This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2007–2008. 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
A minor note, but I think that opposition to Origin is certainly more widespread than just America. I suppose it could be argued that in places like Africa, it's more ignorance than opposition, but it's still far from accepted, so best not to mislead readers into thinking that Origin is accepted everywhere but America. SnowFire 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Per my earlier comment, I plagerized a pre-existing section and combined with the theory as presented in the book into a new section called theory in a nutshell. This is largely based on a quick reading of CHAPTER 14. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION, here. [1] It does leave the problem that this is again recapitulated later in the article. It is a work in progress, but I think putting the theory in a nutshell earlier in the article is high priority.
StudyAndBeWise 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Dave and I have been doing a lot of work on this article, and I would like some other feeback as to what I can do to improve this article. I think it is coming along fine, but want other input, being relatively new. StudyAndBeWise 03:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion here between the views of creation as espoused in Darwin's time, and 21st Century American Creationism.
The article claims OoS "was controversial because it contradicted religious beliefs and the doctrine of "created kinds", which underlay the then widely accepted theories of biology".
Now when was the "created kinds" created? I don't know - but I doubt whether it is more than 20 years old.
Can someone who knows more about this than me go through and cut out these false Whiggisms please?
“ | Neither public welfare nor private charitiy should restrain the natural struggle for existence, he [William Graham Summer] stressed in an 1881 essay: "The law of the survival of the fittest was not made by man and cannot be abrogated by man. We can only, by interfering with it, produce the survival of the unfittest."[19] Darwin's translator, Clemence Royer, made similar arguments in her long preface to the French edition of Origin of Species and in her 1870 book, The Origin of Man and Societies. | ” |
This is from Larson 2004, p. 187 . I am not sure how it could be worked into the article, but that a translator of Darwin's book was making social-darwinistic arguments might merit inclusion in this or another article. (Probably already done in other articles). I just came across this and thought it was interesting. StudyAndBeWise 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Using the phrase "ill-informed" to describe the creation-evolution controversy is definitely weasel-wording.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.11.83.13 ( talk) 5:17, 26 February 2007
did darwin ever study molusks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.127.223 ( talk) 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I have put a lot of effort into writing a page on Neo-Darwinism, a page which once existed but was replaced by a redirect to Modern evolutionary synthesis. Sadly, it is marked for deletion. I feel strongly that Neo-Darwinism is a term with a long history, and in frequent use, by Evolutionary experts like Gould and Dawkins. It is used to mean 'the current theory that' rather than, 'the consensus arrived at in the 1940's' a distinction that I feel is important. There has been nothing agressive or improper about my approach, and I have supplied copious explanations on the talk pages of both articles. I feel badly treated, with unwarranted accusations that I have some hidden creationist agenda, which is total nonsense. Support on the page, and in the vote (see link on Neo-Darwinism would be appreciated. -- Memestream 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The Philosophical influence section seems to place far too much focuse on Mayr, who's unicited claims seem somewhat irrelevant. I move to strike, or at very least condense.--THobern 12:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The redirect of this page from The Origin of Species to On the Origin of Species brings it into line with the earlier editions, but the "On" was omitted for the final (and arguably definitive) 6th edition. [2] I've always taken care with this distinction when adding links to articles, so it means that all links, whether piped or not, are now to a redirect. .. dave souza, talk 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree Dave and I was shocked to see that this page had been renamed when I thought this distinction was well understood. Yes, I think the latest has to be taken as the definitive version, even though we know that the earlier versions are important to those searching for Darwin's true position. Yes the change has messed up links, and I will support you in putting things back as they were. -- Memestream ( talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move the page, per the discussion below, regardless of the perceived officiality of the longer title. Sources such as science journals (and Brittanica) tend to use this title, and the pertinence of the naming convention mentioned by Dave souza does not appear to be in question. Dekimasu よ! 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Origin of Species → On the Origin of Species — Talk:The Origin of Species#On the Origin of Species? — Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Malformatted poll entry moved to discussion area:
(moved by Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC))
Most if not all of the arguments in favour of the move seem to be based on the idea that the title of the book should ipso facto be the article name. Is this possibly an exception to the policy at WP:NC?
For nearly all books, the original title as published and the common name would be the same. But this is a particularly famous one, and has been published under several titles, and the common name may well differ from the book title. Does that matter? Comments? Andrewa 06:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Richard001 ( talk) 08:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
While I'm here, I might point out that, as with many other articles, the lead isn't as long as it should be. The two paragraphs are solid, but for something as long as this three or (better still) four are needed. Richard001 ( talk) 07:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) has a very useful brief summary of the main points in the book, rather than being focussed on the theory. Suggest making the Summary of his theory section a subsection of a broader overview of the book, will try to think of a title. That could then be concisely summarised as a third paragraph for the lead. ..
dave souza,
talk 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Among scholars and the such, it's referred to only as "The Origin of Species," and should be reflected as such in the title. Elfred ( talk) 03:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
it refers to the notion of intelligent design as unscientific, also it describes On the Genesis of Species, as "the cleverest and most devastating critique of natural selection" The article also implies that theology and Science are separate, however, if God is a being, and creator, then he is involved in the natural world.
also checking the sources for the line "A number of non-scientists in the United States and a few other countries disagree, often on religious grounds.[47]" finds the line to be misleading. the article is about "a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers." The point of the petition being that those opposing evolution, none of them explicitly cite religious grounds. Personally, I find it hard to know the validity of the numbers given, since it cites a 91' poll, gives no definition of a scientist was, how many were polled, where they were polled, and so on and so forth. Rds865 ( talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
An anon removed the Philosophical implications section, [3] and I've sympathy with the point that it's related to Darwinism or Darwin's ideas rather than the book.. . dave souza, talk 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The opening section says: The at-times bitter creation-evolution controversy continues to this day. I suggest adding: "...in some countries". In most parts of Western Europe, for example, there is no such controversy, and evolution is almost universally accepted as fact. Aridd ( talk) 16:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Above a user complained about using a scientist, Mark Isaak, who favors evolution, to define the Creationist's position. Another user responded that one couldn't find a primary source to refute a non-notable position. The problem is that Creationism is historically notable, and worse, Mark Isaak may have no credentials as a scientist. A brief search on Yahoo, turns up plenty of Isaak articles, but never his credentials. His own internet home web page includes no credentials. His book is viewable on Amazon, but there's no credentials given in the book, and the back page, which usually contains that sort of information, is not available for viewing. I am removing Isaak's rather editorializing comments, and reintroducing the polling data on the prevalence of Creationism among scientists from the original source he cites. 216.165.199.50 ( talk) 06:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
should there be some list of criticisms such as the racist nature of it. Rds865 ( talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The wikipedia article suggests that it does talk about humans. If Darwin didn't suggest that humans came from animals in Origin of the Species, then the picture of Darwin as an ape as well as the part about peoples reaction to the idea that humans came from animals be edited. Also Huxley's sketch of primates doesn't really belong here. Some pictures of finches would be more appropriate, wouldn't you say so? Rds865 ( talk) 16:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
How about a decent picture of Darwin, instead of, or at least in addition to, the caricature? Tedtoal ( talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2007–2008. 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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
A minor note, but I think that opposition to Origin is certainly more widespread than just America. I suppose it could be argued that in places like Africa, it's more ignorance than opposition, but it's still far from accepted, so best not to mislead readers into thinking that Origin is accepted everywhere but America. SnowFire 02:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Per my earlier comment, I plagerized a pre-existing section and combined with the theory as presented in the book into a new section called theory in a nutshell. This is largely based on a quick reading of CHAPTER 14. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION, here. [1] It does leave the problem that this is again recapitulated later in the article. It is a work in progress, but I think putting the theory in a nutshell earlier in the article is high priority.
StudyAndBeWise 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Dave and I have been doing a lot of work on this article, and I would like some other feeback as to what I can do to improve this article. I think it is coming along fine, but want other input, being relatively new. StudyAndBeWise 03:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be confusion here between the views of creation as espoused in Darwin's time, and 21st Century American Creationism.
The article claims OoS "was controversial because it contradicted religious beliefs and the doctrine of "created kinds", which underlay the then widely accepted theories of biology".
Now when was the "created kinds" created? I don't know - but I doubt whether it is more than 20 years old.
Can someone who knows more about this than me go through and cut out these false Whiggisms please?
“ | Neither public welfare nor private charitiy should restrain the natural struggle for existence, he [William Graham Summer] stressed in an 1881 essay: "The law of the survival of the fittest was not made by man and cannot be abrogated by man. We can only, by interfering with it, produce the survival of the unfittest."[19] Darwin's translator, Clemence Royer, made similar arguments in her long preface to the French edition of Origin of Species and in her 1870 book, The Origin of Man and Societies. | ” |
This is from Larson 2004, p. 187 . I am not sure how it could be worked into the article, but that a translator of Darwin's book was making social-darwinistic arguments might merit inclusion in this or another article. (Probably already done in other articles). I just came across this and thought it was interesting. StudyAndBeWise 02:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Using the phrase "ill-informed" to describe the creation-evolution controversy is definitely weasel-wording.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.11.83.13 ( talk) 5:17, 26 February 2007
did darwin ever study molusks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.127.223 ( talk) 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I have put a lot of effort into writing a page on Neo-Darwinism, a page which once existed but was replaced by a redirect to Modern evolutionary synthesis. Sadly, it is marked for deletion. I feel strongly that Neo-Darwinism is a term with a long history, and in frequent use, by Evolutionary experts like Gould and Dawkins. It is used to mean 'the current theory that' rather than, 'the consensus arrived at in the 1940's' a distinction that I feel is important. There has been nothing agressive or improper about my approach, and I have supplied copious explanations on the talk pages of both articles. I feel badly treated, with unwarranted accusations that I have some hidden creationist agenda, which is total nonsense. Support on the page, and in the vote (see link on Neo-Darwinism would be appreciated. -- Memestream 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The Philosophical influence section seems to place far too much focuse on Mayr, who's unicited claims seem somewhat irrelevant. I move to strike, or at very least condense.--THobern 12:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The redirect of this page from The Origin of Species to On the Origin of Species brings it into line with the earlier editions, but the "On" was omitted for the final (and arguably definitive) 6th edition. [2] I've always taken care with this distinction when adding links to articles, so it means that all links, whether piped or not, are now to a redirect. .. dave souza, talk 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree Dave and I was shocked to see that this page had been renamed when I thought this distinction was well understood. Yes, I think the latest has to be taken as the definitive version, even though we know that the earlier versions are important to those searching for Darwin's true position. Yes the change has messed up links, and I will support you in putting things back as they were. -- Memestream ( talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was move the page, per the discussion below, regardless of the perceived officiality of the longer title. Sources such as science journals (and Brittanica) tend to use this title, and the pertinence of the naming convention mentioned by Dave souza does not appear to be in question. Dekimasu よ! 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Origin of Species → On the Origin of Species — Talk:The Origin of Species#On the Origin of Species? — Francis Schonken ( talk) 17:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.Malformatted poll entry moved to discussion area:
(moved by Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC))
Most if not all of the arguments in favour of the move seem to be based on the idea that the title of the book should ipso facto be the article name. Is this possibly an exception to the policy at WP:NC?
For nearly all books, the original title as published and the common name would be the same. But this is a particularly famous one, and has been published under several titles, and the common name may well differ from the book title. Does that matter? Comments? Andrewa 06:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Richard001 ( talk) 08:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
While I'm here, I might point out that, as with many other articles, the lead isn't as long as it should be. The two paragraphs are solid, but for something as long as this three or (better still) four are needed. Richard001 ( talk) 07:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) has a very useful brief summary of the main points in the book, rather than being focussed on the theory. Suggest making the Summary of his theory section a subsection of a broader overview of the book, will try to think of a title. That could then be concisely summarised as a third paragraph for the lead. ..
dave souza,
talk 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Among scholars and the such, it's referred to only as "The Origin of Species," and should be reflected as such in the title. Elfred ( talk) 03:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
it refers to the notion of intelligent design as unscientific, also it describes On the Genesis of Species, as "the cleverest and most devastating critique of natural selection" The article also implies that theology and Science are separate, however, if God is a being, and creator, then he is involved in the natural world.
also checking the sources for the line "A number of non-scientists in the United States and a few other countries disagree, often on religious grounds.[47]" finds the line to be misleading. the article is about "a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers." The point of the petition being that those opposing evolution, none of them explicitly cite religious grounds. Personally, I find it hard to know the validity of the numbers given, since it cites a 91' poll, gives no definition of a scientist was, how many were polled, where they were polled, and so on and so forth. Rds865 ( talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
An anon removed the Philosophical implications section, [3] and I've sympathy with the point that it's related to Darwinism or Darwin's ideas rather than the book.. . dave souza, talk 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The opening section says: The at-times bitter creation-evolution controversy continues to this day. I suggest adding: "...in some countries". In most parts of Western Europe, for example, there is no such controversy, and evolution is almost universally accepted as fact. Aridd ( talk) 16:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Above a user complained about using a scientist, Mark Isaak, who favors evolution, to define the Creationist's position. Another user responded that one couldn't find a primary source to refute a non-notable position. The problem is that Creationism is historically notable, and worse, Mark Isaak may have no credentials as a scientist. A brief search on Yahoo, turns up plenty of Isaak articles, but never his credentials. His own internet home web page includes no credentials. His book is viewable on Amazon, but there's no credentials given in the book, and the back page, which usually contains that sort of information, is not available for viewing. I am removing Isaak's rather editorializing comments, and reintroducing the polling data on the prevalence of Creationism among scientists from the original source he cites. 216.165.199.50 ( talk) 06:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
should there be some list of criticisms such as the racist nature of it. Rds865 ( talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The wikipedia article suggests that it does talk about humans. If Darwin didn't suggest that humans came from animals in Origin of the Species, then the picture of Darwin as an ape as well as the part about peoples reaction to the idea that humans came from animals be edited. Also Huxley's sketch of primates doesn't really belong here. Some pictures of finches would be more appropriate, wouldn't you say so? Rds865 ( talk) 16:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
How about a decent picture of Darwin, instead of, or at least in addition to, the caricature? Tedtoal ( talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)