Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 5

message: Looking for Darwin http://www.lookingfordarwin.com is a website that follows one man's journey to uncover the relevance of Darwinism for the world. In it Lloyd Spencer Davis retraces Darwin's life and examines the evidence for Darwin's ideas and how they stack up against the alternatives offered by religion.
:Seems bizarrely ill-informed, writing "Darwin did not stop in Tonga. Had he done so, I think it unlikely the locals would have welcomed his “story” with the same enthusiasm that they have come to embrace the Christian one", apparently not realising that Darwin's first (joint) publication was in defence of missionaries, with particular reference to their good works in the Pacific isles. ....dave souza, talk 06:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin's life and Darwinism 

message: Mind if I throw up a peer review and try to get this to FA? Adam Cuerden talk 05:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. ...dave souza, talk 06:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not quite clear what we are asking for review on. This article, or that site & quotes therefrom?DGG 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: A citation was requested for:  Darwin read Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology... "and wrote home that he was seeing landforms "as though he had the eyes of Lyell"." This came from the Introduction by Janet Browne and Michael Neve to – , which states "Obviously Darwin was seeing landforms as though he had the eyes of Lyell, as indeed he said in letters to Henslow." However with Darwin's writings now available online I've searched for this and not found these words: Janet Browne makes a lot of Lyell's book inspiring Darwin at St Jago, so I've modified the text to reflect that. .. dave souza, talk 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first volume of Browne's magnum opus has a similar quotation that could be used. It seems that with his large volume of correspondence, he could not avoid repeating himself quite frequently. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did have a hunt but couldn't find it by using the index for Lyell being mentioned. However I was already thinking of adding the St Jago comments, hope you find the section improved. .. dave souza, talk 21:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that a nice quote. It may be a bit detailed for this page which is pushing beyond desirable article size, but certainly belongs on the voyage page. ... dave souza, talk 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested citation

message: This article, particularly the last half, is quite under-cited. If we want this to make FA, we're going to have to improve this. Adam Cuerden talk 10:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what Dave and I been working on for the last week. ^^ - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: "This article, particularly the last half, is quite under-cited."
Question: why was an article on an important person like Darwin done without citations in the first place?
Offer to help: Tell me any cite you need and I will provide it. I have a vast library on Darwin and access to hundreds of books about him.
Ray
:Ray, go ahead and put cites in. That is what Wikipedia is about, everyone pitching in where they have the ability. --Michael Johnson 02:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a list of ites needed at the temporary fork below. Adam Cuerden talk 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Offer to help with citations 

message: Please edit this version. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be aware the fork just lost the discussion of Darwin's disease, and the links to it: . We'll need to re-add  it later. Adam Cuerden talk 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary fork 

message: Fitz-Roy's temper was a most unfortunate one.  It was usually worst in the early morning, and with his eagle eye he could generally detect something amiss about the ship, and was then unsparing in his blame.  He was very kind to me, but was a man very difficult to live with on the intimate terms which necessarily followed from our messing by ourselves in the same cabin.  We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No."  I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? -Autobiography, page 23
With the risk of sounding like Kdbuffalo, I think we should add this in either here or to the appropriate sub-article. Adam Cuerden talk 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The incident is mentioned at Second voyage of HMS Beagle#Voyage and I've added that useful link as a citation. ... dave souza, talk 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Darwin on Slavery

message: The fork is citing up nicely, but it's just become clear that we don't actually have any coherent section on the development of the theory from the works of Malthus. These are the paragraphs that were to explain this:
Darwin considered Malthus's argument that human population increases more quickly than food production, leaving people competing for food and making charity useless. He later formulated this in the terms of his biological theory as: "Man tends to increase at a greater rate than his means of subsistence; consequently he is occasionally subjected to a severe struggle for existence, and natural selection will have effected whatever lies within its scope.". He linked this to the findings about species relating to localities, his enquiries into animal breeding, and ideas of Natural "laws of harmony". Towards the end of November 1838 he compared breeders selecting traits to a Malthusian Nature selecting from variants thrown up by "chance" so that "every part of newly acquired structure is fully practised and perfected", and thought this "the most beautiful part of my theory" of how species originated.
Darwin found an answer to the problem of the forking of genera in an analogy with industrial ideas of division of labour, with specialised varieties each finding their niche so that species could diverge. He experimented with seeds, testing their ability to survive sea-water to transfer species to isolated islands, and bred pigeons to test his ideas of natural selection being comparable to the "artificial selection" used by pigeon breeders.''
...I think we can all agree that this does *not* explain it well at all. Can anyone come up with something better? Adam Cuerden talk 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope that User:Samsara/Charles Darwin#Illness, engagement and natural selection now explains the transmutation / natural selection phase rather better: it's interwoven with Darwin's life, being a biography. There's a case for a separate article showing "the development of the theory from the works of Malthus" and many others, with no explanation of his life at the time: could be titled Darwin's development of his theory of natural selection since I've pinched development of Darwin's theory and it's tedious to move it and correct all the links. Anyway, first the biography. .. dave souza, talk 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye. Sorry, meant to strike that. I think it could do a bit better, but, seeing I wrote it, I think it's fairly good ;) Adam Cuerden talk 06:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major problem

message: I've cut (on the work version) the line about charity being useless - It muddles the issue, though one can see the point underneath it, and makes it sound like Malthus was arguing that they should be left to starve now rather than more starve later, which isn't quite accurate, though, admittedly, unfortunately near.  He quotes a Mr. Turner:
"Thus I unexpectedly discovered," he says, "where I had constantly seen the round of life moving in a tranquil regular routine, a mass of indigence and idleness, of which I had no idea. But yet it by no means surprised me, when I considered that, wherever indiscriminate charity exists, it will never want objects on which to exercise its bounty, but will always attract expectants more numerous than it has the means to gratify. No human being can suffer want at Teshoo Loomboo. It is on this humane disposition, that a multitude even of Musselmen, of a frame probably the largest and most robust in the world, place their reliance for the mere maintenance of a feeble life; and besides these, I am informed, that no less than three hundred Hindoos, Goseins, and Sunniasses, are daily fed at this place by the Lama's bounty."*91"
And later, again a quote:
"that distress and poverty multiply in proportion to the funds created to relieve them; that the measures of charity ought to remain invisible, till the moment when it is necessary that they should be distributed; that in the country parishes of Scotland in general, small occasional voluntary collections are sufficient; that the legislature has no occasion to interfere to augment the stream, which is already copious enough; in fine, that the establishment of a poor's rate would not only be unnecessary but hurtful, as it would tend to oppress the landholder, without bringing relief on the poor."
In short, Malthus' point about charity seems to be that if the poor are allowed to become dependant on charity, they will use it to increase beyond their means, and will require it forever. In short, what we'd call a modern Conservative viewpoint. This is a bit more subtle than "Charity is useless", and, since it's not actually germaine to Darwin's conclusions - indeed, tends to muddle the more central points Darwin is drawing from since charity is not generally something found in nature, I think we should leave it out. Adam Cuerden talk 15:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Charles Darwin, not about natural selection. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Darwin and the inflences on him. By his own testimony, Malthus was a major influence. A full description of Malthus's views and later interpretations thereof belongs in the article for Malthus. A description of the part that influenced Darwin belongs here, and that  charity is useless is not one of the key points, as faar as Darwin was concerned. That natural increase will be subject to the selection pressure of finite food resources, is the point. DGG 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi DGG and thanks for chipping in. My comment derives from a concern that we are tweaking this article to be all about the influences that led Darwin to develop his theory of natural selection. That is not what this article is about. This article is about Charles Darwin, the aspiring savant and "gentleman naturalist", who had opinions and concerns about many things other than natural selection. I am therefore making the point here that other aspects, such as his views on slavery, charity, his research on geology, soil formation and botany, are interesting in their own right and should find a mention in the article unless they were one-off comments, which none of the above were. For articles that focus on natural selection, see History of evolutionary thought, Inception of Darwin's theory, and Development of Darwin's theory. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Both Browne and Desmond&Moore emphasise that Darwin was affected by the implication of population size being kept stable by death, war etc. rather than by the idea of Malthusian catastrophe, the mass starvation idea which is more relevant to the poor law. I've modified it to suit, with Darwin references: he refers to de Candolle's "war" in his "wedging" note of 1838 and in his "sketch" of 1842, so these are cited. .. dave souza, talk 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Malthus Description

message: My idea there was to meet Adam's point that the article tailed off, and move any "greatest" type comments out of the biography sections. However, the Commemoration section probably does this just as well, and there's enough about his importance in the lead section. ..dave souza, talk 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy

message: Right! 24 22 cites by my count and this page'll be ready for FA fairly easily. =) Adam Cuerden talk 10:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be careful not to underestimate the FAC process. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Could be complaints that D&M and, to a lesser extent, Browne are cited too much, it may be worthwhile finding others covering the same issues. .. dave souza, talk 13:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, let's see if they complain. There's also a hefty primary source component, and a lot of that stuff courld be grabbed from Darwin sources. Anyway, W.S. Gilbert is fairly similarly cited, in terms of having a few main sources. Adam Cuerden talk 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites 

message: I removed a paragraph as the text does not come from where it says it does. If anyone knows where it does come from, add 'er back. (It might well be Krause's line misattributed to Darwin - the link I gave only shows Darwin's part.) Adam Cuerden talk 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, well spotted. I've removed it from Charles Darwin's views on religion, and commented it out of the Lady Hope article until a better ref is found. Always good to trim this article's size. .. dave souza, talk 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aaargh! Just found where it came from: D&M  p 6 – but as it says on p 7, Henrietta promptly censored her father's biography of his granddad, so that's why it's not in the printed version! Will restore it to the other pages, but this one needs to lose weight. .. dave souza, talk 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Paragraph 

message: Also on the questionable claims front: 
"In 1944 the American historian Richard Hofstadter applied the term "Social Darwinism"..."
I think this is wrong, as it appears the term was in use before then (dictionary.com gives a date of 1890 for first usage, for instance). Hofstadter at best popularised the term (though he certainly seems to have written the definitive analysis of the phenomenon) it might be good to mention Hofstadter, but  I'm not sure he need be outside of the main article.  Adam Cuerden talk 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good source is The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, edited By Gregory Radick, 2003, Cambridge University Press, Diane B Paul: page 224, In case that link doesn't work, here's the relevant wording. "Coined around the turn of the century, the phrase 'social Darwinism' was popularised in the mid-1940s by the American historian Richard Hofstadter. It has ever since been a term of abuse, applied to people, policies and ideas of which the writer disapproved. (People do not identify themselves as 'social Darwinists') A New Deal liberal, Hofstadter's target was laissez-faire conservatism." I'm reviewing the wording of the section, .. dave souza, talk 11:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong?

message: I've started the informal review and right off the bat I'm rather confused. I began, as always, with the references and, unless there is something I don't know or don't understand, they seem to violate 1c of WP:WIAFA. As you all know, 1c requires inline citations and compliance with WP:CITE, which in turn mandates the use of either Harvard, footnotes (i.e. Chicago) or embedded links and, obviously, whatever style is chosen has to be consistent throughout an article. The Darwin article, however, combines these styles oddly - it's a mixture of styles within a mixture of styles. There are improperly formatted pure Chicago references (e.g. ref 1 & ref 2 - cite web ought to be used for refs like these in pure Chicago, c.f. Richard Dawkins ref 1) and properly formatted Chicago refs (e.g. ref 57, ref 58). Then there are references which combine Harvard and Chicago - i.e. there is a footnote, which is written as Harvard instead of Chicago (e.g. ref 3, ref 6). To confuse matters further, some of the (non-inline; i.e. under "References" rather than "Citations") Harvard refs aren't properly formatted (all of them from Rothman to Yates). 
On the mixing of Harvard and Chicago: whilst there is an example of how to do this on the talk archive of WP:HARV (here) and although the "Template" section of HARV seems to suggest it is allowed (though it is very unclear), Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples doesn't include it and, personally, I think this mixing goes against citation best practice. I realise at least on other FA uses the same odd style - viz. Saffron - but I think articles should be references using either proper Harvard or proper Chicago. (For the Darwin article, at a minimum, the pure Chicagos ought to be converted and the improperly formatted (non-inline) Harvards fixed). 
In any case, pending discussion of this issue (and I might just be wrong about the whole thing - perhaps this Harvard/Chicago mix is indeed allowed) I'll continue with the review and post it below when it's done. Mikker (...) 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what was intended with this mixing of Harvard and footnotes can be seen here. Mikker (...) 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Saffron is the gold standard to me. Not responding to that objection, sorry. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to be pedantic, but, to my mind, WP:WIAFA is the sole gold standard for FAs. Any article - even one in other respects as good as Saffron - which violates the FA requirements ought either to be demoted or not promoted. In any case, to clarify this matter I've started a debate on WIAFA talk, here. Mikker (...) 02:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal review I: citation style

message: Ok… overall, it’s a damn good article that should most certainly become an FA (citation style issues aside). My detailed comments:
;Citation issues (not wrt style, wrt content) [1c]: 
#I think ref 2 ought to be replaced with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (which is both more rigorous and more famous). Online here. 
#:Done! Adam Cuerden talk 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: -- Mikker (...) 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for tackling that, .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem Dave :-). By the way, everything I haven't commented on I'm happy with (either the changes or the argument that it doesn't need to be changed). Mikker (...) 04:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal review II: content

message: What's the point of doing that? If its nearly ready for FA, get it ready and then send it to FA. There is no point wasting people's time at peer review, nor is that a requirement for an FA. You've got enough editors here who know what is needed to pass an FAC, why waste the resource? An aside, the template is horrible, its nearly impossible to find the link to the peer review. The edit button looks like its for editing the template. pschemp | talk 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Tht's why I killed that template. Forgot about that awful bug. Anyway, we're in the final stages of preparation, but it'll be a few days. This has failed a couple times before, and, though in my opinion it looks pretty good, it's possible that people not so close to the article could spot things we missed. Adam Cuerden talk 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd advise you to trust some of the editors on this page who have FAC experience and already know what is required. Anything that has been missed is probably so minor as to be easily fixed during the FAC or not be spotted by anyone. I still think putting an article this close to FAC on peer review (it will be ready in days) is a waste of everyone's time. pschemp | talk 04:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm looking forward to Mikker's comments. I think that will probably be more useful in the end. pschemp | talk 04:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Okay, anything else that needs fixing can probably still be fixed while the opinions come flowing in. Are we all ready for a nomination? Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm ready. Adam Cuerden talk 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see Mikker's comments first, and could do with at least 24 hours from now to go over the prose: still haven't got beyond the life section. The reference pages also need checking. It's certainly coming on. .. dave souza, talk 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The paragraph "Despite repeated bouts of illness, during the last twenty-two years of his life Darwin pressed on with his work. He had published an abstract of his theory, but more controversial aspects of his "big book" were still incomplete, including explicit evidence of humankind's descent from earlier animals, and exploration of possible causes underlying the development of society and of human mental abilities. He had yet to explain features with no obvious utility other than decorative beauty. His experiments, research and writing continued." needs sourcing. JoshuaZ 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read carefully, you will realise that this is just an introductory paragraph that refers to things that are laid out in more detail before and after, fully sourced. It's not necessary to source that summary paragraph on top of all else. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops my bad. JoshuaZ 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm still busy with (a pretty damn thorough) review and I have about a page and a half (in Word) of comments so far. I'd appreciate you guys waiting and addressing my concerns first (given the effort I've put in). Mikker (...) 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arr, right. Did think that the review that just dealt with the references was less than I expected. That'll explain it =) Adam Cuerden talk 02:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-)... I obviously didn't make it clear enough that I was still busy. In any case, I hope the rest of what I posted satisfies your expectations. (To be honest, there is actually very little wrong with the article - I checked almost all the online refs, for example, and found only one possible improvement). Mikker (...) 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact it actually supports in the article is plain even without registration, namely, the date of death, which is in the title of the obituary. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominate? 

message: Guys, at this point, can we please stick to addressing comments rather than adding new features into the text that personally please us best? I promise you that this job will never get finished if you continue to add new material at this point. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, hopefully that's me done. ... dave souza, talk 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addressing comments only 

message: :moved from User talk:Samsara
I'd be cautious about removing non-trivial references, for the simple reason that having too many of our refernces being Browne or Desmond and Moore might get reviewers complaining our research lacked breadth. However, for trivial references, e.g. the snopes article on the Darwin Awards, if it can be replaced with a non-trivial reference, I'd go for it. Adam Cuerden talk 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Browne and D&M are reliable sources. Some of those other ones are just web pages. That is my major concern. Anything that's not appeared in print is somewhat by-the-by. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, that. Well, keep the web pages that are copies of books, the JSTOR ones, and the Darwin Online ones (since the Darwin Online essays are the published introductions to various books from Cambridge University Press. Lose the rest, also anything really tangental like the earthworm ecology cites, if you can simplify it. Adam Cuerden talk 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever we can reference something to its printed incarnation, we should do that in addition to giving the hyperlink, e.g. the Chui page claims to be an excerpt from a book. Can we identify this book? Likewise for others. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very reasonable. I've actually been doing that witht he Huxley and such. Adam Cuerden talk 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ) Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll say yes to all of those. Note the publication date for Origin is wrong in 25. Should be 1859. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Notes be sorted. I'm off to dinner! Adam Cuerden talk 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Updated. Adam Cuerden talk 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind. Mathus for Malthus. Adam Cuerden talk 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say if the gaps are less than five pages, give the larger range. When you say cite for lead paragraph, I think you're talking about reference no. 4. I think it could be reasonably split. At the same time, we have referenced several sentences three or four times. We should consider whether each cite is necessary. Given that the number of references suggests at least three columns, we're not going to do the layout any favours by combining several cites into one, so I suggest we avoid that for now. I'm also still divided on whether we need to write out "Desmond and Moore" in the citations section. Moore, being the wikilinked author, is unlikely to get overlooked in the References section, and really, we're including them as references, not to give them attention in their own right. What do you think? Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I think this might just about work without making the citations section look absolutely horrible. Can we please convert everything to Harvard style or seriously ask ourselves whether it belongs. If it's "just a website", we may be better off not having it, even if that means removing a few minor details from the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I'm on cough medication. Counter-example to/with respect to...? Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that it's going to be hard to talk about, say, the exhibition at the American Museum of Natural history, the Darwin awards and such without using websites. Adam Cuerden talk 21:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Since the page was to hand, I've extended the D&M cite to cover Owen's neutral stance then attacking review. Hope that's ok. .. dave souza, talk 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There is still the unanswered question of whether both authors necessarily need be mentioned. I think we should go with what's best for the layout, and that's to initially mention only the first author. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally prefer both, but either way works. But I still don't know how to set it up so it will link properly =) Adam Cuerden talk 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: You are right that the bit about evolutionary psychology is not covered; also, that ref still needs converting to Harvnb/Harvard citation. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for enthusiasm, but let's wait for Dave to get back and give his consent. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Darwin references

message: :moved from User talk:Samsara
I generally agree with Mikker's requests for rephrasing, so let's get them done, I think.  Adam Cuerden talk 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Maybe we should all sign it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mikker's review, nominating for FAC

message: No criticism or any significant review of darwinism in the lead, should be fixed IMHO. --Brand спойт 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no need for that. Mikker (...) 04:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Why the hell should there by criticism in the lead? That would be POV-pushing, which encyclopedias don't do. 216.165.144.240 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, there's no criticism in the article, is there?  Closest are reactions and political interpretations, but reactions don't really count and the interpretations section is all about how his ideas were perverted or abused.  Therefore, unless you want to add a section, backed up with references, you really can't put anything in the intro anyway.  WLU 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Got a better proposal? Best to start a new section for discussion of it at the foot of this page, ...dave souza, talk 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: *Haupt, Lyanda Lynn. Pilgrim on the Great Bird Continent: The Importance of Everything and Other Lessons from Darwin's Lost Notebooks. New York, 2006.
*Keynes, Richard. Fossils, Finches and Fuegians: Charles Darwin's Adventures and Discoveries on the Beagle, 1832-1836. (London: HarperCollins, 2002) .
*Moore, James  and Adrian Desmond. "Introduction", in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (London: Penguin Classics, 2004). (Detailed history of Darwin's views on race, sex, and class)
Are these really so important as to need listing? Adam Cuerden talk 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, they're a hangover from references before there were inline citations, so aren't needed now. dave souza, talk 22:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Moore and Desmond intro is worth including with the references — it is a good overview of just what it says it is. I don't know about the others. --Fastfission 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm all for the removal... it's not necessary given our refs. Mikker (...) 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be appropriate to add the Moore and Desmond as an inline citation to the current paragraph on Descent, replacing the current reference 99? Sounds worthwhile to me. .. dave souza, talk 11:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, sounds like a good idea to me. Mikker (...) 11:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added it to the references, but can't persuade an inline link to work. .. dave souza, talk 18:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What's happened is I've added a reference to Moore, James & Desmond, Adrian (2004), "Introduction", in Darwin's The Descent of Man... etc, and tried replacing inline link 99 with the ref tags and two curly brackets each side of Harvnb|Moore|2004 or Harvnb|Moore & Desmond|2004|Ref=CITEREFMooreDesmond2004 – both of them look fine, but if you click on the blue link it reloads the page (without saving a change if in preview mode). No doubt I've done something wrong, probably Samsara will know what to do. It was certainly a waste of time me trying it out: haven't got the magic :( .. dave souza, talk 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, but I had to look at the page source to do so. Adam Cuerden talk 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Magic! .. dave souza, talk 19:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further reading

message: How do people feel about replacing the rather satanic picture that's at the head of the article, perhaps with the one further below, Julia Margaret Cameron's portrait of Darwin?  The one that's there now is really, really bad.  WLU 16:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed earlier, and there's value in showing Darwin as he was around the time of publishing Origin rather than later. .. dave souza, talk 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds nice, do please find: I'd a look earlier and didn't succeed. Also, it's desirable to have him facing the viewer or looking to the left so that it works on the page: Janet Browne's Voyaging has a nice shot on its cover (slightly obscured by lettering), but he's looking to the right which would have him gazing off the page. .. dave souza, talk 00:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always flip if you think that is a problem. --liquidGhoul 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess any photo will be public domain, but I've a dim memory of such editing being a copyvio problem. .. dave souza, talk 00:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are in the public domain (which they should be unless painted/taken by a very young person), then you can do anything to them. --liquidGhoul 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: ===Charles Darwin===
Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an eminent English naturalist who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community that species develop over time from a common origin. His theories explaining this phenomenon through natural and sexual selection are central to the modern understanding of evolution as the unifying theory of the life sciences, essential in biology and important in other disciplines such as anthropology, psychology and philosophy.
Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine, then theology, at university.  His five-year voyage on the Beagle established him as a geologist whose observations and theorising supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas, and the subsequent publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author. Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, he investigated the transmutation of species and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838. He had seen others attacked for such heretical ideas and confided only in his closest friends while carrying out extensive research to meet anticipated objections. However, in 1858, Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay describing a similar theory, forcing early joint publication of both of their theories.
His 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. Human origins and features without obvious utility such as beautiful bird plumage were examined in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.
In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence, he was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to  John Herschel and Isaac Newton.
 (More...)
Charles Darwin is, quite simply, one of the top two, if not the most, important scientists in the field of Biology. Only real rival I can think of is Gregor Mendel. 19 April, as the 125th anniversary of his death, seems particularly appropriate. Adam Cuerden talk 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Today's Featured Article Text

message: Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an eminent English naturalist who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community that species develop over time from a common origin. His theories explaining this phenomenon through natural and sexual selection are central to the modern understanding of evolution as the unifying theory of the life sciences, essential in biology and important in other disciplines such as anthropology, psychology and philosophy.
Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine, then theology, at university.  His five-year voyage on the Beagle established him as a geologist whose observations and theorising supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas, and the subsequent publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author. Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, he investigated the transmutation of species and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838. He had seen others attacked for such heretical ideas and confided only in his closest friends while carrying out extensive research to meet anticipated objections. However, in 1858, Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay describing a similar theory, forcing early joint publication of both of their theories.
His 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. Human origins and features without obvious utility such as beautiful bird plumage were examined in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.
In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence, he was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to  John Herschel and Isaac Newton.
 (More...)
Charles Darwin is, quite simply, one of the top two, if not the most, important scientists in the field of Biology. Only real rival I can think of is Gregor Mendel. 19 April, as the 125th anniversary of his death, seems particularly appropriate. Adam Cuerden talk 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Charles Darwin]]

message: Can we do better on the lead, think ye? Adam Cuerden talk 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: Is this a mistake?--Filll 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently a hoax by Skrooball. Well spotted, it's been deleted. .. dave souza, talk 09:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why does "Church of Science" get directed here?