learned firsthand that “black and white men possessed the same essential humanity.” " There are more sources discussing this rather complex topic. . dave souza, talk 18:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see discussion in section "Darwin on racial inferiority" Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Darwin on racial inferiority

It seems that at some juncture some caretaker of Darwin's reputation added incorrect info that he didn't perceive racial inferiority. In the "Difference between races" section, I provided several RSs that show he did. There still remains a passage to be corrected, To Darwin, the difference showed cultural advances, not racial inferiority. Unlike his scientist friends, he now thought there was no unbridgeable gap between humans and animals.(Harvnb|Browne|1995|pp= 244–250). I don't have access to the source, but rather doubt it denies Darwin saw racial inferiority. Desmond and Moore, in Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, p. xxi, say, "He thought blacks inferior but was sickened by slavery."

How can we fix that passage?

I want to reiterate that this is no attack on Darwin. His thought was far ahead of his day. It's unrealistic to expect 21st-century sensibilities in a Victorian, but it's wrong to ascribe them to him when he didn't possess them. YoPienso (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently looking at several sources: it's a bit complex, and to add to it CD's views changed over time. I don't have Desmond and Moore's Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist as that's the U.S. edition of their publication which appeared earlier in the UK as Darwin (paperback 1992), presumably the title was extended to make it more exciting. The intro only goes up to p. xix, it does include that sentence. There's more detail in their intro to The Descent of Man and in their more recent Darwin's Sacred Cause which has on p. 26 "These weeks with John [Edmonstone] confirmed Darwin's belief that black and white men possessed the same essential humanity. Later in life he would say that the races he encountered during his voyage on the Beagle, no less than the 'negro with whom I happened once to be intimate', obviously shared 'so many little traits of character with himself'. I showed 'how similar their minds were to ours'. Coming from a family which had campaigned to emancipate Britain's colonial slaves, and obeying the abolitionist command to honour black people as 'equal humans', young Darwin had been happy to be taught by a 'full-blooded negro'."
As the reviews you've posted note, Desmond & Moore's research is good but their views may be rather controversial. Browne gives a more balanced overview, so in my opinion is a good starting point.
Regarding the race issue, it's difficult to show it concisely in context: remember Darwin's "favoured races" were illustrated by discussion of the several races, for instance, of the cabbage. We cite John Wilkins' published writings, his own Myth 7: Darwin thought that Australian aborigines were closer to apes than to Europeans – Evolving Thoughts discusses the "organic chain" idea and his view that "Darwin doesn’t tell the difference between culture and biology. He has no nature/nurture distinction, and neither did anyone else much until the rise of genetics forty years after the Origin." Also, note that Darwin is often quoting others such as his uni chum William Rathbone Greg (there's an article needing improvement), and takes seriously their views which were progressive at the time, but now would be seen as very politically incorrect.
So yes, my aim is to rethink the coverage, but am rather slow and don't find it straightforward. More later. . dave souza, talk 18:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's very complex. Even the definition of "racism" is--according to an African-American niece and Native American friends, I'm automatically racist because I was born with white privilege. These new sensibilities fog the historical lens. As Wilkins wrote, "He concedes to the racism of his peers, but its a cultural racism, not a biological one, I think. Darwin is not so much a racist as he is a Eurocentrist. Of course, racism need not be at all biological to be racism."

There is no question Darwin thought Englishmen were superior to Africans and Indians. He was progressive in seeing essential humanity in each person he met, and particularly in being willing to be taught by an African. (In contrast, when our schools were forcibly integrated in the 1960s, many Southerners were still unwilling to submit to being taught--or having their children taught--by African-Americans.) But I think the record is clear that Darwin didn't consider non-Europeans equal. The problem is how to write an accurate article without writing an essay on racism!

Wrt cabbages, Golding knew that people also "revert to the wild aboriginal stock." YoPienso (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

1. I will address 3 points raised by Dave Souza and present evidence: 1) that Darwin included humans in the term “favoured races”, 2) that Wilkin’s article actually shows that Darwin believed in racial superiority and inferiority, and 3) that Desmond and Moore are credible when the write that Darwin thought blacks inferior.

2. Favoured Races. Darwin described natural selection happening through the preservation of favoured races.^{(Origin, 1859, page 467)} He believed that humans were very much part of the same process and not just cabbages, as has been alluded to. Darwin used the term “races of man” 3 times in Origin of Species. He also explicitly referenced humans in Origin of Species at least twice, describing these references in the Descent of Man: (1) “It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in the first edition of my 'Origin of Species,' that by this work "light would be thrown on the "origin of man and his history;" and this implies that man must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth.”^{(emphasis added, Descent, 1874, page 1)} and (2) “it has been said by several critics, that when I found that many details of structure in man could not be explained through natural selection, I invented sexual selection; I gave, however, a tolerably clear sketch of this principle in the first edition of the 'Origin of Species,' and I there stated that it was applicable to man.”^{(emphasis added, Descent, 1874, page vi)}

3. In the Descent of Man, Darwin discusses the extinction of “many races and sub-races”^{(Descent, 1874, page 181)} quite extensively, showing that he considered the preservation and extinction of human races to follow the same laws of nature as other species.

4. The Wilkins article you cited insinuates that Darwin didn’t think apes were closer to Australians than they were to Europeans. But what the title actually claims is that Darwin didn’t think Australians were closer to apes than they were to Europeans. This is, of course, true. Darwin thought there was a much bigger gap between apes and Australians than between Australians and Europeans. But Wilkins is trying to conflate the 2 very different points and avoid the real issue. He does this throughout the article; there is no real substance here.

5. Wilkins acknowledges that “[Darwin] arrays human variation from ‘civilised’ to ‘savage’, with Europeans at one end, and great apes at the other.” But then Wilkins claims that “[Darwin] clearly doesn’t need this – as far as he is concerned, according to his theory of common descent all human races must be equally evolved”.^{(emphasis added)} This is incorrect for 3 reasons: (1) It does not follow from Darwin’s theory of common descent that all human races must be equally evolved. Darwin recognized that all animals shared common descent, yet Darwin clearly saw some as more evolved than others. As mentioned above, this is how Darwin saw nature selection happening: by the preservation of favoured races, and this includes humans. (2) Wilkins is employing the fallacy of begging the question. He assumes the issue he is trying to prove, and then uses that assumption to prove his conclusion. Whether or not Darwin saw all human races as equally evolved is exactly what he set out to prove, and now he just baldly asserts it here. (3) Darwin wrote, “At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations, excepting where the climate opposes a deadly barrier; and they succeed mainly, though not exclusively, through their arts, which are the products of the intellect. It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection; and this conclusion is sufficient for our purpose.”^{(emphasis added, Descent, 1874, page 128)} In other words, Darwin is saying that it is “highly probable” that some races are more evolved by natural selection than others.

6. Wilkins quote the common passage from Chapter 6 about the break in the organic chain and claims that “The argument given here is not one of progress but of taxonomy.” This is a false dichotomy fallacy. The fact that there Darwin discusses taxonomy does not preclude him from discussing progress. And in fact, Darwin refers to “some ape as low as a baboon” which is proof that his argument is about both taxonomy and progress on the organic scale.

7. Wilkins claims that it is a “failing” that “Darwin doesn’t tell the difference between culture and biology”. He writes that Darwin “concedes to the racism of his peers, but its a cultural racism” but then goes on to say that “racism need not be at all biological to be racism” thus proving that whether the racism was biological or cultural or some mix, Darwin was expressing some form of racial superiority and inferiority.

8. Wilkins also says that it is “unfortunate” that Darwin used the term “organic chain” and says a couple of times that Darwin was “confused”. But the important point is that Darwin wrote what he wrote. We are not discussing issues that Darwin mentions in passing, but things that he wrote extensively on. It’s not relevant to our discussion that Wilkins finds it inconvenient.

9. Desmond and Moore write that Darwin recognized that all humans possessed “essential humanity”. But believing in essential humanity is different than thinking everyone is the same. Darwin wrote, “The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said. So it is with the lower animals.”^{(emphasis added, Descent, 1874, page 27)} This shows that Darwin did see differences between the races even if all people had essential humanity.

10. Desmond and Moore might be controversial on some points, but their claim that Darwin thought blacks inferior is well supported by many primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. You say you find Browne to have a more balanced view, but on this point Desmond and Moore's view is supported by more sources. Furthermore, it is not clear that the author of the line “To Darwin, the difference showed cultural advances, not racial inferiority” really sourced this to Browne, as the citation is on the following sentence. I don’t have access to her book, so I cannot check to see what Browne actually wrote, but given how this claim is contradicted by so many sources, I think the author probably took Browne's work out of context if he or she used Browne at all.

11. In conclusion, these 3 points you raise actually push towards removing the phrase, “not racial inferiority”. Darwin clearly included humans in his discussions in Origin of Species which identified favoured races as leading to natural selection. Wilkins acknowledges that Darwin was expressing racial inferiority, even if the biological/cultural divide isn’t necessarily clear. And Desmond and Moore are credible when they write that Darwin thought blacks were inferior. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we can trust Desmond, with "a Ph.D. in the area of the Victorian-period context of Darwinian evolution." He was tapped by the Encyclopedia Britannica to write the Darwin article, in which he says, "Darwin was a typical Victorian in his racial and sexual stereotyping—however dependent on his redoubtable wife, he still thought women inferior; and although a fervent abolitionist, he still considered blacks a lower race." Check out his publisher's blurb.

This doesn't mean we have to accept Desmond & Moore's thesis in Sacred Cause (but why not?) or castigate Darwin for living in the 1800s. YoPienso (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Couple of interim thoughts: Desmond and Moore are certainly experts, if sometimes controversial. The sentences we're discussing above aren't Victorian-period, and as Desmond says in Britannica; "His contact with 'untamed' humans on Tierra del Fuego in December 1832 unsettled him more. How great, wrote Darwin, the 'difference between savage & civilized man is.—It is greater than between a wild & [a] domesticated animal.' God had evidently created humans in a vast cultural range, and yet, judging by the Christianized savages aboard, even the “lowest” races were capable of improvement." If you read through that source, he indicates that Darwin's ideas of egalitarianism varied over time; by 1837 there "was no way of ranking humans and bees, no yardstick of 'highness': man was no longer the crown of creation." On the meeting with the Fuegians, see Desmond & Moore's Darwin [life of tormented etc.] p. 147: "Although essentially the same creature, Darwin conceded, remembering the civilized Jemmy and his friends, 'how little must the mind of one of these beings resemble that of an educated man.' It all seemed to fly in Lyell's face – Lyell, who damned talk of monkeys and savages and philosophers linked in an evolutionary chain." .... Lyell thought "Human beings might be diverse, but they showed only slight deviation from a common standard." . . dave souza, talk 19:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

1. I can't even figure out what you are trying to say. Lyell thought that humans “showed only slight deviation from a common standard” and what Darwin believed “seemed to fly in Lyell's face”. So, the inference here is that Darwin believed that humans diverged widely? This is not an argument for keeping the disputed line "not racial inferiority" which refers to Darwin's views of the Fuegians, and stands in stark contrast to the Descent of Man where Darwin wrote, "The Fuegians rank amongst the lowest barbarians”.^{(1874, page 65)} Based on what you wrote here, you seem to be acknowledging that Darwin believed in racial inferiority in 1832, but then are claiming that he changed his mind on this by 1837, before he reverted back to believing in racial inferiority when he wrote the Descent.

2. The disputed line claims that Darwin thought the differences were cultural, not racial. This is comparing apples and oranges. As your source, Wilkins, writes, cultural racism is still racism. Thus, it is a false dichotomy. Darwin often referred to the "savage races" so differences definitely could be both cultural and racial to him.

3. By your own admission, this is a complicated area. These are all major red flags which establish that we are dealing with an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. Wikipedia policy states that “Exceptional claims require exceptional sources” and “Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.” (emphasis in original). So, even if this line is sourced to Browne, and there is no evidence that it actually is, it still wouldn't meet the WP:BURDEN, which states, “The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.” (emphasis in original)

4. Furthermore, even if the claim can be verified by multiple high quality sources, “Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion” (WP:ONUS). One of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV). According to Wikipedia, “This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.” The page in a nutshell states, “Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias.” (emphasis in original). The article does not explain both sides. There clearly is an editorial bias. Darwin wrote extensively about the higher and lower races on man in the Descent of Man. It would be absurd in the extreme to give more weight to his personal notebooks than to his second most famous work which he writes specifically to deal with these types of issues (WP:UNDUE). The article would otherwise need to include this discussion to present a balanced NPOV.

5. To recap, the line "not racial inferiority" needs to be removed from, "To Darwin, the difference showed cultural advances, not racial inferiority" for the article to meet Wikipedia’s high standards. First, numerous red flags show that it is an exceptional claim, which requires multiple high-quality sources. Second, it takes a side which violates the NPOV principle. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've edited the paragraph for clarifications that CD didn't believe in inherent racial inferiority citing Janet Browne (23 February 2010). Charles Darwin: Voyaging: Volume 1 of a biography. Random House. pp. 243–244, 248–250, 382–383. ISBN 978-1-4070-5320-2., for "Both FitzRoy and Darwin ... were absolutely certain that all human beings came from the same stock – that there had been only one original species of mankind, however diverse human beings now appeared to be – and recoiled from the idea that primitive races wee intrinsically different" and comments on improvement. Similar points are made by Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 133, 145–148, 221–222 . . dave souza, talk 11:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1. Your edit links “inherent racial inferiority” to polygenism. You clearly don’t understand what it means. From the link: “Polygenism is a theory of human origins positing that the human races are of different origins (polygenesis). This is opposite to the idea of monogenism, which posits a single origin of humanity”. There is nothing here about racial inferiority because that is not what polygenism is about. Darwin explains this in the Descent of Man, as I've already pointed out to you. I’m not sure you should be editing on this particular subject if you don’t understand the difference (WP:CIR).

2. Janet Browne wrote that Darwin “recoiled from the idea that primitive races [were] intrinsically different” and from this you synthesize the claim that Darwin thought the differences were not “inherent racial inferiority”. This is WP:ORIGINAL research: “The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research” (emphasis in original). Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1. While I think that link covers well the issues of polygenism and ideas of inherent racial inferiority, it may be better to phrase this to show CD's recommitment to monogenism. That article's currently rather poor, so a task to improve it. As already pointed out, Descent is a primary source and not the best source for CD's views on the Beagle.
2. There's a lot of context all confirming CD's opposition to polygenism and to slavery, this article is a brief outline aiming to reflect accurately secondary sources rather than your original research from primary sources. . . dave souza, talk 17:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

1. First you link the article on polygenism and say it covers the issues well, then you say it’s poorly written, so that’s clear as mud.

2. I have never disputed Darwin’s opposition to polygenism or slavery nor asked for them to not be reported. Your desire “to show CD's recommitment to monogenism” does not, of course, represent a neutral point of view. Words such as “remained convinced” and “despite this diversity” represent WP:EDITORIALIZING. Nobody doubts that humans have the potential for improvement, so the line about that is pure excess. (As a point of grammar, you are missing “had” in “He remained convinced that … all humans … potential for improvement” which I’m not correcting because I think "potential for improvement" should be deleted entirely.)

3. The Descent of Man is Darwin’s second most important work and should not be dismissed out of hand. The article needs to accurately reflect both reliable secondary and primary sources. With all that said, we have cleaned up some major inaccuracies here, which I’m thankful for, and I don’t have time right now to deal with NPOV violations. Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Firestorm of debate

I've removed the quote saying that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man" had "created a firestorm of debate by implying that humans evolved from animals." It's cited to Introduction to "Evolution of Evolution: Anthropology," National Science Foundation, n.d. Retrieved 17 Jan. 2016. Click to essay by Tim White that largely validates Darwin's predictions in “The Descent of Man that human ancestors would be found in Africa." However, the quote is in the intro, author unknown, and rather goes against the point made earlier [cited to van Wyhe] that there was less controversy than had greeted the popular Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. White's essay looks like a useful source, possibly for the Descent article. Browne makes the point on p. 90 that the expected storm of controversy did not crack open immediately. On p. 87, discussing the Leifchild Athenaeum review, she writes that "That first review rankled", and earlier notes that it was published four days before OtOOS was published, so I've restored the mention that this was the first review. . dave souza, talk 18:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Wrt to "firestorm," there was a reason Huxley was called "Darwin's bulldog." He gleefully anticipated combating "the curs which will bark and yelp. [...] I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness." That the immediate controversy was less than the one over Vestiges doesn't mean it was small. But I'm fine with your edit.

Yes, I missed that Leifchild's review was apparently the first published review. YoPienso (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, after the slow initial start there was widespread debate about human evolution, but as van Wyhe says, "recent research suggests that the reaction to Darwin's Origin was less of a furore than once believed", and in relation to the discussion above, "Although Darwin refrained from discussing the derivation of any particular species, including man, in the Origin except for his famous sentence: 'Much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history' many people who read the book could think only about what this genealogical view of life meant for human beings." Maybe worth adding a cite to that. . dave souza, talk 03:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Family Tree

ALL of the grandchildren have now been accounted for, but the spouses of three grandchildren: Charles, Gwendoline, and Ruth are currently 'missing': of the second generation of the Darwin family (grandchildren of Charles and Emma) the following three graves have NOT yet been located: Lady Katharine Darwin, nee Pember, wife of Sir Charles Galton Darwin; Jacques Pierre Paul Raverat (husband of Gwen Raverat, nee Darwin) and also William Rees-Thomas (husband of Ruth Rees – Thomas, nee Darwin). (Unfortunately the grave of Erasmus Darwin (1881-1915), son of Sir Horace and Lady 'Ida' Darwin, was destroyed during WWI.) Of these three, Jacques Raverat is more than likely to be the most difficult to find in France, the other two are somewhere in England! Any help in finding these three is to be much appreciated?

'Darwinian Gravedigger' 2.30.187.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Darwin was not a racist

Thanks for providing a secondary source in the above discussion. That looks useful as a source for the point that "Darwin was not a racist. He did not, unlike many of his contemporaries, think human 'races' might be separate creations. He was a staunch abolitionist, impressed and influenced by his friend and taxidermy tutor John Edmonstone at Edinburgh, who was a freed black slave."

• Rutherford, Adam (1 March 2015). "Why racism is not backed by science". the Guardian. Retrieved 30 December 2015. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Adam Rutherford is well qualified as a science author and geneticist, so his views appear worthwhile though he's not a specialist Darwin biographer. Apparently he's in the process of writing a book which will discuss this topic area. He makes the interesting point "that while Galton spawned a field with the intention of revealing essential racial differences between the peoples of the Earth, his legacy – human genetics – has shown he was wrong. Most modern geneticists are much less like Galton and more like Darwin." As mentioned above, a footnote adds that an "earlier version said Darwin did not think human races might be separate sub-species. In fact he did refer to human races as sub-species." This is a complex area, and needs clarification from further sources. More later. . . dave souza, talk 18:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

"Most modern geneticists are … like Darwin" and "[Darwin] did refer to human races as sub-species". From this we can infer that you're saying that most modern geneticists refer to human races as sub-species. Very interesting! Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You are WP:SYNTHesizing stuff, we don't do that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

follow up complaint

1. When Adam Rutherford’s article first came out last year, I was shocked both at how he brazenly lied about Darwin saying that humans have diverged into distinct subspecies and how he ignored comments posted to the article pointing out that this was not true. It took some time to get the courage to complain, and although the Guardian totally ignored my first complaint, they eventually amended the article on that point. I had also pointed out that Darwin had mentioned humans in OTOOS, but it seems that Rutherford told the Guardian that even though Darwin had “mentioned” humans, Darwin hadn’t “discussed” humans in OTOOS. I have come to see more clearly what a load of WP:BULLSHIT this is. I have again complained to the Guardian / Observer, sending a second when I didn’t hear back from the first, which you can check out if interested:

Letter to Guardian, February 2

Dear Barbara Harper and/or other complaints editors, In this complaint, I am asking you (the Guardian) to correct 2 inaccuracies from the article Why racism is not backed by science, which you published on March 1, 2015. The problematic sentence states, “Of course, Darwin doesn’t discuss humans in that great book, and ‘races’ was used to describe groups within non-human species.” Here Adam Rutherford is making the following 2 false claims: (A) that Darwin did not discuss humans at all in the Origin of Species, and (B) that Darwin never referred to human races in the Origin of Species. The original article also claimed that Darwin didn’t think that human races were separate subspecies. In fact, Darwin had clearly indicated his belief that they were. On June 1, I wrote in to complain about all 3 misrepresentations. My first email letter was ignored so I sent in another complaint on June 24. My second letter was very strongly worded and focused on the particularly egregious subspecies claim. That time I got a response from you, although Mr. Rutherford has never contacted me as he indicated to you he would. The article was amended on June 29, acknowledging that Darwin had referred to human races as subspecies. This was a huge improvement and I did not pursue the other 2 misrepresentations further at that time. I have since become much more familiar with Origin of Species. I have also recently spent time editing and correcting misrepresentations about Charles Darwin on Wikipedia and have become personally acquainted with some brazen dishonesty from editors there who want to present a particular image of Darwin to the world. Following are some of the ways in which the 2 disputed claims are explicitly false: Claim A. Discuss means to talk about. Here are 4 ways that Darwin talks about or discusses humans in Origin of Species. (1) Darwin talked many times about the ability of humans to select for traits in domesticated animals and plants. (2) Darwin described sexual selection and stated that it applied to humans (Origin, 1859, page 199; see his description of this: Descent of Man, Ed 2, 1874, page vi). (3) Darwin compared the human hand with appendages of other mammals on several occasions, such as when he wrote, “The framework of bones being the same in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse … at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with … modifications” (emphasis added, Origin, 1859, page 479). (4) Darwin wrote that by future research, “Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history” (emphasis added, Origin, 1859, page 488; see his description of this: Descent of Man, page 1). Any defence based on the claim that Darwin mentioned humans without talking about them at all in Origin of Species is completely bogus and absurd. Claim B. Darwin used the term “races of man” 3 times in his first edition of Origin of Species. (Please go to Darwin Online and search it for yourself.) On page 199, Darwin stated that the differences between the “races of man” are “so strongly marked” and he wrote that sexual selection would shine light on these differences (Origin, 1859, page 199). Darwin described this claim in the introduction of the Descent of Man: “During many years it has seemed to me highly probable that sexual selection has played an important part in differentiating the races of man; but in my 'Origin of Species' (first edition, p. 199) I contented myself by merely alluding to this belief” (Descent, page 2). While it is true that he discussed human races in much much greater detail in the Descent of Man, it is completely false to claim that he never described human groups as races in the Origin of Species. I don’t know why this dishonesty make me so angry. Maybe it is the sheer stupidity of thinking that race problems will go away if we pretend that race doesn’t exist. Regardless of why though, I hope we can agree that these misrepresentations of the most important book in the science of biology do make me extremely annoyed. As a point of interest, I would strongly advise someone to read the Descent of Man very carefully before publishing claims that Darwin wasn’t racist. I’m thinking of his fascinating discussion on innate ability to reason. He uses the example of searching for water in a desert to compare and contrast the reasoning abilities of a cultivated man, a savage, and a dog (Descent, Ed 2, 1874, pages 75-77). Another gem is his discussion of the “immorality of savages” (Descent, Ed 2, 1874, pages 116-121). But this is a digression. Considering that my first complaint on June 1 was not responded to, I would very much appreciate if you would reply back to me, acknowledging five points: (1) receipt of this complaint, (2) that the article claimed that Darwin didn’t discuss humans in Origin of Species, (3) that the article claimed that Darwin didn’t make any reference to human races in Origin of Species, (4) that Darwin actually did discuss humans in Origin of Species, and (5) that Darwin did refer to human races in Origin of Species. I look forward to hearing from you on the issues raised here. Sincerely, Stan Giesbrecht

Letter to both Guardian and Observer, February 5

Dear Guardian / Observer editors, I emailed in a letter on February 2 in which I disputed 2 claims made in Why racism is not backed by science. Even though your website says that you respond to complaints in 72 hours and it has been well over 72 hours, I have not heard back from anyone in your organization. Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, is the most important publication in all of biology. It is a major scientific fraud to misrepresent scientific evidence to support some scientific claim. Given the seriousness of the misconduct here, I am asking very insistently that you reply back to me promptly, advising me on the status of your inquiry and who is involved in the process. Please advise me if I can be of any assistance for you to access On the Origin of Species. It’s freely available on the interwebs. You can go to Darwin Online and can use Ctrl-F to find words or phrases. Please advise me if you need more information on Darwin talking about humans in Origin of Species or referring to human races in the same. For example, on page 382 (Ed 1, 1859), Darwin refers to “savage races of man” to draw a comparison to the distribution of groups of other life forms. So here, he is clearly using “races” to describe groups within the human species, something your article explicitly claims he never did. If you have responded to this email address, I haven’t received it. Please message me at 1-xxx-xxx-xxxx. Thank you for your attention in this very important matter. Sincerely, Stan Giesbrecht

2. I have just now heard back from the Guardian, advising me that this was an Observer article, and they only now sent the first letter to the Observer. Fantastic stall tactic. You may say that I’m a dreamer, but I hope and trust that they will do the right thing here… but it might need a bit of pressure.

3. The main point I wabt to make here is what Filanca said some years back: most secondary sources on Darwin are biased, some too critical and some too apologetic, and not too many that are trustworthy. This is in line with my post below where I point out that Power of Place cannot be trusted as a reliable source. Most of Darwin’s works are freely available online, so there really is no excuse to post anything inconsistent with what he wrote.

4. Filanca had been trying to remove a line claiming that “Darwin did not share the racism at that time”, which was unsourced propaganda that needed to be deleted. When he made good faith proposals for editing the article, other editors refused to have a rational discussion. They hit on cheap talking points, used smoke screens and red herrings to distract him, and accused him of misrepresenting the facts without explaining how he might have been misrepresenting the facts (see the disccusion here, see also WP:BULLY).

5. Wikipedia has an essay on this phenomenon (WP:Walled Garden), although there, they are referring to a number of wiki pages that only refer to each other, whereas here we are talking about numerous publications on Darwin that get false information from each other, thus reinforcing this very same false information, and when someone points out that this is contradicted by Darwin’s own writings, they are aggressively attacked, told to shut up, and told to drink the WP:KOOLAID, thus maintaining the Garden Wall and protecting the Garden from reality.

6. This is not what Jimmy Wales wants. He is a great guy and he trusts our judgement when he says, “Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information”. If it is too complex for us editors to understand, it shouldn’t be on Wikipedia, no matter what some beloved secondary source may say. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're conflating modern ideas of racism with Darwin's acknowledgement that there are varieties of humans, the so-called races. He was clearly against the racism supporting slavery and the racism of polygenism, while at the same time he regarded different human cultures as having differing value, with his own ideal being humanitarian European ideas of his time. You're also accusing Wikipedia editors of dishonesty, which is contrary to policies of WP: NPA and WP:AGF, so please take more care to be collegiate. . . . dave souza, talk 09:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

"equal humans'

The "equal humans" seems to be a quote of a quote on page 26 of Sacred Cause according to google books, unfortunately I don't have a physical copy to check the original citation to see whether Darwin wrote it or it was written by some else in his social network. The fuller quote on page 26 is "Coming from a family which had campaigned to emancipate Britain's colonial slaves and obeying the abolitionist command to honour black people as 'equal humans', young Darwin had been happy to be taught by a 'full-blooded negro'." I will note that though considering them equal in humanity does not mean that someone might not consider a group as unequal in other aspects (many of the white abolitionists did consider that blacks were inferior [note also that many also considered women as equally human but inferior]). Erp (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good catch that I've quoted the abolitionist command without attributing it clearly: have revised the wording to address this issue. The wording can be reviewed in further context – Browne (1995) pp. 196–197 covers Darwin sharing his family's opposition to slavery, and p. 198 says "In his view, slaves were men and women with the same feelings as anyone. Personal experience told him so. His memories of kindly John Edmonston in Edinburgh were at the front of his mind; the freed slave... ". On p. 240 she makes the point that "with the comfortable liberalism of English Whigs, he found the polite manners and easy disposition of Jemmy Button and Fuegia Basket completely unremarkable. .... The three Fuegians appeared to him like solid country peasants, deferential and mostly easy to deal with. More than this, however, he was ready to believe them as intelligent as the next person, a point he made himself in remembering the interesting talks he once had with John Edmonston"... She then quotes the first para in p. 232 of Descent, 1871, so these views continued. At that time, he also endorsed ideas of progressive evolution, and had to puzzle how uneducated aborigines had become civilised Whig Europeans. His views were complex and shifting, so will aim to find the best source for a brief statement on that. . . dave souza, talk 21:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

We've seem to be having this discussion in two places and it seems to include both Darwin's attitudes towards women and his attitudes towards other 'races'. I'm moving the discussion down here to be easier to find (I've also started a new section on the Blackwell mention that people are also arguing over). I think we have to be careful to place Darwin within his context. For a Victorian upper-middle class man he was quite progressive, that does not make him progressive by 21st century standards. I think it necessary to include ideas from Browne, Desmond and Moore, and the other respected Charles Darwin scholars. Erp (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

On the "equal humans" nuances, from the same pages of Sacred Cause I've rethought that as "Darwin's belief that black people had the same essential humanity as Europeans, and had many mental similarities", tending to understate the source. . dave souza, talk 17:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

With reference to the above pages from Browne, i've reworded the section to include the point that "Darwin was passionately opposed to slavery, while seeing no problem with the working conditions of English factory workers or servants." Similarly, I've avoided the "equal humans" formulation and from her description reworded it as "his belief that black people shared the same feelings, and could be as intelligent as other races". Work in progress, as there's an interesting point to be made about his 1871 adoption from others of progressive evolution on a scale from savage to civilised, will try to find time to work that in. . dave souza, talk 17:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Antoinette Brown Blackwell and the EJWS article

Someone changed a part of the article on the grounds of fringe. I will note that the European Journal of Women's Studies is a peer reviewed journal home based in the London School of Economics (i.e., it isn't obviously fringe). However Antoinette Brown Blackwell is a contemporary of Darwin's and that isn't clear from the mention in this Wikipedia article or that her particular criticisms weren't widely accepted then. The journal article author doesn't agree with Blackwell's conclusions but agrees with her (and Darwin) that sexual selection is important (I haven't closely read the article yet and there is the whole question of evolutionary psychology). The article does discuss Darwin's views and notes that the idea of 'female choice' was revolutionary at the time.

Although Darwin’s view of females was quite narrow, the agency that he conferred to them, however slight it may have been when compared to current theorizing on sexual selection, was in fact revolutionary at the time. His evolutionist contemporaries could not accept it, since females were assumed to be passive in the mating process (Buss, 1994; Cronin, 1994; Gowaty, 1992). Reaction against the theory went so far that after Darwin’s death it was almost completely forgotten. ... Although Darwin attributed a far more important evolutionary role to females than evolutionary biologists would do for almost a century after him, he clearly did not succeed in separating his scientific attitude from his social prejudices. ... There is a contradiction at the heart of Darwin’s view of females: they exert a sexual choice and are passive at the same time. He seemed caught between the Victorian wisdom about women and his own observations.(Vandermassen, Griet (2004). "Sexual Selection: A Tale of Male Bias and Feminist Denial". European Journal of Women's Studies 11 (9): 11–13. doi:10.1177/1350506804039812)

The article then goes on to discuss how various scholars interpret this contradiction. Erp (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have access to that source. I've been meaning for a while to put in the context of "Darwin's women". University of Cambridge. 9 September 2013. Retrieved 19 February 2016. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) [includes worthwhile film], and possibly other pieces in the Darwin and Gender project. Browne also discusses CD's oddity in having females selecting in nature, but males selecting in human society. So, this needs developed. . . dave souza, talk 18:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Darwinian Irony in liquor label

The Catalan producer of: 'Anis del mono', an Anise, seems having used the face of Charles Darwin in the label of the bottles, perhaps adding in private comments that the monkey in the bottle may be a relative of mr Charles Darwin, but not of their own. Image added to Wikimedia Commons. Regards, + Salut--Caula (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

For the curious: File:Anis del Mono label -the face is reported being that of Charles Darwin.jpg. Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Not much beyond cute - DVdm (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)