This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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.
Mind if I throw up a peer review and try to get this to FA? Adam Cuerden talk 05:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article: It's a Wikipedia thing where others look at your article and tell you where it needs improvement to get to FA class. Adam Cuerden talk 14:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
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 – Darwin, Charles (1989). Voyage of the Beagle. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-043268-X., 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)
In the section of this name a discussion of his ill health was mixed up with the discussion of barnacles. I made a start in spearating the threads, but this needs some serious editing. User:mal4mac, talk 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for these pointers, I've tried out alternative section titles: please comment. The sub-articles are largely based on Desmond & Moore, point taken about getting this article up to speed first. We probably have till next summer for the museum opening. (see this and this) The citation required tags are really useful, please add them at any points you think a citation will be helpful. .. dave souza, talk 09:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit rushed at the moment and would like to see discussion of these changes, but the aim of making the text clearer and more organised is welcome. The "main articles" cover relevant periods, so I've moved the link to the first subsection it applies to. The smoothing had introduced some inaccuracies, so I've tried to straighten these points out without losing too much of the smoothing. Will go over it again when time permits, comments welcome. .. dave souza, talk 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Tricky, this. Essentially we've three opinions on the headings. In my opinion splitting the post-Beagle section into three makes one section too small to look right, so splitting it into two makes more sense. Since the Inception article covers both, it might be worth while making the second part a sub-sub-section, but that doesn't seem necessary. Here's my suggestions and comments.
1.3 Growing reputation and inception of theory
1.4 Mid-life publications and heart symptoms
1.5 Marriage and children
1.6 Development of the theory of natural selection
1.7 Publication of theory
1.8 Reaction to the publication
1.9 Active into old age
These options look like an improvement on the old wording, but other suggestions welcome .. dave souza, talk 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
I DID think there was an odd drpping-off half-way through. Adam Cuerden talk 11:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. Per your request, I've asked for cites where I thought them needed. I've also done a little copyediting. I've only gotten half-way through, though.
As a general rule, you want at least one cite per paragraph, I think, and almost always one at the end of a paragraph, unless there's a sentence at the end of a section clearly looking forward to well-cited things in the next section, or similar. This is because a paragraph break makes a natural "stopping point" for someone deciding how high up a citation goes: It generally can cover itself from its point up to the next cite and/or the start of the paragraph, but influence will rarely be seen as proceding higher than that. Or, well, that's what I think, and what I was told when being asked to add more cites to an already pretty well-cited W. S. Gilbert when it was a FAC. It would be nice to add in a few more biographies than just the one, if possible - Stephen Jay Gould has a lot of superb essays on Darwin's life, for instance. Using one reference too much seems to be looked on with disfavour. That said, go on using what's at hand, but if you have access to another source, go through while reading and "endorse" some of the cites already done, e.g. "See, e.g. Ainger, p. 288, or Wolfson, p. 3" - this is useful, because it shows to the FA reviewers that you have used multiple sources, which is potentially important. Adam Cuerden talk 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"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
Please edit this version. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Which of these is right? Adam Cuerden talk 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 clarification needed 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." [1] 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)
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)
Agreed, Samsara, but the Malthus section is relevant only to his theory - it doesn't seem to have any other effects on his life. Hence, we're within reason to focus solely on how it affected Darwin (which is, in this case, identical to how it influenced Darwin's theory), and leave out aspects of Malthus' thought unimportant to Darwin. I don't think anyone intended their statements to be generalised farther than that narrow focus. Adam Cuerden talk 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
HEh, true. But at least they won't be able to say it's not well-cited. Adam Cuerden talk 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Footnotes/references 135 and 136 are useless. They link to entire works instead of to passages where Darwin says what the text claims he said. In other words:"read this entire work to find out if I have paraphrased Darwin correctly" It needs page numbers, or even a brief quote 209.150.54.99 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)MIT Class of 1980
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)
Sounds like you've got to the heart of it. Nice job! Adam Cuerden talk 19:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
We ready now? Adam Cuerden talk 18:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done a few, by the way. Are they right? Adam Cuerden talk 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: I'm a regular FAC reviewer but, as I've edited the Darwin article quite a bit, I would feel uncomfortable doing an official review at FAC. How about I then do an unofficial review here on talk to prepare the article? It's quite an effort (especially if it's something I care enough about to be extra thorough) so let me know whether you guys would find something like that useful. (I am, btw, going to bed now so if it happens it'll be next time I log on, in 14-15h from now). Mikker (...) 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
I'm not sure, actually. I mean, look at W. S. Gilbert's footnotes, which are, frankly, a bit of a mish-mash of Harvard, weblinks, and notes, not even using templates (Though I think I may well do a tweak when I have time) and weren't commented on once. Anyway, this mixture seems fairly common procedure nowadays on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden talk 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok… overall, it’s a damn good article that should most certainly become an FA (citation style issues aside). My detailed comments:
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)
Fair enough. I'll take it off. Adam Cuerden talk 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
I hope the JSTOR stuff didn't cause problems: IT's worth a link, because many people will have access, but it's not universal. Adam Cuerden talk 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a couple other JSTOR articles too. Adam Cuerden talk 13:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Right. It's ready for FAC, I think. I've set up the archives, so it just needs put on WP:FAC, and the nominator's summary - which I think one of you two, as the major forces behind the push, should do. It also needs set up over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography's lists of FA candidates, but that's trivial and not actually necessary. Adam Cuerden talk 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Hmm. Having a look, the book appears to be "Did God Use Evolution to 'Create'?" - This is a particularly tangental sounding book, and may even be creationist. Can we lose the link entirely? Adam Cuerden talk 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Did a quick amazon search. The full title is Did God use evolution to "create"?: A critique of biological evolution, geological evolution, and astronomical evolution - definitely lose it =) Adam Cuerden talk 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Should references 25, 162, and possibly 170 be turned into notes? It's going to be a bit annoying reshuffling, though. If there's anything else to make into them, I'd rather do it all at once. Adam Cuerden talk 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I think the most important references to Harvard cite at present are 25, 40, 41, 46, 71 (especially bad. It's MAlthus, but doesn't say that - that's my next one), 64, 122, 135-6, 147, 149, and 150, and the replacement of 58 if we're going to do that, though that'll throw off all my numbering (I wouldn't harvard ref those two, as it'd give them undue prominence). There's a few out of the rest that would be good to do, but those - and maybe one or two more I missed - are, IMO, the necessary ones.
Adam Cuerden
talk 17:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Have I messed up something in the template for 71? Adam Cuerden talk 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the D&M refs give a lot of page numbers: do you want them trimmed? In some cases it was just skipping a few off-topic pages, but the larger range still covers it and the intermediate steps can be omitted. The cite for the lead paragraph covers a lot of ground, so to shorten it we could change it to a cite for each sentence. Also, let me know if there are other cites you'd like deleted and changed to D&M or Browne. .. dave souza, talk 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's worth combining references when it improves text readability. Having [160][161][162][163] is very distracting. Adam Cuerden talk 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, but the Commemoration section, and possibly the rst of Legacy is probably going to be a notable counterexample to this. Adam Cuerden talk 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Looking at what we have, the number of cites that aren't Harvard notation seems to be a cople in the opening which I'm CERTAIN we can replace from elsewhere if needed, one of which is from Darwin Online and thus scholarly anyway, And then just some some information on Asa Grey and Hooker, Malthus' obituary, a biography of Herbert Spencer, a list of 19th century books on evolution, and then the Social Darwinism and Commemoration cites. The social darwinism cites are the only worrying ones, IMO. Adam Cuerden talk 21:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Samsara, I've put it into the list, but I honestly don't know how to use the Harvnb tag with multiple authors. Can you set up 64 for me?
Adam Cuerden
talk 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure if cite... currently 117, "A year later Darwin published his last major work, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, which focused on the evolution of human psychology and its continuity with to the behaviour of animals. He developed his ideas that the human mind and cultures were developed by natural and sexual selection, an approach which has been revived in the last two decades with the emergence of evolutionary psychology.[117]" Actually covers it. Adam Cuerden talk 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Once that footnote I mention just above this is fixed, shall we submit it? If W. S. Gilbert's footnotes pass, the remaining work - though worth doing - probably won't matter to FA. Adam Cuerden talk 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. I think I've Harvnb'd everything left that can be reasonably. (Well, maybe 100, "Introduction to the Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Volume 14." - though we might have to do that as an Anonymous, and might get a better cite than 147, "Snopes.com page on the Darwin Awards") Just that last citation needed now. Adam Cuerden talk 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Right! That's the cite. Forgive my enthusiasm, but... think we be ready now? Adam Cuerden talk 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
As I rather thought might happen, they've already been done. I've half-set-up the FAC, but think you or Dave, as the motivating forces, should get to write the nomination.
Adam Cuerden
talk 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
No criticism or any significant review of darwinism in the lead, should be fixed IMHO. -- Brand спойт 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: the opening sentence:
Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an eminent English naturalist[I] who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community that species develop over time from a common origin.
This formulation strikes me as incredibly awkward and stilted, maybe worse. It makes it sound like Darwin pulled some kind of confidence trick on the scientific community. Also, given the initial failure of natural selection (rather than evolution per se) to win many scientific converts, it's somewhat inaccurate. Jamrifis 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Are these really so important as to need listing? Adam Cuerden talk 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Where is the link? I'll have a look if I know where to look. Adam Cuerden talk 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
In the second paragraph:
This seems to say that he came to eminence during the voyage (which is partially true, but "eminence" is probably too strong at that point) and (as a likely misreading by visitors) that the journal made him famous during the voyage as well. -- ragesoss 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflicted reply (looks irrelevant now):
I thought "a geologist whose observations and theorising supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas" was one of the phrases that was objected to? Adam Cuerden talk 18:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
There's better photographs of him from that period, though.... Adam Cuerden talk 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
But not if they're on DarwinOnline - we'd have to access the originals. I'll poke around appropriate old newspapers. Adam Cuerden talk 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I know it's a ways off, but what about a request for 19 April (125th anniversary of his death) o, if that's too far away, 12 February (198th anniversary of his birth) for the suggested date on the front page? It'd give us all a well-deserved break. (See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests) Adam Cuerden talk 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Can we do better on the lead, think ye? Adam Cuerden talk 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this a mistake?-- Filll 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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.
Mind if I throw up a peer review and try to get this to FA? Adam Cuerden talk 05:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
This article: It's a Wikipedia thing where others look at your article and tell you where it needs improvement to get to FA class. Adam Cuerden talk 14:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
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 – Darwin, Charles (1989). Voyage of the Beagle. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-043268-X., 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)
In the section of this name a discussion of his ill health was mixed up with the discussion of barnacles. I made a start in spearating the threads, but this needs some serious editing. User:mal4mac, talk 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for these pointers, I've tried out alternative section titles: please comment. The sub-articles are largely based on Desmond & Moore, point taken about getting this article up to speed first. We probably have till next summer for the museum opening. (see this and this) The citation required tags are really useful, please add them at any points you think a citation will be helpful. .. dave souza, talk 09:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit rushed at the moment and would like to see discussion of these changes, but the aim of making the text clearer and more organised is welcome. The "main articles" cover relevant periods, so I've moved the link to the first subsection it applies to. The smoothing had introduced some inaccuracies, so I've tried to straighten these points out without losing too much of the smoothing. Will go over it again when time permits, comments welcome. .. dave souza, talk 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Tricky, this. Essentially we've three opinions on the headings. In my opinion splitting the post-Beagle section into three makes one section too small to look right, so splitting it into two makes more sense. Since the Inception article covers both, it might be worth while making the second part a sub-sub-section, but that doesn't seem necessary. Here's my suggestions and comments.
1.3 Growing reputation and inception of theory
1.4 Mid-life publications and heart symptoms
1.5 Marriage and children
1.6 Development of the theory of natural selection
1.7 Publication of theory
1.8 Reaction to the publication
1.9 Active into old age
These options look like an improvement on the old wording, but other suggestions welcome .. dave souza, talk 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
I DID think there was an odd drpping-off half-way through. Adam Cuerden talk 11:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Right. Per your request, I've asked for cites where I thought them needed. I've also done a little copyediting. I've only gotten half-way through, though.
As a general rule, you want at least one cite per paragraph, I think, and almost always one at the end of a paragraph, unless there's a sentence at the end of a section clearly looking forward to well-cited things in the next section, or similar. This is because a paragraph break makes a natural "stopping point" for someone deciding how high up a citation goes: It generally can cover itself from its point up to the next cite and/or the start of the paragraph, but influence will rarely be seen as proceding higher than that. Or, well, that's what I think, and what I was told when being asked to add more cites to an already pretty well-cited W. S. Gilbert when it was a FAC. It would be nice to add in a few more biographies than just the one, if possible - Stephen Jay Gould has a lot of superb essays on Darwin's life, for instance. Using one reference too much seems to be looked on with disfavour. That said, go on using what's at hand, but if you have access to another source, go through while reading and "endorse" some of the cites already done, e.g. "See, e.g. Ainger, p. 288, or Wolfson, p. 3" - this is useful, because it shows to the FA reviewers that you have used multiple sources, which is potentially important. Adam Cuerden talk 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
"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
Please edit this version. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Which of these is right? Adam Cuerden talk 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 clarification needed 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." [1] 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)
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)
Agreed, Samsara, but the Malthus section is relevant only to his theory - it doesn't seem to have any other effects on his life. Hence, we're within reason to focus solely on how it affected Darwin (which is, in this case, identical to how it influenced Darwin's theory), and leave out aspects of Malthus' thought unimportant to Darwin. I don't think anyone intended their statements to be generalised farther than that narrow focus. Adam Cuerden talk 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
HEh, true. But at least they won't be able to say it's not well-cited. Adam Cuerden talk 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Footnotes/references 135 and 136 are useless. They link to entire works instead of to passages where Darwin says what the text claims he said. In other words:"read this entire work to find out if I have paraphrased Darwin correctly" It needs page numbers, or even a brief quote 209.150.54.99 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)MIT Class of 1980
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)
Sounds like you've got to the heart of it. Nice job! Adam Cuerden talk 19:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
We ready now? Adam Cuerden talk 18:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I've done a few, by the way. Are they right? Adam Cuerden talk 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion: I'm a regular FAC reviewer but, as I've edited the Darwin article quite a bit, I would feel uncomfortable doing an official review at FAC. How about I then do an unofficial review here on talk to prepare the article? It's quite an effort (especially if it's something I care enough about to be extra thorough) so let me know whether you guys would find something like that useful. (I am, btw, going to bed now so if it happens it'll be next time I log on, in 14-15h from now). Mikker (...) 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
I'm not sure, actually. I mean, look at W. S. Gilbert's footnotes, which are, frankly, a bit of a mish-mash of Harvard, weblinks, and notes, not even using templates (Though I think I may well do a tweak when I have time) and weren't commented on once. Anyway, this mixture seems fairly common procedure nowadays on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden talk 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok… overall, it’s a damn good article that should most certainly become an FA (citation style issues aside). My detailed comments:
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)
Fair enough. I'll take it off. Adam Cuerden talk 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
I hope the JSTOR stuff didn't cause problems: IT's worth a link, because many people will have access, but it's not universal. Adam Cuerden talk 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a couple other JSTOR articles too. Adam Cuerden talk 13:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Right. It's ready for FAC, I think. I've set up the archives, so it just needs put on WP:FAC, and the nominator's summary - which I think one of you two, as the major forces behind the push, should do. It also needs set up over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography's lists of FA candidates, but that's trivial and not actually necessary. Adam Cuerden talk 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Hmm. Having a look, the book appears to be "Did God Use Evolution to 'Create'?" - This is a particularly tangental sounding book, and may even be creationist. Can we lose the link entirely? Adam Cuerden talk 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Did a quick amazon search. The full title is Did God use evolution to "create"?: A critique of biological evolution, geological evolution, and astronomical evolution - definitely lose it =) Adam Cuerden talk 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Should references 25, 162, and possibly 170 be turned into notes? It's going to be a bit annoying reshuffling, though. If there's anything else to make into them, I'd rather do it all at once. Adam Cuerden talk 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I think the most important references to Harvard cite at present are 25, 40, 41, 46, 71 (especially bad. It's MAlthus, but doesn't say that - that's my next one), 64, 122, 135-6, 147, 149, and 150, and the replacement of 58 if we're going to do that, though that'll throw off all my numbering (I wouldn't harvard ref those two, as it'd give them undue prominence). There's a few out of the rest that would be good to do, but those - and maybe one or two more I missed - are, IMO, the necessary ones.
Adam Cuerden
talk 17:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Have I messed up something in the template for 71? Adam Cuerden talk 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the D&M refs give a lot of page numbers: do you want them trimmed? In some cases it was just skipping a few off-topic pages, but the larger range still covers it and the intermediate steps can be omitted. The cite for the lead paragraph covers a lot of ground, so to shorten it we could change it to a cite for each sentence. Also, let me know if there are other cites you'd like deleted and changed to D&M or Browne. .. dave souza, talk 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's worth combining references when it improves text readability. Having [160][161][162][163] is very distracting. Adam Cuerden talk 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, but the Commemoration section, and possibly the rst of Legacy is probably going to be a notable counterexample to this. Adam Cuerden talk 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Looking at what we have, the number of cites that aren't Harvard notation seems to be a cople in the opening which I'm CERTAIN we can replace from elsewhere if needed, one of which is from Darwin Online and thus scholarly anyway, And then just some some information on Asa Grey and Hooker, Malthus' obituary, a biography of Herbert Spencer, a list of 19th century books on evolution, and then the Social Darwinism and Commemoration cites. The social darwinism cites are the only worrying ones, IMO. Adam Cuerden talk 21:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Samsara, I've put it into the list, but I honestly don't know how to use the Harvnb tag with multiple authors. Can you set up 64 for me?
Adam Cuerden
talk 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I'm not sure if cite... currently 117, "A year later Darwin published his last major work, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, which focused on the evolution of human psychology and its continuity with to the behaviour of animals. He developed his ideas that the human mind and cultures were developed by natural and sexual selection, an approach which has been revived in the last two decades with the emergence of evolutionary psychology.[117]" Actually covers it. Adam Cuerden talk 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Once that footnote I mention just above this is fixed, shall we submit it? If W. S. Gilbert's footnotes pass, the remaining work - though worth doing - probably won't matter to FA. Adam Cuerden talk 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. I think I've Harvnb'd everything left that can be reasonably. (Well, maybe 100, "Introduction to the Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Volume 14." - though we might have to do that as an Anonymous, and might get a better cite than 147, "Snopes.com page on the Darwin Awards") Just that last citation needed now. Adam Cuerden talk 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Right! That's the cite. Forgive my enthusiasm, but... think we be ready now? Adam Cuerden talk 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
As I rather thought might happen, they've already been done. I've half-set-up the FAC, but think you or Dave, as the motivating forces, should get to write the nomination.
Adam Cuerden
talk 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
No criticism or any significant review of darwinism in the lead, should be fixed IMHO. -- Brand спойт 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Re: the opening sentence:
Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an eminent English naturalist[I] who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community that species develop over time from a common origin.
This formulation strikes me as incredibly awkward and stilted, maybe worse. It makes it sound like Darwin pulled some kind of confidence trick on the scientific community. Also, given the initial failure of natural selection (rather than evolution per se) to win many scientific converts, it's somewhat inaccurate. Jamrifis 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Are these really so important as to need listing? Adam Cuerden talk 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Where is the link? I'll have a look if I know where to look. Adam Cuerden talk 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
In the second paragraph:
This seems to say that he came to eminence during the voyage (which is partially true, but "eminence" is probably too strong at that point) and (as a likely misreading by visitors) that the journal made him famous during the voyage as well. -- ragesoss 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Edit conflicted reply (looks irrelevant now):
I thought "a geologist whose observations and theorising supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas" was one of the phrases that was objected to? Adam Cuerden talk 18:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
There's better photographs of him from that period, though.... Adam Cuerden talk 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
But not if they're on DarwinOnline - we'd have to access the originals. I'll poke around appropriate old newspapers. Adam Cuerden talk 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I know it's a ways off, but what about a request for 19 April (125th anniversary of his death) o, if that's too far away, 12 February (198th anniversary of his birth) for the suggested date on the front page? It'd give us all a well-deserved break. (See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests) Adam Cuerden talk 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Can we do better on the lead, think ye? Adam Cuerden talk 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this a mistake?-- Filll 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)