Jump to content

Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

TDOM: humans have diverged into distinct subspecies

1. In the discussion about TDOM, I added the point that Darwin wrote that humans have diverged into distinct subspecies, while remaining one species. The section had previously focused on one to the total exclusion of the other, so this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV.

2. It also was clearly violating WP:COMPREHENSIVE, as Darwin identified determining the taxonomic rank of human races as 1 of the 3 points he would confine his discussions in the book to, and he gave a very clear answer to this question in the conclusion.

3. I referenced this to TDOM and included the direct quote in footnote VI, which is sort of the theme of there, although that footnote also includes some serious WP:EDITORIALIZING. Here are 2 secondary sources that I’ll mention on the talk page, so I don’t get criticized for only relying on primary sources. 1) In this post Steve Sailor writes: “Darwin himself ultimately viewed human races as separate subspecies, but it took him a lot of arguing with himself to get there”, and 2) This article from the Guardian originally claimed that Darwin didn’t think human races were separate subspecies, but when I complained, they agreed that he did, writing: “In fact [Darwin] did refer to human races as sub-species.” I don’t think either of these sources needs to be referenced in the article, as TDOM is so clear on this point and is the most reliable source here. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, the D in WP:BRD means engaging in a discussion on the talk page, not simply claiming there is no consensus. You don't like the post, but the truth is, the article currently violates WP:NPOV which states: “This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.” So, please justify your reversion and explain how we can achieve the required NPOV to comply with core Wikipedia policy. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
You are making your own conclusions based on primary sources, we don't do that typically. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Stan, you've been pushing your own interpretations of Darwin's writings: this series of edits in tDOM removed unsourced paragraphs, but introduced instead a synthesis you've put together. Your ideas conflict with the published judgment of eminent historians: for example, Michael Ghiselin p. 35 briefly discusses the chapter you're quoting, with a very different focus – "Darwin rejects the notion that humanity consists of more than one species in spite of great geographical diversity." The whole issue of sub-species, or better put in modern terminology as varieties, is that they're not distinct species. When time permits, that needs to be clarified in the tDOM article. . . dave souza, talk 22:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with all you say about the need for third-party sources. I would just point out that the modern Code of Zoological Nomenclature stops at subspecies. Varieties are only used in the Botanical Code. William Avery (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Good point, the thing is that Darwin was in the process of redefining what species meant, with speciation as the fixing of subspecific varieties and not divine creation. Both terminology and knowledge have changed, and Homo sapiens sapiens is apparently now regarded as [the sole extant] subspecies. Race (human categorization) has diverged in common usage from Race (biology). . . dave souza, talk 08:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I suspect that there is a racial/political agenda behind Stan Giesbrecht attempts to introduce his own WP:POV into this article. Part of this opinion is based off-site posts that I'll say no more about here, but I will point out that one of the articles above that Stan links to is from VDARE, which is basically a race-base hate website. I think we have to be very careful in preventing race-based hate POV from gradually getting into this article via an WP:SPA. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Any such POV would obviously be entirely against policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
1. Sorry for the delayed response. I was planning to respond, but stuff happened, and things got too busy. But I want to respond to some of the criticism above.
2. First, Dbrodbeck attacks me because I didn’t provide secondary sources; then I Am One Of Many (IAOOM) attacks me because I did. IAOOM identifies one of the secondary sources as a “hate website” and wants the information to be censored accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that another secondary source says exactly the same thing.
3. Editors here seem to be offended by Darwin’s belief that humans diverged into distinct subspecies, but that simply isn't relevant. The point is that this is Darwin’s POV and needs to be reported in a neutral manner. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned above and on TDOM talk page, Darwin's belief that humans diverged into distinct subspecies is his WP:POV and therefore needs to be reported for the article to be WP:COMPREHENSIVE. With that said, I don't have time for such editing for the next little while. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 03:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I edited TDOM page to more accurately reflect what Darwin actually wrote about race in that book. I posted comments and sources on the talk page. This also needs to be addressed here, next week. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for introducing sources, there are issues with your edits but it's not something I can address immediately. Will discuss it at the relevant talk page when time permits. . dave souza, talk 01:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Stan Giesbrecht, work in progress, but in light of the above discussion I'm disappointed to find [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Descent_of_Man,_and_Selection_in_Relation_to_Sex&diff=720815962&oldid=715869595 your edit of 03:13, 18 May 2016, added a reference to a VDARE blog – the author Steve Sailer has no credentials as a Darwin scholar, and "YOUR PERSONAL PATRIOT PACK Stand up against Cultural Marxism and celebrate America!" is a red flag. Not a reliable source, and no justification for your original research. . dave souza, talk 18:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
1. I’m disappointed that you are WP:CENSORing information that you know is accurate and important. TDOM is Darwin’s second most important book; the answer to his third (of three) question in the book is extremely relevant (see WP:COMPREHENSIVE, and secondary sources are always preferable.
2. The burning irony is that you are demonizing a source because of your moral taboos, and not the accuracy of the information provided, while at the same time defending a citation to an ambiguous source that has demonstrably misled you. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hardly demonising to note that a VDARE blog by Steve Sailer clearly fails WP:BLOGS, or "censorship" to remove dubious interpretations lacking a good source. It's worth being aware of red flags about their position, which isn't one of Darwin scholarship. . dave souza, talk 11:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

correct citation

footnote 87 comes from notebook D -- not E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.133.12 (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed

Good catch. Thank you for letting us know.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 00:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Charles Darwin: Parson v Cleric

FYI: "Cleric" is the preferable term as it can always be correctly used to refer to any ordained person in the Church of England whether that person is in parish ministry as the parish priest or a curate or in non-parish ministry such as a hospital chaplain, academic etc. "Parson", however, only ever correctly refers to a parish priest such as an incumbent rector or vicar. Afterwriting (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC) [moved from User talk:dave souza 09:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)]

Thanks, the more specific term is appropriate. In your edit summary you wrote "A "parson", by definition, is a parish priest. We do not seem to know if that was ever Darwin's intention." Browne pp. 89–90 quotes CD's autobiography [finished 1876], that in 1827 he "liked the thought of being a country clergyman",[1] which is at least rather more precise than "cleric". Desmond & Moore p. 48 make the point that the benefice to a country parish could readily be bought by Dr. Robert Darwin for his son, and depict CD as thinking that being "a country parson would suit him to a tee". CD was attracted by the idea of becoming a parson-naturalist, and in his letter to Caroline Darwin, 25–6 April [1832] he wrote "Although I like this knocking about.—I find I steadily have a distant prospect of a very quiet parsonage, & I can see it even through a grove of Palms." In 1873 his daughter Henrietta noted "After giving up medicine as a profession my F[ather]. thought of taking to be a parson - or rather it was thought of for him". So, it was clearly Darwin's intention; have made the text "Anglican country parson", citing Desmond & Moore. . dave souza, talk 10:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Family Tree

ALL of the grandchildren have now been accounted for, but two graves of the spouses of grandchildren: Gwendoline, and Ruth are currently 'missing': Jacques Raverat (husband of Gwen Raverat, nee Darwin) and also William Rees-Thomas (husband of Ruth Rees – Thomas, nee Darwin). Jacques Raverat is more than likely to be the most difficult to find in France! Any help in finding them is to be much appreciated?

'Darwinian Gravedigger' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.188.29 (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charles Darwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Janet Browne as a reliable source about Charles Darwin

Example = "Voyaging": she tries to list the pall-bearers at Darwin's funeral and manages to leave one out, Rev. Cannon Frederic Farrar! (page 497)

2.30.190.52 (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Rather detailed for this article, we can review the point if you give a citation for Farrar. . . dave souza, talk 01:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
The citation of Voyaging is incorrect. It's on p.497 of The Power of Place where Browne lists the pall-bearers. She gives the Duke of Argyll, the Duke of Devonshire, the Earl of Derby, J. Russell Lowell (the America. ambassador), William Spottiswoode, Hooker, Huxley, Wallace and Lubbock. In the biography of Farrar, written by his son, he is quoted as having written "I was asked to be one of the pall-bearers" (p.109). But it is absurd to consider a relatively minor blemish like this as an indication that Browne is not generally reliable
David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I've noticed that the Frederic Farrar article cites "The Funeral of Mr Darwin", The Times, 27 April 1882. (Wikisource) so that's well supported, and the correct list appears at Darwin from Insectivorous Plants to Worms#Funeral so no problem there. . . dave souza, talk 16:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@David J Wilson: 1. You say that missing the name of one pallbearer doesn’t, by itself, show that Janet Browne is unreliable. Fair enough. But you would have to agree, wouldn’t you, that there is plenty of other evidence that does calling her reliability into question?
2. Wouldn’t you agree that she claims in Power of Place that Darwin took out and kept out all references to “human ancestry” when writing OTOOS? Wouldn’t you also agree that she claims that Darwin was “completely silent on the subject of human origins”? Didn't Darwin, in fact, drop a number of hints about human origins and human ancestry in OTOOS?
3. Isn't it also true that Browne claims that Darwin took out and kept out all references to a Creator? But hadn't Darwin, in fact, referred to “the Creator” numerous times in OTOOS?
4. David, I want to put to you that there is an abundance of clear and compelling evidence that Janet Browne is not a reliable source with respect to Darwin’s discussions of humans in OTOOS and consequently the citation to p.60 of her book should be removed from reference #128. (Just to be clear, I am not looking for the text in the article to be modified here, just the one citation removed.) I would very much appreciate your reply with respect to the questions posed here. Thank you. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no intention of being drawn into what I suspect would be and endless back and forth on this matter. I will therefore limit myself to fairly direct answers to your questions and resist the temptation to provide more lengthy explanations. I will probably ignore any followup questions.
1. No. Since I've seen no such evidence, I don't feel at all compelled to admit that there is any, let alone an "abundance" of it.
2a. No, I haven't seen her make any such claim in The Power of Place, either on p.60, which is where I presume you think she does so, nor anywhere else.
  b. Yes, she certainly makes that statement.
  c. My views on this question are sufficiently complex that a simple yes or no answer would be misleading, and I have no intention of indulging in the lengthy pontification that would be necessary to explain them.
3a. Same answer as to question 2a.
  b. Yes. More specifically, the first edition of On the Origin of Species—which is what Browne was referring to on p.60 of The Power of Place—contains seven occurrences of "Creator" and two of "God"—one of the latter being in the text proper, and the other being in a quotation from Francis Bacon's The Advancement of Learning on the page preceding the title page.
4. In my opinion you have provided no evidence that Browne is unreliable, so removing citations to her book cannot be justified on those grounds. On the other hand, the passage on p.60 is somewhat ambiguous and can be easily misinterpreted, especially by anybody who can't be bothered to read the rest of the chapter where it appears. Thus, it should of course only be cited to support statements when the support it provides is unequivocal (which I haven't checked for the citation in question).
David Wilson (talk · cont) 05:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses. Maybe I’m too pedantic, but the ambiguities and misinterpretations do bug the snot out of me at times. What else can I say? Take Care. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

SEPERATE CONVERSATION: reply to original post by 2.30.190.52

1. Thanks for the info. I’ve moved this to a new section, rather than a subsection of the discussion on properly reporting Darwin’s belief that humans have diverged into distinct subspecies.
2. In terms of Browne, I’m more worried about her claim in Power of Place (page 60) that Darwin only referred to humans one time in OTOOS:
The only words he allowed himself—and these out of a sense of duty that he must somewhere refer to human beings—were gnomic in their brevity. “Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history,” he declared in the conclusion.
3. This is completely false: Darwin referred to humans multiple times in his most famous publication, including comments about sexual selection applying humans and homologous bone patterns between humans and other mammals. She is clearly trying to distort reality by deliberately writing something as nonsensical as this, as I mentioned in Talk:Charles_Darwin#Source_must_be_reliable. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
False argument on your part: Browne has just stated "he did refer to humans in several places as examples of biological details." You seem to have a distorted view of sources. . . dave souza, talk 01:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
1. Seriously? You want to defend Browne on this one? It’s there in black and white: Browne claims that the only words Darwin used to refer to humans in OTOOS was the line about light being thrown. If she wanted to report the truth, she would have worded things much differently.
2. Browne is a loon who shoots 5 directions at once. Do I need to remind you that she also claimed that, “With profound deliberation … He avoided talking about the origin of human beings. … he had long ago drained his manuscripts of any reference to … human ancestry. He had no intention of reintroducing them now. In this book, he was completely silent on the subject of human origins”. What part of WP:BULLSHIT do you not understand? . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Browne is a very reputable historian, unfortunately you're not reading what she says as a whole. Your insults simply undermine the case you're trying to make, please desist. . dave souza, talk 13:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
1. No reputable historian would write things that are so overtly false. Please take off your rose-coloured glasses. By “reading what she says as a whole” you mean to WP:CHERRY pick the true parts of what she writes and ignore the WP:BULLSHIT. Only then will we be able to see how “accurate” she is.
2. It is your denial that undermines your case. She says that Darwin was “completely silent on the subject of human origins” in OTOOS, yet you agree that OTOOS implied common descent for humans. It doesn’t line up. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Stan, your Bullshit is complete bollocks. Her wording works as a whole, of course if you don't like it see also van Wye, Larson, Costa, Desmon & Moore as cited. All make the point in various ways, that Darwin's book did not explicitly go into human origins beyond that specific sentence, though shared descent was implicit in parts of the book. While our wording can no doubt be improved, you were giving undue weight to your unsupported if rather convoluted claim that "it’s not the discussion that didn’t happen, because it actually did, it’s the conclusion about human origins that wasn’t explicit." If you're claiming that there was explicit discussion of human origins, provide the source and a quote to support your argument. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 17:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
1. Sure Dave, keep claiming that the sky is green and grass is blue. Browne’s claims on pages 60-61 are completely nonsensical. They make no sense whether taken individually or "as a whole" and you know it.
2. All you do is go after one line I posted on the talk page. Even though I most certainly do not want to post it to the article, you claim that I need to “provide the source and a quote to support [my] argument”.
3. It’s amazing how you always manage to accuse me of what you need to listen to, just like when you accused me of claiming that origin = derivation, when I stated exactly the opposite. In this case, it is you who needs to provide a source and a quote, rather than these vague claims that all these sources support what is really just your own synthesis (WP:PROVEIT). . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Stan, this largely seems to arise from your unusual reading of what Browne's written: other editors seem to find it understandable, and her books are well recommended by reliable sources, including van Wyhe. Clearly both myself and David J. Wilson disagree with your argument that a minor error invalidates Browne.
To take another example, do the blatant errors of p. 62 – "his father sent him off to Christ's College, Cambridge University to earn a theology degree .... Even though he completed the training necessary to be a minister," and p. 66 – "if a young man, Alfred Russell Wallace, had not brought the same idea to the Royal Society in 1858. Wallace, equally nervous, had written to Darwin asking for advice, and they presented their findings jointly to the Royal Society in 1858." invalidate John P. Jackson; Nadine M. Weidman (2004). Race, Racism, and Science: Social Impact and Interaction. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-3736-8.? . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC) (note: for discussion of usage of this source, see Talk:The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex#Examples in the Article and my comment. dave souza, talk 06:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC))

1. Dave, you know very well that I never made the argument that a minor error will invalidate an entire work, as I said in my post to David Wilson. Clearly all of us disagree with the “argument that a minor error invalidates Browne”.
2. My opposition to Browne’s citation in reference #128 isn’t just based my own reading of what Browne wrote, but also yours and David’s. In our earlier discussions, both David and you emphatically claimed that what Browne wrote on p.60 was that Darwin had only alluded to human origins once in OTOOS. Yet, as Huxley and Kettlewell show us, Darwin had, in fact, alluded to human origins multiple times. And we all (now) know that Darwin wrote that the homologies between humans and other mammals “at once explain themselves” on his theory of descent with modification. This is definitely at least an allusion to human origins. Thus, we can see that the Browne's passage about this exact point has been, to say the very least, seriously misinterpreted.
3. As David stated above: the passage on p.60 is somewhat ambiguous and can be easily misinterpreted and that it should of course only be cited to support statements when the support it provides is unequivocal. As we have seen, the support it provides on this particular subject is far from unequivocal. It is ambiguous and has been seriously misinterpreted by people experts on Darwin. It is clear, therefore, that it should not be used to source the point in the article about human origins in OTOOS, when John van Whye is far less ambiguous on this particular topic and far less prone to misinterpretation.
4. Finally, it’s not the end of the world but, while the old section title (‎"Janet Browne is not a reliable source about Charles Darwin") was not neutral , the new one you chose ("Janet Browne as a reliable source about Charles Darwin") certainly isn’t neutral either. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Stan, as David J Wilson notes above, you're misrepresenting what Browne wrote, but you've now jumped to remove her p. 60 as a cite on the basis of his remark that a passage on that page is "somewhat ambiguous and can be easily misinterpreted, especially by anybody who can't be bothered to read the rest of the chapter where it appears." A published source is needed if you want to assert that it "has been seriously misinterpreted by people experts on Darwin".
Your claim that the homologies passage "is definitely at least an allusion to human origins" is unsupported, and it's just as valid to put that under Browne's description that Darwin "was completely silent on the subject of human origins, although he did refer in several places to mankind as an example of biological details." Thus, van Wyhe includes it among example of biological details supporting "Darwin's theory of genealogical evolution", but does not describe it as being on the subject of human origins, and later states "Darwin refrained from discussing the derivation of any particular species, including man, in the Origin except for his famous sentence".
The general statement made by Huxley & Kettlewell doesn't clarify what the "hints" are, and as van Wyhe says, "many people who read the book could think only about what this genealogical view of life meant for human beings". So, Browne remains a valid source, but given the misinterpretation you seem fixated on, I'm content to cite Costa instead, supporting the text more specifically than van Wyhe, while keeping a cite to him as a useful online source. dave souza, talk 17:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
1. Dave, I know you are bitter and offended that I called Janet Browne a loon who writes a hodge-podge of mutually contradictory claims (I hope you can forgive me some day) but, in fact, the reason her citation to page 60 is gone is because a number of editors here, who are well read and very knowledgeable about Darwin, misinterpreted it. That is the proof needed for its removal. I already provided a couple of diffs above, but will provide some direct quotes (with my added boldface) for you.
2. You posted the claim that Darwin's “only allusion to human origins” was the light-will-be-thrown statement, citing Browne, 2002, p.60. I disputed this claim which lead to a vigorous pushback from multiple editors. Here David Wilson wrote:
The claim I was referring to in the second paragraph of my above comments was the edit summary of this edit where you wrote:
"saying that sexual selection applies to humans is an allusion to human origins".
While this edit summary does not say that the suposed allusion to human origins was clear, it neverthelesss appears to me to be the only justification you have offered for your edit, which removed the assertion that Darwin's statement, "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history", is the only such allusion in On the Origin of Species. Since that assertion is properly supported by an accurate citation to an unequivocally reliable source (viz. Browne's The Power of Place), your edit would only be justified if the statement that sexual selection applies to humans constituted a clear and unequivocal allusion to human origins, which, in my opinion it does not, for the reasons I have given above. Since the claim made by the assertion is not at all exceptional (as Yopienso points out in his comments above), the burden of demonstrating its verifiability is quite properly met by the citation to Browne,
You immediately backed David up:
Clarification re Browne p. 60, she writes “In this book, he was completely silent on the subject of human origins, although he did refer in several places to mankind as an example of biological details. The only words he allowed himself .... were gnomic in their brevity. 'Light will be thrown on the origin of man'." There's that sentence, picked out by multiple sources. Stan Giesbrecht is claiming that there are other allusions to the topic but, so far, has failed to produce a secondary source supporting that claim.
3. In fact, Darwin discussed homologies in the Morphology section as well as in the conclusion. The reality that this alludes to human origins is strongly supported by WP:COMMONSENSE (whether or not it fits under Browne’s description as you suggest). A simple and straight forward reading of OTOOS contradicts your earlier reading of Browne, but if that isn’t good enough, here are a couple of secondary sources.
4. While Huxley and Kettlewell might not have specified which passages they think are “hints about man’s animal ancestry”, they do specify that it was “a number of hints”, thus contradicting your earlier conclusion that Browne stated there was only one.
5. Costa writes (p.199) that Darwin’s reference to sexual selection applying to humans was one of the “references to human origins in the Origin”. Even though he goes on to say that it isn’t a reference “to human origins per se”, it clearly contradicts your claim of only one such allusion. It’s so ironic that the citation you added just now makes the exact point I made earlier (for which you so robustly attacked me), contradicting your prior understanding of Browne.
6. Dave, I hope you can see that you have provided the proof for why Browne is not an appropriate citation for this exact topic. . Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Stan, at last you've provided a couple of sources as requested. Scholars can express differing views on nuances, while still being reliable sources, and Browne fully meets the WP:SOURCES policy as well as being a well regarded scholar. Costa covers the point that explaining human races isn’t a reference “to human origins per se”, but it's implicit. Which our current wording, as edited by you, covers pretty well. . 10:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC) added timesstamp, but inadvertently omitted name: dave souza, talk 17:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
1. You forgot to sign your name, Dave Souza (just so people know who I’m talking to)
2. The current wording actually doesn’t have the clarity it could and should. We all agree that OTOOS implied that humans have animal ancestry, but didn’t say so explicitly. I know you think that this is equivalent to saying there was “no explicit discussion” of human origins, but your wording here is vague, and given the misunderstandings on this very topic, quite unfortunate. We should strive for clarity; there is no upside to your choice of words and the downside is a risk of misinterpretation.
3. It is sad that you won’t openly acknowledge any mistakes you have ever made. Although you tacitly acknowledge that you misinterpreted Browne, it would be so much better if you would have the courage and grace to say so explicitly.
4. It is also sad that you still deny all concerns about Browne’s reliability, especially given that your link to WP:SOURCES explicitly mentions “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”. The convoluted mess of contradictory claims on pp.60-61 is certainly a red flag and the fact that you were seriously misled by that very passage is further proof of a red flag. While most of the statements that she writes will be accurate and her books can be used to source non-controversial facts, these red flags mean that she is certainly not a reliable source to prove any contentious claim.
5. Most troubling of all, Dave, is your opening line, “at last you've provided a couple of sources as requested”; for two reasons. First, I long ago provided passages from the most reliable source of all, OTOOS itself, which you should have taken seriously instead of simply ignoring on the claim that Wikipedia prohibits the use of primary sources. Second, it shows a major violation of the WP:BURDEN of proof, as the onus rests on the party adding or defending a disputed claim to show that it is properly verified and not on the person challenging the claim to show that it is not. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
1. A tilde too many so inadvertently omitted name, fixed now. 2–5 You continue to be wrong about Browne, if you want to argue a point is controversial you need good secondary sources. Please desist from using VDARE as you've tried again at DoM, that's clearly not a reliable source on the topic.. . . dave souza, talk 17:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Dave, you claim that with respect to paragraphs 2 to 5 of my previous post, I “continue to be wrong about Browne”. Specifically in paragraph 3, I claim that you misinterpreted Janet Browne, so for clarification, would you please answer the following 2 questions:
Question 1: Did you misinterpret Browne in your 17 Jan 2016 post when you cited Browne for the claim: “His only allusion to human origins was the understatement that "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history"”?
Question 2: Did you misrepresent Browne in your 18 Jan 2016 discussion post, which included the “Clarification re Browne p. 60” comment?
Thanks. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Stan, it's not clear what your problem is. Browne, is a well regarded historian and fully a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. Of course, it's always good to take account of multiple good secondary sources. . . dave souza, talk 20:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Dave, you say that “it’s not clear what [my] problem is.” It's clear that one problem here is that you entirely ignored my questions. I earlier stated that you misinterpreted Janet Browne, to which you replied that I was wrong about that. I want you to confirm or retract your denial of misinterpreting Browne. Please answer me this: Did you misinterpret Browne? --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that one editor doesn't like Browne. Why does that editor not take this to WP:RSN then? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Dbrodbeck, I would be happy to support you if you take this to RSN. As you know, the citation to the convoluted mess of pp.60-61 is already taken down and Browne is fine to use as a source for non-controversial facts, but it would still be good to have a general caution about using Browne for contentious claims.
2. As you also know, Dave Souza posted in January, with the claim that Darwin only ever made one allusion to human origins in OTOOS, citing Browne’s p.60. David Wilson has commented on this source, saying, “the passage on p.60 is somewhat ambiguous and can be easily misinterpreted”, and I believe that Mr. Souza has in fact misinterpreted that passage. Yet when I put that to him earlier, he said I was wrong, thus denying that he misinterpreted Browne. I am highly skeptical of this and want him to explicitly confirm or unequivocally withdraw his denial of misinterpreting Browne. Yet, he refuses to do so, claiming he doesn’t know what I’m asking.
3. Mr. Souza has made other posts to Wikipedia that have not been accurate. Yet, I have never seen him acknowledge any error. Not once! Dbrodbeck, please explain to me how you think we can properly build an accurate and reliable encyclopedia if Mr. Souza continues to refuse to answer such a simple question as I put to him above. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Hectoring editors will not help your mission. How about acknowledging that as a single purpose account, your quoting of rules is not based on experience. And by the way did you misinterpret WP:CENSORSHIP? Sorry to be a little pointy there, but I want to illustrate that no one cares about battles and no one will bother following a "discussion" which is actually an old fashioned flamewar. If there is something to say, it should be said in a matter-of-fact way, and always with an aim of supporting an actionable proposal regarding text in the article. Any such proposal is lost here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
1. Amazing, Johnuniq, you state that “Hectoring editors will not help your mission” and then in the very next sentence you hector me for both citing Wikipedia’s rules and also for focusing on one topic, which, by the way, evidence has clearly shown needed (and still needs) improvement.
2. This conversation started as a discussion about the reliability of a particular source. These conversations are extremely important for Wikipedia and absolutely appropriate for the talk page here. It was determined that a particular citation was not proper and was taken down, which led to some confusion as to why. After I explained in greater detail, there was a claim made which seem inconsistent with the evidence so I asked for a clarification. My initial question wasn't understood, so I simplified the question the second time around; I wasn't hectoring anybody.
3. I know I’ve been a little bit blunt sometimes, but I don’t see any flamewars here; Wikipedia has seen a lot worse in terms of personal insults. I have always endeavoured to improve this and other articles, and you know very well that I have corrected and helped correct a significant number of substantial inaccuracies here. Even though a lot of people are uncomfortable with everything Darwin said, many editors actually do care about this and do want a candid article, warts and all. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
In fact, it would be very gentlemanly of Dave to respond to the question. No guarantee that would get the bee out of Stan's bonnet, but it could mitigate his sense of outrage, which would be good all round. YoPienso (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Since you put it so nicely, I may add that I've not been simply reverting Stan's contributions as they've included points of value, but have been concerned about apparent pov pushing in the attempts to use VDARE and, for example, in the edit summary remove totally synthesized left-wing propaganda which clearly fails to assume good faith.
Stan, you may be uncomfortable with some things Darwin said, but that's all the more reason to find good secondary sources which show the context of the times, rather than simply providing quotes which to modern readers have unwarranted implications of racism. See the sources in On the Origin of Species#Choice of title. While the wording has been improved over earlier versions, Browne remains a good source for mainstream scholarship on Darwin; we take into account other views, but must avoid giving undue weight to less scholarly comments. . . dave souza, talk 00:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
1. For the record, Dave, it's bad form to pretend to answer a question just to avoid the heat (your comment to YoPienso: “Since you put it so nicely” and your edit summary: “comment as requested”). You still haven't explicitly confirmed or unequivocally withdrawn your denial of misinterpreting Browne. Please answer the question asked.
2. Speaking of uncomfortable with things Darwin said, your recent edit at the OTOOS page, cited Geoffrey Hodgson, who finds Darwin's belief that "some human races are closer than others to apes" as being "highly regrettable". In the preceding paragraph, he falsely claims that “the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all.” Yet your own edit, citing Desmond & Moore, shows that OTOOS definitely does, and there are also other references to “races of man” in the book.
3. There isn't much room to assume good faith when a posted claim is clearly synthesized propaganda, but you are correct that I should not have presumed "left-wing" in my edit summary.
4. It is really sad that you maliciously edit-war to take down a proper secondary source with accurate information, because of your misguided moral convictions, while at the same time posting false information citing a source with inaccurate claims, and discussing it on a thread about you doing exactly the same thing with another source. The truth is stranger than fiction! --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
On point 2., Geoffrey Hodgson is a respected academic and is cited for the meaning of "favoured races", not for the point about the tiny minority of three instances in the book when "races of man" is used, far outnumbered by the instances where "race" is used in the sense of "variety". I've added another source on this point, and raised the point at Talk:On the Origin of Species#Meaning of favoured races: sources. Stan, your repeated removal of this wording looks rather WP:POINTy, and ls heading towards edit warring. Please desist. . . dave souza, talk 22:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Agree that it's time for Stan to move on, but not because he's incompetent. He and Dave have collaborated a little and made a little improvement, but they've now lapsed into fruitless carping and evasion. Sad. YoPienso (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I've tried answering the points, but tend to feel this is a waste of time better spent on article improvement. dave souza, talk 20:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Stan re "following 2 questions"

This needs some context, I've been focussing on reviewing sources rather than getting into a detailed argument but, as requested, here are the main points. In this comment Stan disputed my comment that was still wrong about Browne, as discussed earlier. To clarify, Stan raised assertions about Browne's reliability, [phttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Darwin&diff=prev&oldid=722967615 in reply] David J Wilson presciently said he had "no intention of being drawn into what I suspect would be and endless back and forth on this matter", but refuted some of the assertions. Regarding "2. Wouldn’t you agree that she claims in Power of Place that Darwin took out and kept out all references to “human ancestry” when writing OTOOS?", David had not seen her make any such claim, and "3. Isn't it also true that Browne claims that Darwin took out and kept out all references to a Creator?" is clearly false as Brown discusses Darwin's references to a Creator. That's why I think Stan continues to be wrong about Browne. In response, he claims I "misinterpreted Janet Browne, so for clarification, would you please answer the following 2 questions" which I'll respond to below. . dave souza, talk 20:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Question 1: Did you misinterpret Browne in your 17 Jan 2016 post when you cited Browne for the claim: “His only allusion to human origins was the understatement that "light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history"”?
As my edit summary said, cite Browne, see also Costa, and my edit continued the sentence to the point that CD had suggested that sexual selection could explain human races. While I think it's a reasonable paraphrase, we've since reached agreement on the more nuanced "He avoided explicit discussion of human origins", so I don't see a problem there. . dave souza, talk 20:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Question 2: Did you misrepresent Browne in your 18 Jan 2016 discussion post, which included the “Clarification re Browne p. 60” comment?
My 18 Jan 2016 comment quotes Browne, with ellipsis committing words I thought less directly relevant, and noted "Stan Giesbrecht is claiming that there are other allusions to the topic but, so far, has failed to produce a secondary source supporting that claim." Since then we've found other sources supporting the view that other words in the book imply or hint at human origins, so we've amended the wording as shown above. dave souza, talk 20:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hope that provides the requested clarification. . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

1. In response to my criticism of Browne, Dave wrote, “"3. Isn't it also true that Browne claims that Darwin took out and kept out all references to a Creator?" is clearly false as Brown discusses Darwin's references to a Creator. That's why I think Stan continues to be wrong about Browne.” But this argument is non sequitur. While it’s true that she wrote “When he needed to, he spoke cautiously of the Creator, aware that his book might otherwise be labelled atheistic”, this does not prove that she didn’t make false claims elsewhere. Here is what else Browne wrote on page 60 (emphasis added):
With profound deliberation, however, he did not include the two difficulties that would have occurred to everybody. He avoided talking about the origin of human beings and he avoided God. He remembered the bitter furore over Vestiges. He remembered the years he had spent worrying about divine intervention. No matter how seriously and cautiously he might treat evolutionary questions himself, he knew that anything he said was bound to ignite furious controversy, and anticipating just such a response, he had long ago drained his manuscripts of any reference to a Creator or human ancestry. He had no intention of reintroducing them now.
2. I maintain that any reasonable person would interpret this as saying that Darwin took out and kept out all references to a Creator. However, even if Browne was only strongly insinuating that Darwin kept out all such references, the passage is still clearly misleading and her claim that Darwin “had no intention of reintroducing” any reference to a Creator is simply false because he clearly did have such an intention. This intention is evidenced by his seven uses of the “Creator” in OTOOS as well as Browne’s claim that he wanted such references so that his book wouldn’t “be labelled atheistic”. So either way, the passage is not only grossly misleading, but also explicitly inaccurate.
3. I grew up in a religious community and went to a religious school that taught YEC, which I questioned as an adolescent and young adult. One thing I noticed was that YEC propaganda, like Answers In Genesis, would blend of fact and fiction together. When I would identify some false claim, a YEC supporter would dismiss and ignore my concern by pointing to an accurate claim, yet in the next breath, turn around and rely on the false claim. I have come to realize that Darwin hagiography literature often employs the same tactic: the fact that Browne correctly states that Darwin referenced a Creator in OTOOS does not take away from the fact that she also denies this at another location.
4. Wikipedia’s reputation for accuracy and reliability requires that posted material is verified by a clear unambiguous passage, something that Browne’s page 60 most definitely is not. In the same way, the TalkOrigin passage "CA005.2", presently cited by On the Origin of Species, is either false or so ambiguous that either way its use would seriously undermine Wikipedia’s reputation for reliable sourcing, as discussed at Talk:On the Origin of Species#Reliable sources on usage of "race". --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
"2. I maintain that any reasonable person would interpret this as saying that Darwin took out and kept out all references to a Creator."
No. Rather than insisting that their own erroneous paraphrase of two brief phrases plucked out of context was the only reasonable interpretation, reasonable people would read the preceding part of the chapter to try to understand what Browne was actually saying. Since I have read the whole two volumes of Browne's biography, including the chapter in question (although all, admittedly, some years ago) I can assure you that your paraphrase is erroneous.
There is no doubt that Browne's use of the word "manuscripts" in the passage you keep quoting does not refer to drafts of On the Origin of Species but to the nearly 30 odd years worth of accumulated notebooks and possibly correspondence (I'm not sure about the latter) from which he was preparing those drafts. The words "drained ... of any reference to a Creator or human ancestry" simply mean that those references to a Creator or human ancestry which apparently did occur in the earlier of those manuscripts do not do so in the later ones. There is no implication that anything was ever "taken out of" any manuscript, let alone of On the Origin of Species. Also, the antecedent of the pronoun "them" which occurs in the final sentence of your above quotation is clearly the "reference[s] to a Creator or human ancestry" which had been "drained" from the manuscripts—i.e. those specific references that occurred in the earlier of the manuscripts being referred to. Since I have no reason to believe that the few desultory such references that did eventually make their way into On the Origin of Species constituted a "reintroduction" of those specific ones that had (apparently) occurred in the earlier of the manuscripts he was working from, I see no obvious falsehood in the statement that "[Darwin] had no intention of reintroducing them now."
David Wilson (talk · cont) 06:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
For context, Janet Browne (2003). Charles Darwin. Pimlico. p. 60. ISBN 978-0-7126-6837-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) has the paragraph which any reasonable person would read as a whole, though Stan seems to treat parts of it as separate "claims" made "elsewhere". . . . dave souza, talk 22:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
1. David, for evidence that Darwin “reintroduced” specific references to “the Creator” in OTOOS, compare with his early sketches of 1842 and 1844. Check out these quotes and footnotes(emphasis added) published in The Foundations Of The Origin Of Species, 1909, edited by Francis Darwin (CD’s son):
“laws impressed on matter by the Creator”
It accords with what we know of the law impressed on matter by the Creator, that the creation and extinction of forms, like the birth and death of individuals should be the effect of secondary [laws] means3.
-- Footnote: 3 See the Origin, Ed. i. p. 488, vi. p. 668.
— Essay of 1842, page 51
It accords with what we know of the laws impressed by the Creator3 on matter that the production and extinction of forms should, like the birth and death of individuals, be the result of secondary means.
-- Footnote: 3 See the last paragraph on p. 488 of the Origin, Ed. i., vi. p. 668.
— Essay of 1844, page 253-254
To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.
— OTOOS, 1859, page 488
the Natural System “reveals the plan of the Creator”
Hence many naturalists have said that the natural system reveals the plan of the Creator: but without it be specified whether order in time or place, or what else is meant by the plan of the Creator, such expressions appear to me to leave the question exactly where it was.
— Essay of 1844, page 202
But many naturalists think that something more is meant by the Natural System; they believe that it reveals the plan of the Creator; but unless it be specified whether order in time or space, or what else is meant by the plan of the Creator, it seems to me that nothing is thus added to our knowledge.
— OTOOS, 1859, page 413
2. You say, “reasonable people would read the preceding part of the chapter to try to understand what Browne was actually saying.” This is what apologetics do, but as editors of Wikipedia, we are forbidden from drawing inferences that are not directly supported by the source. Your assessment of what Browne meant by draining the manuscripts might well be correct but that is not enough to source a claim on Wikipedia (WP:NOTTRUTH). Browne’s passage is extremely convoluted and the fact that she could have written it in a clear and unambiguous fashion, but deliberately chose not to, is a huge red flag for us.
3. In the same way, at On the Origin of Species, the TalkOrigins passage “CA005.2” is being cited for a claim that it simply does not support. Accurate sourcing is the bedrock foundation of Wikipedia and citing vague, ambiguous, and/or false passages critically undermines this very foundation. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that Stan continues quibbling with no evident relationship to article improvement is a huge red flag. . . dave souza, talk 17:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I will concede that of the 12 occurrences of references to "the Creator" which occurred in the essay of 1842 and the 13 that occurred in that of 1844 (some of which, including those quoted in your first example, are essentially the same) you have managed to identify one—the second of those you have quoted above—that did find its way into On the Origin of Species.
In my opinion, your first example does not qualify as a similar "reintroduction" into On the Origin of Species, because the meaning of the passage you quote from it is somewhat different from those you quote from the two essays. In the two essays, Darwin makes an absolute statement of the form "X accords with Y", where X is "the creation [or production] and extinction of forms" and Y is "what we know of the law impressed on matter by the Creator".
In On the Origin of Species, on the other hand, Darwin merely says that "X accords better with Y than Z does", where Z is "the view that each species has been independently created"—as reportedly held by some "authors of the highest eminence". That is quite clearly a different statement from the one made in the essays.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 11:29, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
1. David, it’s certainly true that saying “X accords with Y” is not identically the same as saying “X accords better with Y than Z does”, but the phrase “what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator” is itself a reference to a Creator that Darwin uses in both earlier works and in OTOOS. I really don’t see how this doesn’t qualify as a “reintroduction” here, especially given that Francis Darwin explicitly links them to OTOOS in his footnotes.(presuming it was the listed editor who did the footnotes)
2. But, lets bracket the “laws impressed on matter by the Creator” reference, because I am very curious how you rationalize the other reference here with your 25 July post where you stated that you “see no obvious falsehood in the statement that "[Darwin] had no intention of reintroducing them now."” You said this was because you had “no reason to believe that the few desultory such references that did eventually make their way into On the Origin of Species constituted a "reintroduction" of those specific ones that had (apparently) occurred in the earlier of the manuscripts he was working from”.
3. So, now that you concede that the Natural System “reveals the plan of the Creator” reference “did find its way into” OTOOS from an earlier work, does this change things? Do you now acknowledge an obvious falsehood in Browne’s statement that "[Darwin] had no intention of reintroducing them now"? If you say that the falsehood is not obvious, would you accept a likely falsehood? Or a possible falsehood? What conclusions follow from these two posts of yours? Thanks. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
1. David Wilson, I got a hold of Browne’s Power of Place and did some reading. This comment is in reply to your 25th July post above where you take issue with my criticism of what Browne, writing “reasonable people would read the preceding part of the chapter to try to understand what Browne was actually saying.”
2. You go on to say “There is no doubt that Browne's use of the word "manuscripts" in the passage you keep quoting does not refer to drafts of On the Origin of Species but to the nearly 30 odd years worth of accumulated notebooks and possibly correspondence (I'm not sure about the latter) from which he was preparing those drafts. The words "drained ... of any reference to a Creator or human ancestry" simply mean that those references to a Creator or human ancestry which apparently did occur in the earlier of those manuscripts do not do so in the later ones. There is no implication that anything was ever "taken out of" any manuscript, let alone of On the Origin of Species.”
3. In fact, however, in the preceding part of Chapter 2, on page 53-54, Browne writes:
From then [January] until May 1859, when the manuscript was finished, he worked incessantly. He overhauled earlier chapters, completed remaining ones, and wrote a rousing conclusion.
...
In practical terms, he cut down each pre-existing chapter from the big natural selection manuscript and relentlessly omitted all footnotes and citations of sources. Afterwards he regretted losing so much of the solid scientific evidence he had struggled to collect. Then he added and rearranged material to make a more compelling argument, couched in terms that were greatly improved by being compressed.
4. I don’t quite know what Browne was thinking when she wrote her convoluted passage on pp.60-61; it seems she is trying to downplay the extent that Darwin believed in “the Creator” breathing life into the first living being. In any case, her chapter does talk about Darwin removing and adding material to drafts of OTOOS; one would be inclined to say that this could be the same as saying “draining” and “reintroducing” references, so I would reiterate my position from 25th July that: “any reasonable person would interpret this as saying that Darwin took out and kept out all references to a Creator.” --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death

charles darwin died of a stroke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.35.124 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we cover that by the sourced statement that "At the time of his death, the physicians diagnosed "anginal attacks", and "heart-failure".". . . dave souza, talk 18:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking

I have restored these edits of Chhandama's per WP:DUPLINK. All of the expressions from which wikilinks were removed are still wikilinked on their first occurrence in the article, and apart from its first occurrence in the lead, "natural selection" is still wikilinked in the infobox and on its first occurrence in the body of the article as well. While I have no objection to further wikinks being included if there is a benefit to readers which clearly outweighs the cost of the redundancy, it seems to me that it's their inclusion, rather than their omission, for which a case needs to be made..
David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - linking "natural selection" five times is ridiculous. As it says in the MoS "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." There are also too many links in the lead section making it difficult to read, which is also mentioned in the MoS under WP:leadlink. We really don't need links to terms like "scientific theory" and "species" which are commonly understood terms. Richerman (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree that we should avoid multiple links to the same article, but I think it's useful to link to "scientific theory" and "species", as these have specific definitions which are probably not common knowledge. LK (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Should the lead sentence identify him as a naturalist and a biologist? Aren't those two terms essentially referring to the same thing? LK (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Have linked the subsection natural history#Before 1900 to make it clearer that this was a broader discipline at the time, including geology, biology and astronomy. Darwin studied natural history, his Coral reefs combines geology and biology. He subsequently specialised more as a geologist, then with his barnacles established credibility as a biologist. . . dave souza, talk 10:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
In that case, isn't "biologist" redundant? Afterall, one wouldn't say, that a person was a writer and a novelist. LK (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
He self-identified both as a naturalist and more specifically, geologist and biologist; this formulation makes it clearer for modern readers. . . dave souza, talk 11:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
He self-identified as a naturalist, but I doubt he would say I am a naturalist, geologist and biologist; that would be redundant. How about "... was an English naturalist, who studied geology and biology, ..." LK (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
As Browne highlights in the intro to Charles Darwin: Voyaging, he wrote that he "was born a naturalist". I've just been reading her second volume (p. 86), where she notes that presentation copies of OtOOS were sent to "most of the major geologists, naturalists and biologists in the world", so the usage isn't really redundant.
The word "studied" is misleadingly understated, if we do want to amend the sentence, "eminent" or perhaps "major" would be a better description of his prominence in the fields of geology and biology. So, rewording is possible, but this is the first sentence in the lead and it should be kept concise. . . dave souza, talk 11:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, it just struck me as odd is all. LK (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2017

dates to be changed Animation Central (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You have to be more specific with your request. Do you have any particular dates that you believe need to be changed? Why do you think those dates need to be changed? What reliable sources are you referring to that support your request that certain dates need to be changed?--Chewings72 (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charles Darwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

To The or not to The

This says it all. "Voyage of Beagle" flatlines, compared with "Voyage of the Beagle". Some historical ships seem to always take "the", and our guideline doesn't prohibit this. There are many ways to avoid "the Beagle", if desired: HMS Beagle, the ship, etc., and I'll be happy to help with substituting some of these less jarring terms ... any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 10:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The Google result is not really a reason to ignore the rule. It is probably that way because Darwin wrote a book about the journey, called The Voyage of the Beagle. He and his publisher obviously did not care much about Wikipedia rules.
"Voyage of the Beagle" is what comes to mind immediately when I think of this voyage, and dropping the "the" seems unnatural. Again, probably because of the book.
Also, reverting a revert is not how it is done. Do not just start an edit-war because you assume that there is no way anybody could refute your reasoning on the Talk page. You are supposed to wait for responses first. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Understood that there's such a thing as a slow-burning edit war, and we want to avoid those. But the last relevant edit was from July 29, and it didn't have a lot in common with Ed's edit ... and I wasn't aware of it. This doesn't look so much like a slow-burning edit war to me as a rough consensus that occasionally gets violated and immediately reverted (but I could be wrong). It's true that Darwin and his publisher didn't care much about Wikipedia rules, and there's another group who don't know or care much: our English-speaking readers, who are expecting us to be literate (an ever-shifting target). WP:SHIPNAME gets it right on this: the "the" is not prohibited, it's just that there's generally not a sufficient reason for it. There's more than sufficient reason here, but I agree with the thrust of Ed's edit: it sounds wrong to some ears, so I think it would be a good idea not to have the "the" where we don't need it, and we don't actually need it in most of the phrases where it occurs, there are easy substitutions available. I'm offering to help with this job, if people are okay with that. - Dank (push to talk) 10:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
A minor clarification; The Voyage of the Beagle was introduced in 1905 and became the popular title of the volume, first published in 1839 as Journal and Remarks and reissued later that year as Journal of Researches, a name which stuck for 66 years. The title most familiar to modern readers is The Voyage of the Beagle, I don't have strong feelings about keeping that as the section heading. Perhaps "Survey voyage on HMS Beagle"? . . dave souza, talk 11:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
No objection to using that as a section heading. - Dank (push to talk) 11:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Worth thinking about, as CD was a supernumerary and didn't actually do the surveying as such; his role was collecting and assessing geology. Am open to better suggestions. Some of the other changes to meet the guideline don't really work, so need individual attention. . dave souza, talk 11:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC) – changes seem to have been undone, so not currently a problem; simply changing "the Beagle" to "Beagle" often doesn't work, so any changes will need individual consideration. . dave souza, talk 11:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
This issue is discussed in Article (grammar)#Proper article. “The” is a definite article and a proper noun is already specified by definition, so using a definite article in this case might be considered superfluous, but the Wikipedia article goes on to say that it is commonly used in such cases as “the Amazon” and “the Kremlin”. Furthermore, it seems to me that “the Titanic” is accepted usage and I would support using “the Beagle” here. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think I got all of the mentions of "the Beagle" (where it's not followed by a noun) in the main text. Does that work for everyone? - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

TFA rerun

Any objections to throwing this article into the pile of potential TFA reruns for this year and next? Any cleanup needed? If it helps, here's a list of 2 dead or dubious links. - Dank (push to talk) 23:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Time! Time! Time! – but guess it's a good idea, help much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 11:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Text without references: last paragraph of Descent of Man, sexual selection, and botany, and next-to-last paragraph of Commemoration. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The remaining dead link (I fixed one) is https://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2008/may/darwins-statue-on-the-move13846.html. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Archiveurl added.. dave souza, talk 11:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
As to including as a Featured Article, Darwin is the greatest biologist in history whose major discovery – and success at convincing the scientific establishment of its correctness – has had an enormous impact on the world. In terms of article cleanup, the section on Darwin’s Views and Opinions seems to lack a neutral point of view. I have some sources that I think could be used, but would need some time to review them. I also think that the article uses too many adverbs and adjectives, making it read more like a novel than an encyclopedia, which should be a bit more dry and technical. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, it looks like things are generally on track to rerun this on the Main Page in February. Unwatching; ping me if I can help with anything. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Thomas Malthus from infobox list of influences

Dave, you removed Thomas Malthus from the list of Darwin’s influences, something I’m not sure I support. It’s true that Darwin didn’t have the kinds of interactions with Malthus as he did with Lyell, Humboldt, or Herschel. Malthus died in 1834, several years before Darwin started connecting the dots on natural selection, so the influence wasn’t personal. With that said though, Darwin says in the Origin (pp.4-5) that the “Struggle for Existence amongst all organic beings throughout the world” is “the doctrine of Malthus, applied to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.” And in his autobiography he identifies Malthus’ 1798 book on Population as the catalyst for him in understanding and appreciating the power of natural selection in driving transmutation and evolution. So, Malthus’ influence on Darwin wasn’t broad, but quite profound in his formulation of the most important theory in biological sciences. It is my opinion that this justifies Malthus’ inclusion in the infobox. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The documentation at {{Infobox scientist}} does not seem to mention what the edit summary ("see template guidance; he never met Malthus") had in mind. I have seen the principle get wide support elsewhere but I can't find the discussions at the moment. The problem is that boosterists like to add factoids to infoboxes claiming that someoone from earlier times influenced a scientist. Or, that a scientist influenced various later people. The response was to limit the lists to people the scientist was known to have worked with. Possibly that was for "influenced"? Regardless of whether there is a "worked with" precedent, and particularly for someone like Darwin who is the subject of numerous works, mentions in the infobox should be based on secondary sources, not our analysis of what Darwin wrote. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The requirement that values of the "influences" parameter be limited to individuals having had personal contact with the article's subject was removed from the template guidelines following this discussion. Like editor Merlinme in that discussion, I understand the need to limit the number of influences to the two or three most significant. However, I don't see how imposing a badly distorted definition of "influences"—that is, by limiting them to individuals who have had personal contact with the subject— can be expected to achieve this, and I strongly agree with the removal of that requirement from the guidelines. My own favoured way to avoid bloat in the infobox, and arguments over who was more influential than whom, would simply be to remove the "influences" and "influenced" parameters altogether, as was done for the {{infobox person}} template.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:25, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, and agree with your preference for removing these parameters. The current guidance still states "avoid adding influences that were only via study", such as Malthus. Darwin's own bio says of books by Humboldt and Herschel, "No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much as these two."[2] . . dave souza, talk 04:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for finding the diff. The change to the docs in May 2014 gave a reasonable result but the current documentation is pathetic. I suppose I'll have to later try to track down what happened and wonder if it was desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The infobox guidance says to avoid influences that were only via study, “Unless the scientist was clearly building on an earlier work”, so that’s the analysis here. In his introduction to OTOOS (2003), Joseph Carroll confirms the importance of Malthus, not just to Darwin, but also to Wallace in coming to understand natural selection: “In both cases, the crucial, crystallizing experience was that of reading Malthus’ Essay on Population.” On the next page (p.48) he goes on the write: “Darwin’s use of Malthus presents us with an exemplary instance in the history of scientific discovery. Darwin adopted Malthus’ specific arithmetical insight and incorporated it as a component of a much more complex theory.” So, Malthus clearly had a profound and very direct influence on Darwin’s discovery of the most important theory in biological sciences. I think it’s worth a mention here. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's arguable. Anyone else have views on adding Malthus? . . dave souza, talk 08:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
1. I restored Malthus to the infobox. I also put Lyell first on the list, per Carroll (2003) p.23: “Lyell was overwhelmingly the most important single influence on Darwin’s work.”
2. With respect to the ongoing battle to prevent bloating, for the infobox of Alexander von Humboldt, the list of people influenced by him has only last names without line breaks, which I propose we do for Darwin’s infobox. I see the list of people influencing Darwin as informative and important and wouldn’t want to change that, but think that abbreviating the people he influenced in this way would be good. The list would then be: “Hooker, Huxley, Romanes, Haeckel, Lubbock”. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Modified

Please give a reference, that states specifically how Darwin's theory has been "modified". I have a doctorate in biophysics, and have read Origin, three Darwin biographies, all of Gould's collected Natural History columns, and Dennet's most recent book. I agree with their unanimous conclusion that Origin nailed it, and in unmodified form "Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life." Nick Beeson (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I would presume that "in modified form" was intended to refer to the so-called "modern synthesis", which provided the proper genetical foundation for Darwin's theory. Nevertheless, I agree that the qualification is not necessary, and prefer the wording you have come up with by removing it.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 17:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"Charles Darwin, Victorian Mythmaker", (2017) by A.N. Wilson

'Howlers' include all of the following errors:

1. Page 11: "...mother to nine children...";  Charles and Emma Darwin had TEN children as listed on page 187.

2. Illustrations opposite page 278: "...Emma Wedgwood, the mother of his nine children,..."; the Darwins had TEN children, all 10 of whom are listed at the bottom of  page 187.

3. Page 313 (i): "Francis...married and had one daughter, the poet Frances Cornford..."; this only refers to the second marriage of Francis Darwin, who - by his first marriage - had a son Bernard Darwin: see point 5.  below.

   Page 313 (ii): "George, the Cambridge maths don, had four children..."; George Darwin (and his good lady wife) had FIVE children, and not 'four'.

   Page 313 (iii): "Of Darwin's nine children..."; as indicated in point 1, Charles and Emma Darwin had TEN children as listed on page 187.

4. Page 327: "Gwen Raverat, daughter of George Darwin, recalled how her sister Frances..."; Frances Darwin, later Cornford was Gwen's cousin, and NOT her 'sister'; also on page 427 in the Index, Frances Darwin is referred to as being 'George's wife'! (She was NOT.)

5. Page 331: "Frank's wife Amy Ruck (who died, as did the baby, giving birth to their first-born)..."; the baby concerned lived until the age of 85 in 1961 as Bernard Darwin, the well known golf-writer! [Francis/Frank Darwin subsequently became a father again from his second marriage.] 

6. Page 350: Pallbearers = the author* lists 8 pallbearers, when in fact there were 10; the two left off the author's list being Wallace and the Reverend Frederick Farrar.   The best source for the funeral is "The Times" report:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Times/1882/News/Funeral_of_Charles_Darwin

(*Janet Browne in the second part of her biography recorded 9 pallbearers!)

2.28.70.214 (talk)  

Yes, the book is garbage. But why are you writing this here? This page is for improving the article Charles Darwin, and Wilson's writings are not even mentioned there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Financial independence

This edit highlighted in the lead the idea that post-voyage CD was able to start research on transmutaton due to his family connections – the source isn't readily accessible, but doesn't seem to be on that topic, and highlighting it in this way overweights its significance. At the time when CD also had government funding for his main work, publishing the Beagle collections. The issue is covered in context, with a better source, in the #Inception of Darwin's evolutionary theory section. Don't think it's a big enough point to squeeze into the lead, but it certainly doesn't belong at the start of that paragraph. . dave souza, talk 21:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018

In the paragraph

"After a week with student friends at Barmouth, Darwin returned home on 29 August to find a letter from Henslow proposing him as a suitable (if unfinished) naturalist for a self-funded supernumerary place on HMS Beagle with captain Robert FitzRoy, emphasising that this was a position for a gentleman rather than "a mere collector". The ship was to leave in four weeks on an expedition to chart the coastline of South America.[36] Robert Darwin objected to his son's planned two-year voyage, regarding it as a waste of time, but was persuaded by his brother-in-law, Josiah Wedgwood II, to agree to (and fund) his son's participation.[37] Darwin took care to remain in a private capacity to retain control over his collection, intending it for a major scientific institution."[38]

change the first sentence to tell whether it was a week after Darwin graduated from college, or if the trip with his student friends was just a week long, because the section on the page before this was talking about him graduating from college. It could also be nice to add how long after college it was that he received the letter.

I hope you take this edit into consideration -tbone 173.21.197.56 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. I've changed the sentence to be clear that "After leaving Sedgwick in Wales, Darwin spent a week with student friends at Barmouth, then returned home on 29 August to find a letter from Henslow...." and have shown the date Darwin set off with Sedgwick. More details at Charles Darwin's education. . . dave souza, talk 23:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the educated public

Thanks to DVdm for answering the request for a citation, however the point in the lead about acceptance of evolution in the '70s is well covered by Bowler, an expert in science history of the relevant period. Vakoch, Douglas A.; Dowd, Matthew F. (2015). The Drake Equation: Estimating the Prevalence of Extraterrestrial Life through the Ages (illustrated ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 188. ISBN 978-1-316-38118-2. Extract of page 188 is more focussed on ETI, and not clear about what "subset of the public" accepted evolution. Peter J. Bowler (8 September 2009). Evolution: The History of an Idea, 25th Anniversary Edition, With a New Preface. Univ of California Press. p. 178. ISBN 978-0-520-26128-0. (as in his 2003 edition) is quite nuanced, but clearly shows a shift in majority [educated] public opinion, so "subset" may be rather misleading. I've changed back to the earlier sourcing, but modified the wording to "he scientific community and a majority of the educated public had accepted evolution as a fact." Maybe understating things, but better in my opinion. dave souza, talk 19:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The addition of "the"

The article currently states "Darwin, c. 1854 when he was working towards publication of On the Origin of Species", the inclusion of "the" should be added and it should read "Darwin, c. 1854 when he was working towards the publication of On the Origin of Species". The exclusion of "the" makes the sentence lack any grammatical sense and if you compare the use of with and without "the", the results prove my point.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It makes grammatical sense either way, so edit warring over it is a Bad Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
No it does not, the inclusion of "the" is required. The search of "working towards publication" produces around 14,300 results and "working towards the publication" produces around 29,800,000 results.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the grammar in phrases like "working towards publication" or "working towards acceptance". And see the literature:
Google Scholar Books
"working towards publication" 92 135
"working towards the publication" 90 8
"working towards acceptance" 107 169
"working towards the acceptance" 51 3
- DVdm (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, the latter sounds a bit clunky to me; the former, given the use of a caption, is perfectly fine for its intended use. Much like billboards and headlines, in captions articles can be dropped. — Javert2113 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Simply being selective and only using scholars' use of omitting "the" in the sentence is an appeal to authority. Compare the overall results via Google. Excluding "the" makes the sentence awkward to read to say the least.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's compare the overall results via relevant Google searches, as above. - DVdm (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
As is often the case, the simplest solution was to reword the caption to avoid the disputed structure altogether — which I have done. General Ization Talk 22:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Descent of Man

I would like to add in the lede box, after 'Known for', The Decent of Man because this was an important and controversial work at the time, extending, as it does, evolution to homo sapiens. Any comments? American In Brazil (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I would favour the addition of this work to the infobox, but its title would need to be spelt correctly: "The Descent of Man" rather than "The Decent of Man".
David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:40, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Not a great fan of infoboxes and they should be kept short, but The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex is next in priority for a place after Voyage and Origin. Reasonable to pipe it as The Descent of Man though that skips a central thesis. Oh, and CD was of course the most decent of men. . . dave souza, talk 10:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I will add it. Thank you for pointing out my typo. I already knew Darwin was a 'decent' man from his 'descent'. American In Brazil (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Darwin/Archive_17&oldid=1136605104"