This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2010–2015. 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Don't know if the infobox requires a ref, I've changed it to the standard inline cite to Darwin 1859 p. iii rather than Facsimile of the 1st edition (1859) which seems to be a more informal version. If we keep an inline citation here, Freeman 1977 might be more informative as we already have a picture of the title page. . . dave souza, talk 17:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right, that site is far more informative. Whenever possible cite a reliable source; I actually meant to put it up for the publication date of the first edition. Magafuzula ( talk) 19:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The article on Tiberius Cornelis Winkler mentions that he translated the Origin of Species into Dutch in 1860 - four years earlier than the first Dutch edition mentioned here. Not being an expert on Darwin and his contemporaries, I'll leave it to others to assess the significance of this claim - but as it is verified by the sources I've added to the article on Winkler, I'll also add it here. Bahudhara ( talk) 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As the second paragraph in this section seemed to be more to do with the responses to the book than the section of the book itself, I've changed it using Costa and an article by Dawkins as sources. [1] The paragraph was referenced to Bowler (1989), which I don't have available, but a similar point is made in Bowler (2003) which I've cited for the point that blending inheritance would not be an issue in a population showing a range of small variations, such as differences in height, which would still be subject to natural selection. It also makes the point that Jenkins was thinking in terms of saltation rather than small variations, but the existing discussion of Jenkins seemed adequate without this level of detail. . dave souza, talk 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hung, K. C. (2009). "Alien Science, Indigenous Thought and Foreign Religion: Reconsidering the Reception of Darwinism in Japan". Intellectual History Review. 19 (2): 231–250. doi: 10.1080/17496970902981702. ISSN 1749-6977. (free article, alternative link) provides a fascinating study of the introduction of Darwin's ideas to Japan in 1877, and the conplex interaction of these concepts with Japanese traditions and modernisation. Since the first translation came 15 years later, it doesn't fit directly into this article, but worth a look. . . dave souza, talk 12:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Is labeling the book as "scientific literature" accurate? Darwin was not a scientist to begin with. Maiorem ( talk) 00:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Enjoyed the article. One minor comment: in the section on Inception of Darwin's theory it might be appropriate to make some mention of Desmond and Moore's recent work (Darwin's Sacred Cause : Race Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 1-84614-035-8.). These authors propose that Darwin's profound opposition to slavery, his pro-abolitionist views and his linked belief in 'common origins' of man led to the conception that there could be a common origin of all species. Desmond and Moore plausibly suggest that this controversial aspect was one factor in Darwin's tardiness in publishing. Adh ( talk) 13:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
New addition lacking sources:
The work of Darwin has been used in the political arena to support racism and the superior race, colonialism, or the right of colonial powers to control less developed countries, etc.
This may be a common creationist claim, but it's questionable at best, and needs reliable sourcing before it goes in the article. It's also about Darwin rather than specifically about OTOoS. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course that needs to be developed, but to remove it means that there is nothing to develop !!!!
It looks more the intenton of being "political coorect" and refuse to show some vievs ..... time to wondering why the article about the book lacks any reference to his political influence. If nothing is said it means that the article is severely biased
Milton ( talk) 02:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I was bold and took my stab. Let the arrows fly :) Rusty Cashman ( talk) 02:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Malthus' work: "An Essay on the Principle of Population" was said to give "statistical proof". I changed this to "theory". The Wikipedia page on this book by Malthus says: "This theory suggested that growing population rates would contribute to a rising supply of labour that would inevitably lower wages. In essence, Malthus feared that continued population growth would lend itself to poverty." And the Wikipedia page on Thomas Robert Malthus says: "Malthus has become widely known for his theories about population and its increase or decrease in response to various factors."
On neither page does it refer to "statistical" anything, and on both pages it refers to his writings as "theory". So shouldn't "theory" be used on this Origin of Species page also? Earlysda ( talk) 06:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
In late September 1838, he started reading Thomas Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population with its statistical argument that human populations, if unrestrained, breed beyond their means and struggle to survive.
I am not following you. Dave cited several reliable secondary sources in his comments that justified "statistical argument". I made an argument from a primary source, which is admittedly less persuasive (but still more persuasive than what other Wikipedia articles happen to say), but it is always nice when you have agreement between secondary sources and a straightforward reading of a primary source. Do you have a specific reason for liking "theory" or disliking "statistical argument" other than what other Wikipedia articles say? Rusty Cashman ( talk) 18:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have checked multiple online sources. The terminology used is all over the place. UC Berkely says "Malthus's observation that in nature plants and animals produce far more offspring than can survive". Would you prefer that? Another refers to "Malthus's Law of Population Growth" would you like that one? Yet another site talks about the "central theme" of Malthus's work. As Dave said, the issue is not the exact word choice, but whether or not the meaning of the words accurately describes the topic and is consistent with the interpretation of expert secondary sources. "statistical argument" is a perfectly good concise description of Malthus's essay, and it is not contradicted by any source I am familiar with. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 21:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I am (partially) translating the article to Slovak. I do not understand (complex or compound) sentence from Nature and structure of Darwin's argument: "Later chapters provide evidence that evolution has occurred, supporting the idea of branching, adaptive evolution without directly proving that selection is the mechanism."
( And I am lost in 3rd part adaptive evolution without... - Which words does this part bind to? :-) -- Ruwolf ( talk) 19:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ruwolf: I saw this as I passed by and don't know if the point has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. But I would point out that the "origin of species" in the title is precisely this question of "branching", or speciation. A key question of the time was whether new species are created. (Alternately, are we stuck with only the ones Noah brought?) The first two chapters of Origin point out that change does happen ("Darwin's Law"). Darwin's key point was that accumulation of small changes over long periods of time could lead to differentiation of a population into separate species. Also: he wasn't proving "that evolution has occurred" (a rather broad concept), but providing an explanation (theory) of how speciation (an aspect of evolution) occurs, along with many observations in support of that theory. As the sentence you refer to isn't entirely clear on this I would suggest you need not — indeed, should not! — translate it it too precisely. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
When I was taught evolution in 1972, in a high school in Sydney, Australia, we used the standard blue Harry Messel textbook. It was so long ago I no longer remember the name of the book, only that it was the Messel Science textbook. But in any case, it showed the different finches of the Galapagos. A different species on every island; and no two species on the same island. One in particular stands out, a finch that uses a tool - a cactus spine - to pry out insects. He (Messel) certainly gave the impression that these finches were "important" in Darwin's formulation of the theory.
This is what we were taught. And of course this book was used all over NSW. I suspect that that makes it a credible reference, yes??? So I wonder, why are the finches not mentioned here? 121.218.224.177 ( talk) 10:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
John, thanx for your quick reply. IMHO the mention is nowhere near enough. As I understand it, the finches were at least as important as the mockingbirds. If only I had that only Messel book to quote. 124.187.174.113 ( talk) 07:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, wouldn't it make paragraphs easier to read if the quotes are surrounded by quotation marks?
“ | WHEN on board HMS Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. | ” |
I'm not going to do it, unless someone tells me I can. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 15:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There are very few references in the introductory paragraphs, to the extent that large swathes of the topic are covered without any citations. Four out of the six citations in this section are purely bibliographic details about the first edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.69.11 ( talk) 14:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Call me pedantic, but the sentence that reads "...evolutionism was triumphant" needs some editing. I think it's just a matter of clarification - was "evolutionism" triumphant over "Darwinism" as a term; was it "triumphant" over competing issues in zoological science; or in gaining popularity against other works on evolutionary biology? As it stands, this sentence makes the increased popularity of Darwin's writing appear singularly final, as if the field has either stagnated or is entirely unopposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.69.11 ( talk) 14:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Guys: A slow edit war is still an edit war, and is still disruptive. I applaud the discussion going on here, but the back-and-forthing in the article needs to stop. Therefore, I have protected the article for two weeks. Note that any participants with administrator rights are expected to refrain from editing an article that's been protected due to a content dispute. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a common misunderstanding that "races" is used in the modern common usage of "human races", Hodgson, Geoffrey Martin (14 May 2014). Economics in the Shadows of Darwin and Marx. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-78100-756-3. is a perfectly good reference for this point. It's also supported by Isaak, Mark (20 October 2003). "CA005.2: "Preservation of favoured races"". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 23 June 2016. As detailed in Difficulties for the theory that section makes a reference to "the races of man", and there are two other instances where that phrase is used, but there are multiple instances where "race" or "races" are used in the sense of varieties, and those three isolated instances should not be given undue weight. Stan, repeated removal of a good source is edit warring, and is becoming disruptive: it you want to dispute these sources, WP:RSN is the appropriate venue. . dave souza, talk 22:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The full title of Darwin’s path-breaking book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Some have seen its reference to ‘favoured races’ as evidence of racism. [false claim omitted]. Throughout the work, ‘races’ refers to ‘varieties’, and the terms are used interchangeably.
In confirmation of this view, let us glance at the classification of varieties, which are believed or known to have descended from one species. These are grouped under species, with sub-varieties under varieties; and with our domestic productions, several other grades of difference are requisite, as we have seen with pigeons. The origin of the existence of groups subordinate to groups, is the same with varieties as with species, namely, closeness of descent with various degrees of modification. Nearly the same rules are followed in classifying varieties, as with species. […] In classing varieties, I apprehend if we had a real pedigree, a genealogical classification would be universally preferred; and it has been attempted by some authors. For we might feel sure, whether there had been more or less modification, the principle of inheritance would keep the forms together which were allied in the greatest number of points. In tumbler pigeons, though some sub-varieties differ from the others in the important character of having a longer beak, yet all are kept together from having the common habit of tumbling; but the short-faced breed has nearly or quite lost this habit; nevertheless, without any reasoning or thinking on the subject, these tumblers are kept in the same group, because allied in blood and alike in some other respects. If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group, however much he might differ in colour and other important characters from negroes.
these are good secondary sources” and that the problem is only my “
inability to understand what they're saying on this topic”. You need to stop pretending that that the Emperor has any clothes on. The problem here is not my inability to read plain English, Dave, but rather, your Emperor is stark naked. Accurate sourcing is an important and fundamental component of Wikipedia, so please stop citing these particular passages. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 21:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
On one hand we have reliable secondary sources. On the other we have a Wikipedia editor who insist the "sources are lying". We go with the sources. Not really much to discuss here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.” It is used to source the claim: “
There are very few references to human races”. Volunteer Marek, please explain how this is valid citation. I agree with the article that there are not many references to human races in OTOOS, but the TalkOrigins passage simply doesn't say this, so even if it were accurate (which it’s not), it would still not be a proper source for this specific claim. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 22:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.” 01:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC) [comment by Volunteer Marek}
But the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all.” This is simply and completely false, thus failing WP:RS also. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 02:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
As discussed above, TalkOrigins covers the few uses of "faces of man", and the usage of "race" to refer to "varieties". Stan keeps trying to add the p. 424 paragraph which doesn't use the word "race" at all, but does question "If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro" when discussing "the classification of varieties". Costa explains "varieties" in that paragraph as equating to the modern usage of "race", it's not Darwin's usage. Hodgson is a good source backing up the point that "races" is used interchangeably with "varieties", and our paragraph goes on to cover the three exceptional uses of "races of man" while avoiding giving these exceptions undue weight. By my reckoning there are 8 references to race horses, and one to "the Goodwood Races", but we clearly shouldn't get into discussion in the article of that usage, or give any weight to the two adverts in "Mr. Murray's General List of Works" for Erskine's Journal of a Cruise among the Islands of the Western Pacific, including the Fejees, and others inhabited by the Polynesian Negro Races and Grey's Polynesian Mythology, and Ancient Traditional History of the New Zealand Race. They show that the term was in use at that time, and affirm that Darwin generally avoided that usage. Thus, I've undone Stan's revert. . . dave souza, talk 07:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
the connotation of human races”. In your following edit, according to you, TalkOrigins and Hodgson both agree on this point. In this post you claim that both sources make the point that “
There's a common misunderstanding that "races" is used in the modern common usage of "human races"”. So according to you, these sources maintain that OTOOS does not use race in the modern usage of human race.
the usage of "race" [refers] to "varieties"” and maintain that “
"varieties" in [the p. 424] paragraph [equates] to the modern usage of "race"”. So now you acknowledge that contrary to your own understanding of Hodgson and TalkOrigins, OTOOS did use both race and variety in the modern usage of human race. This reality is reinforced by Darwin’s repeated use of the term race for both Negroes and Hottentots in TDOM ( p.217, p.218, p.334 vol.2, etc).
Costa … explains that "varieties" in that paragraph equates to the modern usage of "race";” when what Costa actually said on this point is: "In Darwin’s day these features led naturalists to identify the Khoikhoi as a distinct “race”". Everyone here can see that you are simply embarrassed for having claimed that Darwin never used the term variety to refer to human race without realizing that Darwin had made the suggestion that “the Hottentot” might have descended from “the Negro”, and now you are angry and bitter that I’m calling you out. If you could only stop with your WP:FRINGE claim that Darwin didn’t view “the Hottentot” and “the Negro” as races, that would be awesome. Thanks. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 20:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
restore sources, remove offtopic original research”. I’ll discuss each point in more detail.
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse." It isn't.” Well, actually, if you hadn’t relied on charlatans here, you wouldn’t have claimed that OTOOS never used the term varieties “with the connotation of human races”.
"other naturalists"is simply not true. Costa described the features by which all naturalists in general were led “to speculate as to [the] relationship” between the Hottentot/Khoikhoi and the Negro, and Costa explicitly linked this to Darwin’s work in his next sentence: "This is the context for the idea of the Hottentot “descend[ing] from the Negro.”" And also, anyone with more than 10 working brain cells will understand from a simple and straight-forward reading of OTOOS that this is exactly what Darwin was doing. So again: the post is properly sourced and not original research.
1. Johnuniq, you
reverted my post saying: “none of the steps at
WP:DR involve ignoring consensus or berating other editors; try
WP:RSN to question the reliability of a source
”. Your claim that I am “ignoring consensus” is completely false because there is no consensus to ignore. The Darwin Hagiography LobbyTM, (Ref: Logicus,
diff or
thread) has not engaged in (nor attempted) the steps needed to achieve consensus but simply relies on
WP:OWNERSHIP.
2. From the
WP:CONSENSUS nutshell statement: “Consensus … is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.” emphasis added
From the section,
"In talk pages": “Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.” emphasis added
From
WP:DR, the section
"Discuss with the other party": “Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia.” emphasis added
3. I have raised many legitimate concerns which you never make any attempt to address. Among your many complaints, you criticize me for citing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as if the LobbyTM is entitled to make its own rules. Your favourite stonewall tactic is WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I asked a “plain question” as you suggested and was told that questions to correct inaccuracies were “offtopic”; you resonded with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I demonstrated that an editor is as soapy as Samuel Wilberforce = ( WP:IDHT). I point out that Costa discusses race “In Darwin’s day” rather than the falsely claimed “modern usage” = ( WP:IDHT). When WP:BULLSHIT claims were made that Darwin didn’t think “the Negro” or “the Hottentot” were races = ( WP:IDHT). Costa doesn’t use the word “other” on p.424 or distinguish Darwin from other naturalists in any way = ( WP:IDHT). TalkOrigins says exactly the opposite of the passage that cites it, = ( WP:IDHT).
4. What the Darwin Hagiography LobbyTM has here is not consensus. There is only one person on the LobbyTM who makes decision about content and edits the article; this is Multiple-editor ownership:
The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process. emphasis added except italics original
You often do the tag team, attacking me when I ask the WP:OWNER a question and letting him respond when I put a question to you. In this post you proudly proclaim that you don’t care if I am right and “everyone else is wrong”, you will continue to support the LobbyTM.
5. Johnuniq, if you want to take TalkOrigins to WP:RSN, be my guest. Go ahead and ask them if a source that says that Darwin didn’t refer to human races can be used as a citation to the post that OTOOS did refer to human races. Until then, you need to stop drinking the WP:KOOLAID. Your continued restoration of such a flawed source is a deliberate act which undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 16:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
focus on proposing improvements to the article”. Thank you for the invitation. My proposal to improve the article is for you to stop saying things that aren’t true and to acknowledge when you have said something that isn’t true. That would make things so much better here.
TalkOrigins covers the few uses of "faces of man"”; please acknowledge that the TalkOrigins passage denies that Darwin used the term “races of man” and does not mention “faces of man”.
rudeness is no substitute for polite reasoned discussion”, as you say, but your selective engagement in our discussions is a far cry from “polite reasoned discussion”. This includes the way you pretend and refuse to answer questions you find awkward (see above, also my comment at CD Talk). Also, if you really were trying for a “polite reasoned discussion” then you would have went back to your posts here and here to strike out the claim (using <s></s>) that Costa was talking about “
the modern usage of "race"” after I pointed out that Costa explicitly referred to “Darwin’s day” (see WP:REDACT). (See also: Freezing out editors with whom you disagree Location)
we need a reliable secondary source for any comment on [Darwin’s private thoughts]”, but I am not advocating the addition of any such comments. All the added post says is “in his discussion on classifying varieties he speculated on the relationship between "the Hottentot" and "the Negro".” This is exactly what Darwin did in OTOOS, as confirmed by Costa. There is no assertion being added to the article that Darwin viewed them as races and therefore no original research.
Race, as used by Darwin [does not refer] to human races.” Darwin used the compound term “races of man” to refer to human races, so TalkOrigins is saying that Darwin didn’t use race in the term “races of man”. It cannot be true that Darwin didn’t use the term race to refer to human races yet used the term “races of man” thus TalkOrigins is denying that Darwin used the term “races of man”.
The subsection
On the Origin of Species#Choice of title deals with the point that Darwin used the term "
races" interchangeably with "
varieties", with the meaning of varieties within a
species rather than
human races.
In three instances he refers to races of man, which can reasonably be read as "varieties of mankind". In modern usage, the primary use of "race" when discussing groups refers to humans:
thefreedictionary has "1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them., 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the Celtic race., 3. A genealogical line; a lineage., 4. Humans considered as a group., 5. Biology; a. A usually geographically isolated population of organisms that differs from other populations of the same species in certain heritable traits: an island race of birds.; b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals." Thus Darwin's general usage comes fifth.
Similarly
Merriam-Webster "Definition of race for Students" refers 1. to "groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits", 2. to groups sharing "culture or history <the English race>", or 3. "a major group of living things <the human race>", but their "Medical Definition of race" has 1a: "an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group"; 1b: "breed".
OxfordDictionaries provides a similar hierarchy; then cautions: "Usage In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, it is now often replaced by other words which are less emotionally charged, such as people(s) or community."
Hence the need for clarification. In Darwin's context, "race" was used freely in the biological/medical sense, including "races of humans" with the meaning of "variety of humans". Thus,
Edward Blyth in 1855 – "We should distinguish the varieties of animals into normal and abnormal; the former exemplified by the European races of cattle, sheep, &c, which retain the normal conformation of other and wild animals, or present aberrations of merely trivial import, such as might even characterize a wild species. The races of mankind fall under this division .... Have you seen Knox’s curious volume on the races of mankind? ... I think that the designation breed should be restricted to those artificial races which have been intentionally produced by the admixture of normal varieties ...". Darwin strongly disputed Knox's views, a context that should not be obscured by the modern tendency to take the word "race" on its own as referring to humans. "Races of cattle" looks odd nowadays, so the usage of "race" needs to be explained in the article. . .
dave souza,
talk 13:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
In Darwin's context, "race" … [included] "races of humans"”. This is reinforced by the fact that their 1st definition states “Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification” which stands in contrast to Darwin who obviously did recognize race as a biologically valid classification, as highlighted by your quote from OxfordDictionaries on its 19th century usage. So, it’s not clear what exactly needs clarifying.
"varieties of mankind"” are very much on topic here because, as you say, “
Darwin used the term "races" … with the meaning of varieties”, so we need to demonstrate what that means.
it’s so important to show
Darwin’s use of varietiesand how he commented on a possible relationship between "the Hottentot" and "the Negro" in his discussion on classifying varieties. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 23:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Restarting the discussion from #Meaning of favoured races: sources above, which has been derailed with screeds of text and other topics, Stan doesn't like two specific sources and keeps deleting them because they go against his original research. On 21 June and 23 June Stan has been pointed to WP:RSN as the appropriate venue to dispute the reliability of sources, but instead has produces spurious accusations of "lies". To clarify discussion on these specific sources, please comment on each below the relevant bullet point, or take the sources to RSN if you think the whole source should be removed. Please keep comments concise and on-topic to avoid walls of text, and avoid accusations of "lying" or offtopic assertions about "the Hagiography LobbyTM" . . . dave souza, talk 13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
few references to “races of man”" might or might not be minor, but they certainly are examples of explicit references to human races, thus clearly contradicting this source. Hodgson is in line with TalkOrigins passage “CA005.2” in not giving any weight to this reality that you consider inconvenient (thus failing WP:RS).
clearly refer to human races” yet now say this very claim “
is questionable”. I am happy to work for a consensus with good-faith editors but have less patience with claims that 2+2=5.
Darwin refers to "races of man", meaning varieties of humans. First, why does it matter what that means? What article content would be affected by the response? Second, the comment has a clear meaning—what is the point of the question? If there is some doubt about the comment (and if the doubt is relevant to this talk page per WP:NOTFORUM), it would be better to briefly explain the doubt. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@
Dave souza: 1. My question above is very simple, I think your silence is disgraceful. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit. Differences of opinion are supposed to be discussed openly and honestly on the talk pages, not met with
smoke screens and
stonewalling.
2. Back in 2008 you posted the unsourced and unverified claim that Darwin hadn’t referred to human races. When I objected, much to my surprise, you found two sources that did actually verify this claim. When I demonstrated that the claim itself was bullshit, you removed the wording from the article, but still want to keep the citations to the passages making the claim. The rules on Wikipedia are clear that you have the burden to demonstrate the claim. If you refuse to answer my 4 November post above, I have every right to remove them.
3. Important Diffs. As mentioned, eight years ago, you
posted that Darwin had not used the terms race or variety with the connotation of human races,
synthesized from the fact that Darwin had discussed races of the cabbage. The argument here relies on the unstated premise that humans cannot have races if cabbages have races; apparently races are in short supply. After I
deleted it, you found a couple of sources that did actually verify your post. First you
cited Hodgson’s line: “the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all” and then you
cited TalkOrigins passage that Darwin hadn’t used the term race to refer to human races. When I pointed out that Darwin’s reference to “the Negro” and “the Hottentot” very definitely did “carry the connotation of human races” you changed course on 27 June,
posting that Darwin had referred to human races in OTOOS and in
this edit, removing the false wording from the article itself but keeping the citations and links to the passages making this false claim. You then edit warred to maintain them.
4. Note that the TalkOrigins citation had to be moved because the original cited passage was deleted so you moved it to cite the line: “There are very few references to human races”. The only problem here is that TalkOrigins actually says there are no references to human races with the term race, which is why you had
originally said that it was “not being cited for the few references to "races of man"
”. Thus the passage did not
verify the claim that cited it.
5. Dave, even though your claim that Darwin hadn’t referred to human races became untenable to post directly in the article (pointing out that Darwin clearly referred to human races completely contradicted this claim), you still want to provide links to literature that push this same bullshit propaganda. In my experience, this is exactly how YECists operate: when you point out that what they are saying is factually incorrect, you’ll probably still be told to check out Answers in Genesis. If you do not answer my 4 November question, I will go ahead with the removal of this false and misleading information. Aggressively! -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 16:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
the vast majority of uses of the word in the book refer to other organisms, not humans”. We know from reading OTOOS that this is true, but, the passage certainly never says that OTOOS did refer to human race some, and, like Hodgson, actually says that there weren’t explicit references to human races in OTOOS. Thus, the passage does not say the point that it is cited for.
the vast majority of uses of the word in the book refer to other organisms, not humans”. The passage actually says that Darwin didn’t use the term race to refer to human races, when in fact Darwin definitely did use that term to refer to human races. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 04:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
confirms the point … that in Darwin's context "race" was as likely to refer to "races of cattle" as "races of man", and the vast majority of uses of the word in the book refer to other organisms, not humans”, yet in your 7 August post you claim that the very same passage describes “
what "race" means in the title, and it isn't a source for usage elsewhere in the book”.
The subsection
On the Origin of Species#Choice of title deals with the point that Darwin used the term "
races" interchangeably with "
varieties", repeated attempts have been made to add the words "and in his discussion on classifying varieties he speculated on the relationship between "the
Hottentot" and "the
Negro", sourced to
Darwin & Costa 2009, p. 424 and OtOOS
p. 424, Quote: "If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group, however much he might differ in colour and other important characters from negroes."
That's from a section on varieties, and makes no mention of the word "race" so it's offtopic. "Speculated on" is original research: Darwin, as Browne says, is using a human example to illustrate his point that classification follows descent. Both terms are deprecated nowadays due to concerns over racism, so simply highlighting them out of context is misleading for modern readers. As it happens, Darwin didn't agree with the contemporary racist views of these people: Desmond & Moore 2009 discuss the point in relation to his early description of the Hottentots as "the ill treated aboriginals of the country" and the guide he hired as a companion, who "spoke English very well and was most tidily drest" – see also
this .
dave souza,
talk 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Costa's note on the paragraph starts by explaining the name "Hottentot" and noting that "it is considered offensive today", so good reason not to show it out of context. He describes Khoikhoi features, and says "In Darwin’s day these features led naturalists to identify the Khoikhoi as a distinct 'race' and to speculate on their relationship to the more widespread Bantu ethno-linguistic group, which white Europeans collectively referred to as 'negro'. This is the context for the idea of the Hottentot 'descend[ing] from the Negro'." Nothing there about Darwin speculating, it's context that naturalists of the day (and earlier) speculated about the issue. While Costa is a secondary source for interpreting Darwin's paragraph, he does that for most paragraphs in the book and on his own doesn't indicate that is sufficiently significant to add as a topic to the article, let alone intrude it into the section on the usage of race which it doesn't cover. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
In conclusion, there's clearly no consensus for deletion of the #Reliable sources on usage of "race" or for inclusion of this oftopic wording about Hottentots, so I've undone his reversion and ask him to get talk page agreement on changes before reverting again. . dave souza, talk 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
using a human example to illustrate his point that classification follows descent” means that Darwin wasn’t speculating about the relationship between the races used in the example also doesn’t hold any water; Darwin’s statement that if descent could be established “I think he would be classed under the Negro group” is clearly both.
Both terms are deprecated nowadays due to concerns over racism” and that using the term “Hottentot”
is considered offensive today. But the simple fact is, Darwin used these terms in his great book and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Putting the terms in quotations, as I did, adequately demonstrates your concerns. There is nothing being taken out of context here. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 17:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Darwin doesn’t make use of varieties for human races” when he uses “the Negro” and “the Hottentot” as a human example for the classification of varieties? Common sense contradicts your assertion.
that this has sufficient significance to be mentioned in the article” is original research is false. From Editorial Discretion: “It is not original research to make judgement calls on what content to include or not include, how to frame an issue or claim, or what claims and subjects are suitable for Wikipedia.” Most of your posts include editorial discretion, so by your own criteria, most of that would be original research.
explanation of wording in the title”. It explicitly discusses Darwin’s use of race and variety “[h]ere and elsewhere in the book”, [4] and includes his comment that sexual selection could illuminate the origin of the differences between human races. So, yeah, that’s more than just the title and my post is entirely on topic here!
you need an explicit secondary source to give any WP:WEIGHT in the article” is complete and total bullshit. Wikipedia does not restrict citations to secondary sources, so please stop pretending it does. This article has dozens of citations to OTOOS without “an explicit secondary source”. Do I need to remove them all to prove the WP:POINT that Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources???
Darwin doesn’t make use of varieties for human races” when he commented on “the Negro” and “the Hottentot”. Where is your “explicit secondary source” for that? You know very well that this claim has no basis in reality and neither does the claim that “
CD is … not speculating about races”. It is your WP:BULLSHIT that will “mislead the modern reader”, not an accurate reporting that he commented on “the Negro” and “the Hottentot” in his discussion on classifying varieties.
A commonly used shortcut to this page is
WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".
|
the modern understanding of ‘race’”. But, here is what Costa actually wrote about the sentence in OTOOS ( page 424) which speculated on the relationship between “the Hottentot” and “the Negro”:
James Costa,
The Annotated Origin, p.424, comment 1
|
---|
“Hottentot” was the name given to the pastoral Khoikhoi people of southwestern Africa by the European colonists; it is considered offensive today. The Khoikhoi are one of several ethnically distinct southern African groups, along with the Nguni, Basotho, Zulu, Khoisan, and Xhosa. The Khoikhoi possess several distinctive physical characteristics, including steatopygia (significant fat deposits in and around the buttocks) and elongated labia minora. In Darwin’s day these features led naturalists to identify the Khoikhoi as a distinct “race” and to speculate as to their relationship to the more widespread Bantu ethnolinguistic group, which white Europeans collectively referred to as “negro.” This is the context for the idea of the Hottentot “descend[ing] from the Negro.” (This sentence was dropped from the fifth and sixth editions.)
|
see any problems with the wording”, although no justification or explanation has been provided for such a glaring contradictory. Not only was Costa’s comment not about modern times, he never even mentions the term “variety” or “varieties”. While one might wonder who exactly is making the argument that ‘variety’ equals “the modern understanding of ‘race’”, one thing is clear: it sure as hell wasn’t Costa saying this.
1. This talk page section is titled “Meaning of favoured races: sources” which includes a subsection with the (wishfully-named) title “ Reliable sources on the usage of "race".” Based on discussions there showing the sources to be not exactly reliable, I removed the citations to Hodgson and TalkOrigins. They provide more misinformation that helpful information.
2. The section also discusses an alleged “common misunderstanding” about the “Meaning of favoured races”. In the subsection “ Meaning of "race"” definitions are provided from thefreedictionary along with unverified claim (see WP:NOR) that Darwin excluded a number of them from his usage, including in particular,
No justification was given for this baseless claim that Darwin’s meaning of race was more narrow than modern times, and indeed Darwin does refer to the Celts as a race in his second most famous book, TDOM ( Ed.2 p.138), demonstrating this analysis to be inaccurate. This is further contradicted by authors such as Elliot Sober, Adrian Desmond, and James Moore who make the point that, not only does the term race have a very broad meaning throughout OTOOS, but also in the subtitle, Darwin does not exclude humans, as these passages demonstrate:
Murray didn’t care for ‘Natural Selection’ in the title, but Darwin insisted on it because ‘selection’ was ‘constantly used in all works on Breeding’ – and this was a book that would begin with fancy pigeons. They settled on ‘Natural Selection or the preservation of favoured races’, which Murray liked. Everybody knew about race, and not just the pigeon variety. Racial Anglo-Saxonism was sweeping Britain and America…
— Desmond & Moore, Darwin’s Sacred Cause, 2009, p.306
Darwin saw European nations outcompeting the nations, kingdoms, and tribes that occupy the rest of the globe. In this one very salient example, Darwin did see races struggling with each other. In any event, the word race in Darwin’s subtitle needs to be understood very broadly; it encompasses competition among individuals, competition among groups in the same “race,” and competition from groups from different “races.” This is a much broader meaning than the word “race” tends to have today.
— Elliot Sober, Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards, p.45
3. There is a paragraph in the article describing Darwin’s use of the term race, in the subtitle “and elsewhere in the book”. Consequently, I made this edit to incorporate what these sources are saying on this point. I also removed the line about the controversies over slavery and imperialism, as even Desmond and Moore don’t think that was why Darwin didn’t elaborate on humans: “But the full explanation of human racial origins was omitted because Darwin lacked the overwhelming evidence to convince a skeptical world.” (2009, p.310). -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a proposal to have this article listed as a feature article, which is a fabulous idea… except that it means that we can’t cite passages claiming 2+2=5. How can we remove them? --- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 03:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2010–2015. 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Don't know if the infobox requires a ref, I've changed it to the standard inline cite to Darwin 1859 p. iii rather than Facsimile of the 1st edition (1859) which seems to be a more informal version. If we keep an inline citation here, Freeman 1977 might be more informative as we already have a picture of the title page. . . dave souza, talk 17:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right, that site is far more informative. Whenever possible cite a reliable source; I actually meant to put it up for the publication date of the first edition. Magafuzula ( talk) 19:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The article on Tiberius Cornelis Winkler mentions that he translated the Origin of Species into Dutch in 1860 - four years earlier than the first Dutch edition mentioned here. Not being an expert on Darwin and his contemporaries, I'll leave it to others to assess the significance of this claim - but as it is verified by the sources I've added to the article on Winkler, I'll also add it here. Bahudhara ( talk) 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As the second paragraph in this section seemed to be more to do with the responses to the book than the section of the book itself, I've changed it using Costa and an article by Dawkins as sources. [1] The paragraph was referenced to Bowler (1989), which I don't have available, but a similar point is made in Bowler (2003) which I've cited for the point that blending inheritance would not be an issue in a population showing a range of small variations, such as differences in height, which would still be subject to natural selection. It also makes the point that Jenkins was thinking in terms of saltation rather than small variations, but the existing discussion of Jenkins seemed adequate without this level of detail. . dave souza, talk 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Hung, K. C. (2009). "Alien Science, Indigenous Thought and Foreign Religion: Reconsidering the Reception of Darwinism in Japan". Intellectual History Review. 19 (2): 231–250. doi: 10.1080/17496970902981702. ISSN 1749-6977. (free article, alternative link) provides a fascinating study of the introduction of Darwin's ideas to Japan in 1877, and the conplex interaction of these concepts with Japanese traditions and modernisation. Since the first translation came 15 years later, it doesn't fit directly into this article, but worth a look. . . dave souza, talk 12:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Is labeling the book as "scientific literature" accurate? Darwin was not a scientist to begin with. Maiorem ( talk) 00:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Enjoyed the article. One minor comment: in the section on Inception of Darwin's theory it might be appropriate to make some mention of Desmond and Moore's recent work (Darwin's Sacred Cause : Race Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins. London: Allen Lane. ISBN 1-84614-035-8.). These authors propose that Darwin's profound opposition to slavery, his pro-abolitionist views and his linked belief in 'common origins' of man led to the conception that there could be a common origin of all species. Desmond and Moore plausibly suggest that this controversial aspect was one factor in Darwin's tardiness in publishing. Adh ( talk) 13:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
New addition lacking sources:
The work of Darwin has been used in the political arena to support racism and the superior race, colonialism, or the right of colonial powers to control less developed countries, etc.
This may be a common creationist claim, but it's questionable at best, and needs reliable sourcing before it goes in the article. It's also about Darwin rather than specifically about OTOoS. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Of course that needs to be developed, but to remove it means that there is nothing to develop !!!!
It looks more the intenton of being "political coorect" and refuse to show some vievs ..... time to wondering why the article about the book lacks any reference to his political influence. If nothing is said it means that the article is severely biased
Milton ( talk) 02:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I was bold and took my stab. Let the arrows fly :) Rusty Cashman ( talk) 02:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Malthus' work: "An Essay on the Principle of Population" was said to give "statistical proof". I changed this to "theory". The Wikipedia page on this book by Malthus says: "This theory suggested that growing population rates would contribute to a rising supply of labour that would inevitably lower wages. In essence, Malthus feared that continued population growth would lend itself to poverty." And the Wikipedia page on Thomas Robert Malthus says: "Malthus has become widely known for his theories about population and its increase or decrease in response to various factors."
On neither page does it refer to "statistical" anything, and on both pages it refers to his writings as "theory". So shouldn't "theory" be used on this Origin of Species page also? Earlysda ( talk) 06:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
In late September 1838, he started reading Thomas Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population with its statistical argument that human populations, if unrestrained, breed beyond their means and struggle to survive.
I am not following you. Dave cited several reliable secondary sources in his comments that justified "statistical argument". I made an argument from a primary source, which is admittedly less persuasive (but still more persuasive than what other Wikipedia articles happen to say), but it is always nice when you have agreement between secondary sources and a straightforward reading of a primary source. Do you have a specific reason for liking "theory" or disliking "statistical argument" other than what other Wikipedia articles say? Rusty Cashman ( talk) 18:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I have checked multiple online sources. The terminology used is all over the place. UC Berkely says "Malthus's observation that in nature plants and animals produce far more offspring than can survive". Would you prefer that? Another refers to "Malthus's Law of Population Growth" would you like that one? Yet another site talks about the "central theme" of Malthus's work. As Dave said, the issue is not the exact word choice, but whether or not the meaning of the words accurately describes the topic and is consistent with the interpretation of expert secondary sources. "statistical argument" is a perfectly good concise description of Malthus's essay, and it is not contradicted by any source I am familiar with. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 21:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I am (partially) translating the article to Slovak. I do not understand (complex or compound) sentence from Nature and structure of Darwin's argument: "Later chapters provide evidence that evolution has occurred, supporting the idea of branching, adaptive evolution without directly proving that selection is the mechanism."
( And I am lost in 3rd part adaptive evolution without... - Which words does this part bind to? :-) -- Ruwolf ( talk) 19:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Ruwolf: I saw this as I passed by and don't know if the point has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. But I would point out that the "origin of species" in the title is precisely this question of "branching", or speciation. A key question of the time was whether new species are created. (Alternately, are we stuck with only the ones Noah brought?) The first two chapters of Origin point out that change does happen ("Darwin's Law"). Darwin's key point was that accumulation of small changes over long periods of time could lead to differentiation of a population into separate species. Also: he wasn't proving "that evolution has occurred" (a rather broad concept), but providing an explanation (theory) of how speciation (an aspect of evolution) occurs, along with many observations in support of that theory. As the sentence you refer to isn't entirely clear on this I would suggest you need not — indeed, should not! — translate it it too precisely. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
When I was taught evolution in 1972, in a high school in Sydney, Australia, we used the standard blue Harry Messel textbook. It was so long ago I no longer remember the name of the book, only that it was the Messel Science textbook. But in any case, it showed the different finches of the Galapagos. A different species on every island; and no two species on the same island. One in particular stands out, a finch that uses a tool - a cactus spine - to pry out insects. He (Messel) certainly gave the impression that these finches were "important" in Darwin's formulation of the theory.
This is what we were taught. And of course this book was used all over NSW. I suspect that that makes it a credible reference, yes??? So I wonder, why are the finches not mentioned here? 121.218.224.177 ( talk) 10:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
John, thanx for your quick reply. IMHO the mention is nowhere near enough. As I understand it, the finches were at least as important as the mockingbirds. If only I had that only Messel book to quote. 124.187.174.113 ( talk) 07:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, wouldn't it make paragraphs easier to read if the quotes are surrounded by quotation marks?
“ | WHEN on board HMS Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. | ” |
I'm not going to do it, unless someone tells me I can. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 15:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
There are very few references in the introductory paragraphs, to the extent that large swathes of the topic are covered without any citations. Four out of the six citations in this section are purely bibliographic details about the first edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.69.11 ( talk) 14:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Call me pedantic, but the sentence that reads "...evolutionism was triumphant" needs some editing. I think it's just a matter of clarification - was "evolutionism" triumphant over "Darwinism" as a term; was it "triumphant" over competing issues in zoological science; or in gaining popularity against other works on evolutionary biology? As it stands, this sentence makes the increased popularity of Darwin's writing appear singularly final, as if the field has either stagnated or is entirely unopposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.69.11 ( talk) 14:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Guys: A slow edit war is still an edit war, and is still disruptive. I applaud the discussion going on here, but the back-and-forthing in the article needs to stop. Therefore, I have protected the article for two weeks. Note that any participants with administrator rights are expected to refrain from editing an article that's been protected due to a content dispute. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a common misunderstanding that "races" is used in the modern common usage of "human races", Hodgson, Geoffrey Martin (14 May 2014). Economics in the Shadows of Darwin and Marx. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-78100-756-3. is a perfectly good reference for this point. It's also supported by Isaak, Mark (20 October 2003). "CA005.2: "Preservation of favoured races"". TalkOrigins Archive. Retrieved 23 June 2016. As detailed in Difficulties for the theory that section makes a reference to "the races of man", and there are two other instances where that phrase is used, but there are multiple instances where "race" or "races" are used in the sense of varieties, and those three isolated instances should not be given undue weight. Stan, repeated removal of a good source is edit warring, and is becoming disruptive: it you want to dispute these sources, WP:RSN is the appropriate venue. . dave souza, talk 22:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The full title of Darwin’s path-breaking book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Some have seen its reference to ‘favoured races’ as evidence of racism. [false claim omitted]. Throughout the work, ‘races’ refers to ‘varieties’, and the terms are used interchangeably.
In confirmation of this view, let us glance at the classification of varieties, which are believed or known to have descended from one species. These are grouped under species, with sub-varieties under varieties; and with our domestic productions, several other grades of difference are requisite, as we have seen with pigeons. The origin of the existence of groups subordinate to groups, is the same with varieties as with species, namely, closeness of descent with various degrees of modification. Nearly the same rules are followed in classifying varieties, as with species. […] In classing varieties, I apprehend if we had a real pedigree, a genealogical classification would be universally preferred; and it has been attempted by some authors. For we might feel sure, whether there had been more or less modification, the principle of inheritance would keep the forms together which were allied in the greatest number of points. In tumbler pigeons, though some sub-varieties differ from the others in the important character of having a longer beak, yet all are kept together from having the common habit of tumbling; but the short-faced breed has nearly or quite lost this habit; nevertheless, without any reasoning or thinking on the subject, these tumblers are kept in the same group, because allied in blood and alike in some other respects. If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group, however much he might differ in colour and other important characters from negroes.
these are good secondary sources” and that the problem is only my “
inability to understand what they're saying on this topic”. You need to stop pretending that that the Emperor has any clothes on. The problem here is not my inability to read plain English, Dave, but rather, your Emperor is stark naked. Accurate sourcing is an important and fundamental component of Wikipedia, so please stop citing these particular passages. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 21:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
On one hand we have reliable secondary sources. On the other we have a Wikipedia editor who insist the "sources are lying". We go with the sources. Not really much to discuss here. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 21:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.” It is used to source the claim: “
There are very few references to human races”. Volunteer Marek, please explain how this is valid citation. I agree with the article that there are not many references to human races in OTOOS, but the TalkOrigins passage simply doesn't say this, so even if it were accurate (which it’s not), it would still not be a proper source for this specific claim. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 22:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.” 01:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC) [comment by Volunteer Marek}
But the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all.” This is simply and completely false, thus failing WP:RS also. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 02:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
As discussed above, TalkOrigins covers the few uses of "faces of man", and the usage of "race" to refer to "varieties". Stan keeps trying to add the p. 424 paragraph which doesn't use the word "race" at all, but does question "If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro" when discussing "the classification of varieties". Costa explains "varieties" in that paragraph as equating to the modern usage of "race", it's not Darwin's usage. Hodgson is a good source backing up the point that "races" is used interchangeably with "varieties", and our paragraph goes on to cover the three exceptional uses of "races of man" while avoiding giving these exceptions undue weight. By my reckoning there are 8 references to race horses, and one to "the Goodwood Races", but we clearly shouldn't get into discussion in the article of that usage, or give any weight to the two adverts in "Mr. Murray's General List of Works" for Erskine's Journal of a Cruise among the Islands of the Western Pacific, including the Fejees, and others inhabited by the Polynesian Negro Races and Grey's Polynesian Mythology, and Ancient Traditional History of the New Zealand Race. They show that the term was in use at that time, and affirm that Darwin generally avoided that usage. Thus, I've undone Stan's revert. . . dave souza, talk 07:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
the connotation of human races”. In your following edit, according to you, TalkOrigins and Hodgson both agree on this point. In this post you claim that both sources make the point that “
There's a common misunderstanding that "races" is used in the modern common usage of "human races"”. So according to you, these sources maintain that OTOOS does not use race in the modern usage of human race.
the usage of "race" [refers] to "varieties"” and maintain that “
"varieties" in [the p. 424] paragraph [equates] to the modern usage of "race"”. So now you acknowledge that contrary to your own understanding of Hodgson and TalkOrigins, OTOOS did use both race and variety in the modern usage of human race. This reality is reinforced by Darwin’s repeated use of the term race for both Negroes and Hottentots in TDOM ( p.217, p.218, p.334 vol.2, etc).
Costa … explains that "varieties" in that paragraph equates to the modern usage of "race";” when what Costa actually said on this point is: "In Darwin’s day these features led naturalists to identify the Khoikhoi as a distinct “race”". Everyone here can see that you are simply embarrassed for having claimed that Darwin never used the term variety to refer to human race without realizing that Darwin had made the suggestion that “the Hottentot” might have descended from “the Negro”, and now you are angry and bitter that I’m calling you out. If you could only stop with your WP:FRINGE claim that Darwin didn’t view “the Hottentot” and “the Negro” as races, that would be awesome. Thanks. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 20:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
restore sources, remove offtopic original research”. I’ll discuss each point in more detail.
What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse." It isn't.” Well, actually, if you hadn’t relied on charlatans here, you wouldn’t have claimed that OTOOS never used the term varieties “with the connotation of human races”.
"other naturalists"is simply not true. Costa described the features by which all naturalists in general were led “to speculate as to [the] relationship” between the Hottentot/Khoikhoi and the Negro, and Costa explicitly linked this to Darwin’s work in his next sentence: "This is the context for the idea of the Hottentot “descend[ing] from the Negro.”" And also, anyone with more than 10 working brain cells will understand from a simple and straight-forward reading of OTOOS that this is exactly what Darwin was doing. So again: the post is properly sourced and not original research.
1. Johnuniq, you
reverted my post saying: “none of the steps at
WP:DR involve ignoring consensus or berating other editors; try
WP:RSN to question the reliability of a source
”. Your claim that I am “ignoring consensus” is completely false because there is no consensus to ignore. The Darwin Hagiography LobbyTM, (Ref: Logicus,
diff or
thread) has not engaged in (nor attempted) the steps needed to achieve consensus but simply relies on
WP:OWNERSHIP.
2. From the
WP:CONSENSUS nutshell statement: “Consensus … is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.” emphasis added
From the section,
"In talk pages": “Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions, may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.” emphasis added
From
WP:DR, the section
"Discuss with the other party": “Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia.” emphasis added
3. I have raised many legitimate concerns which you never make any attempt to address. Among your many complaints, you criticize me for citing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as if the LobbyTM is entitled to make its own rules. Your favourite stonewall tactic is WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I asked a “plain question” as you suggested and was told that questions to correct inaccuracies were “offtopic”; you resonded with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I demonstrated that an editor is as soapy as Samuel Wilberforce = ( WP:IDHT). I point out that Costa discusses race “In Darwin’s day” rather than the falsely claimed “modern usage” = ( WP:IDHT). When WP:BULLSHIT claims were made that Darwin didn’t think “the Negro” or “the Hottentot” were races = ( WP:IDHT). Costa doesn’t use the word “other” on p.424 or distinguish Darwin from other naturalists in any way = ( WP:IDHT). TalkOrigins says exactly the opposite of the passage that cites it, = ( WP:IDHT).
4. What the Darwin Hagiography LobbyTM has here is not consensus. There is only one person on the LobbyTM who makes decision about content and edits the article; this is Multiple-editor ownership:
The involvement of multiple editors, each defending the ownership of the other, can be highly complex. The simplest scenario usually comprises a dominant editor who is defended by other editors, reinforcing the former's ownership. This is often informally described as a tag team, and can be frustrating to both new and seasoned editors. As before, address the topic and not the actions of the editors. If this fails, proceed to dispute resolution, but it is important to communicate on the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute yourself before escalating the conflict resolution process. emphasis added except italics original
You often do the tag team, attacking me when I ask the WP:OWNER a question and letting him respond when I put a question to you. In this post you proudly proclaim that you don’t care if I am right and “everyone else is wrong”, you will continue to support the LobbyTM.
5. Johnuniq, if you want to take TalkOrigins to WP:RSN, be my guest. Go ahead and ask them if a source that says that Darwin didn’t refer to human races can be used as a citation to the post that OTOOS did refer to human races. Until then, you need to stop drinking the WP:KOOLAID. Your continued restoration of such a flawed source is a deliberate act which undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 16:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
focus on proposing improvements to the article”. Thank you for the invitation. My proposal to improve the article is for you to stop saying things that aren’t true and to acknowledge when you have said something that isn’t true. That would make things so much better here.
TalkOrigins covers the few uses of "faces of man"”; please acknowledge that the TalkOrigins passage denies that Darwin used the term “races of man” and does not mention “faces of man”.
rudeness is no substitute for polite reasoned discussion”, as you say, but your selective engagement in our discussions is a far cry from “polite reasoned discussion”. This includes the way you pretend and refuse to answer questions you find awkward (see above, also my comment at CD Talk). Also, if you really were trying for a “polite reasoned discussion” then you would have went back to your posts here and here to strike out the claim (using <s></s>) that Costa was talking about “
the modern usage of "race"” after I pointed out that Costa explicitly referred to “Darwin’s day” (see WP:REDACT). (See also: Freezing out editors with whom you disagree Location)
we need a reliable secondary source for any comment on [Darwin’s private thoughts]”, but I am not advocating the addition of any such comments. All the added post says is “in his discussion on classifying varieties he speculated on the relationship between "the Hottentot" and "the Negro".” This is exactly what Darwin did in OTOOS, as confirmed by Costa. There is no assertion being added to the article that Darwin viewed them as races and therefore no original research.
Race, as used by Darwin [does not refer] to human races.” Darwin used the compound term “races of man” to refer to human races, so TalkOrigins is saying that Darwin didn’t use race in the term “races of man”. It cannot be true that Darwin didn’t use the term race to refer to human races yet used the term “races of man” thus TalkOrigins is denying that Darwin used the term “races of man”.
The subsection
On the Origin of Species#Choice of title deals with the point that Darwin used the term "
races" interchangeably with "
varieties", with the meaning of varieties within a
species rather than
human races.
In three instances he refers to races of man, which can reasonably be read as "varieties of mankind". In modern usage, the primary use of "race" when discussing groups refers to humans:
thefreedictionary has "1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them., 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the Celtic race., 3. A genealogical line; a lineage., 4. Humans considered as a group., 5. Biology; a. A usually geographically isolated population of organisms that differs from other populations of the same species in certain heritable traits: an island race of birds.; b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals." Thus Darwin's general usage comes fifth.
Similarly
Merriam-Webster "Definition of race for Students" refers 1. to "groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits", 2. to groups sharing "culture or history <the English race>", or 3. "a major group of living things <the human race>", but their "Medical Definition of race" has 1a: "an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group"; 1b: "breed".
OxfordDictionaries provides a similar hierarchy; then cautions: "Usage In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, it is now often replaced by other words which are less emotionally charged, such as people(s) or community."
Hence the need for clarification. In Darwin's context, "race" was used freely in the biological/medical sense, including "races of humans" with the meaning of "variety of humans". Thus,
Edward Blyth in 1855 – "We should distinguish the varieties of animals into normal and abnormal; the former exemplified by the European races of cattle, sheep, &c, which retain the normal conformation of other and wild animals, or present aberrations of merely trivial import, such as might even characterize a wild species. The races of mankind fall under this division .... Have you seen Knox’s curious volume on the races of mankind? ... I think that the designation breed should be restricted to those artificial races which have been intentionally produced by the admixture of normal varieties ...". Darwin strongly disputed Knox's views, a context that should not be obscured by the modern tendency to take the word "race" on its own as referring to humans. "Races of cattle" looks odd nowadays, so the usage of "race" needs to be explained in the article. . .
dave souza,
talk 13:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
In Darwin's context, "race" … [included] "races of humans"”. This is reinforced by the fact that their 1st definition states “Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification” which stands in contrast to Darwin who obviously did recognize race as a biologically valid classification, as highlighted by your quote from OxfordDictionaries on its 19th century usage. So, it’s not clear what exactly needs clarifying.
"varieties of mankind"” are very much on topic here because, as you say, “
Darwin used the term "races" … with the meaning of varieties”, so we need to demonstrate what that means.
it’s so important to show
Darwin’s use of varietiesand how he commented on a possible relationship between "the Hottentot" and "the Negro" in his discussion on classifying varieties. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 23:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Restarting the discussion from #Meaning of favoured races: sources above, which has been derailed with screeds of text and other topics, Stan doesn't like two specific sources and keeps deleting them because they go against his original research. On 21 June and 23 June Stan has been pointed to WP:RSN as the appropriate venue to dispute the reliability of sources, but instead has produces spurious accusations of "lies". To clarify discussion on these specific sources, please comment on each below the relevant bullet point, or take the sources to RSN if you think the whole source should be removed. Please keep comments concise and on-topic to avoid walls of text, and avoid accusations of "lying" or offtopic assertions about "the Hagiography LobbyTM" . . . dave souza, talk 13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
few references to “races of man”" might or might not be minor, but they certainly are examples of explicit references to human races, thus clearly contradicting this source. Hodgson is in line with TalkOrigins passage “CA005.2” in not giving any weight to this reality that you consider inconvenient (thus failing WP:RS).
clearly refer to human races” yet now say this very claim “
is questionable”. I am happy to work for a consensus with good-faith editors but have less patience with claims that 2+2=5.
Darwin refers to "races of man", meaning varieties of humans. First, why does it matter what that means? What article content would be affected by the response? Second, the comment has a clear meaning—what is the point of the question? If there is some doubt about the comment (and if the doubt is relevant to this talk page per WP:NOTFORUM), it would be better to briefly explain the doubt. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@
Dave souza: 1. My question above is very simple, I think your silence is disgraceful. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit. Differences of opinion are supposed to be discussed openly and honestly on the talk pages, not met with
smoke screens and
stonewalling.
2. Back in 2008 you posted the unsourced and unverified claim that Darwin hadn’t referred to human races. When I objected, much to my surprise, you found two sources that did actually verify this claim. When I demonstrated that the claim itself was bullshit, you removed the wording from the article, but still want to keep the citations to the passages making the claim. The rules on Wikipedia are clear that you have the burden to demonstrate the claim. If you refuse to answer my 4 November post above, I have every right to remove them.
3. Important Diffs. As mentioned, eight years ago, you
posted that Darwin had not used the terms race or variety with the connotation of human races,
synthesized from the fact that Darwin had discussed races of the cabbage. The argument here relies on the unstated premise that humans cannot have races if cabbages have races; apparently races are in short supply. After I
deleted it, you found a couple of sources that did actually verify your post. First you
cited Hodgson’s line: “the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all” and then you
cited TalkOrigins passage that Darwin hadn’t used the term race to refer to human races. When I pointed out that Darwin’s reference to “the Negro” and “the Hottentot” very definitely did “carry the connotation of human races” you changed course on 27 June,
posting that Darwin had referred to human races in OTOOS and in
this edit, removing the false wording from the article itself but keeping the citations and links to the passages making this false claim. You then edit warred to maintain them.
4. Note that the TalkOrigins citation had to be moved because the original cited passage was deleted so you moved it to cite the line: “There are very few references to human races”. The only problem here is that TalkOrigins actually says there are no references to human races with the term race, which is why you had
originally said that it was “not being cited for the few references to "races of man"
”. Thus the passage did not
verify the claim that cited it.
5. Dave, even though your claim that Darwin hadn’t referred to human races became untenable to post directly in the article (pointing out that Darwin clearly referred to human races completely contradicted this claim), you still want to provide links to literature that push this same bullshit propaganda. In my experience, this is exactly how YECists operate: when you point out that what they are saying is factually incorrect, you’ll probably still be told to check out Answers in Genesis. If you do not answer my 4 November question, I will go ahead with the removal of this false and misleading information. Aggressively! -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 16:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
the vast majority of uses of the word in the book refer to other organisms, not humans”. We know from reading OTOOS that this is true, but, the passage certainly never says that OTOOS did refer to human race some, and, like Hodgson, actually says that there weren’t explicit references to human races in OTOOS. Thus, the passage does not say the point that it is cited for.
the vast majority of uses of the word in the book refer to other organisms, not humans”. The passage actually says that Darwin didn’t use the term race to refer to human races, when in fact Darwin definitely did use that term to refer to human races. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 04:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
confirms the point … that in Darwin's context "race" was as likely to refer to "races of cattle" as "races of man", and the vast majority of uses of the word in the book refer to other organisms, not humans”, yet in your 7 August post you claim that the very same passage describes “
what "race" means in the title, and it isn't a source for usage elsewhere in the book”.
The subsection
On the Origin of Species#Choice of title deals with the point that Darwin used the term "
races" interchangeably with "
varieties", repeated attempts have been made to add the words "and in his discussion on classifying varieties he speculated on the relationship between "the
Hottentot" and "the
Negro", sourced to
Darwin & Costa 2009, p. 424 and OtOOS
p. 424, Quote: "If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group, however much he might differ in colour and other important characters from negroes."
That's from a section on varieties, and makes no mention of the word "race" so it's offtopic. "Speculated on" is original research: Darwin, as Browne says, is using a human example to illustrate his point that classification follows descent. Both terms are deprecated nowadays due to concerns over racism, so simply highlighting them out of context is misleading for modern readers. As it happens, Darwin didn't agree with the contemporary racist views of these people: Desmond & Moore 2009 discuss the point in relation to his early description of the Hottentots as "the ill treated aboriginals of the country" and the guide he hired as a companion, who "spoke English very well and was most tidily drest" – see also
this .
dave souza,
talk 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Costa's note on the paragraph starts by explaining the name "Hottentot" and noting that "it is considered offensive today", so good reason not to show it out of context. He describes Khoikhoi features, and says "In Darwin’s day these features led naturalists to identify the Khoikhoi as a distinct 'race' and to speculate on their relationship to the more widespread Bantu ethno-linguistic group, which white Europeans collectively referred to as 'negro'. This is the context for the idea of the Hottentot 'descend[ing] from the Negro'." Nothing there about Darwin speculating, it's context that naturalists of the day (and earlier) speculated about the issue. While Costa is a secondary source for interpreting Darwin's paragraph, he does that for most paragraphs in the book and on his own doesn't indicate that is sufficiently significant to add as a topic to the article, let alone intrude it into the section on the usage of race which it doesn't cover. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
In conclusion, there's clearly no consensus for deletion of the #Reliable sources on usage of "race" or for inclusion of this oftopic wording about Hottentots, so I've undone his reversion and ask him to get talk page agreement on changes before reverting again. . dave souza, talk 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
using a human example to illustrate his point that classification follows descent” means that Darwin wasn’t speculating about the relationship between the races used in the example also doesn’t hold any water; Darwin’s statement that if descent could be established “I think he would be classed under the Negro group” is clearly both.
Both terms are deprecated nowadays due to concerns over racism” and that using the term “Hottentot”
is considered offensive today. But the simple fact is, Darwin used these terms in his great book and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Putting the terms in quotations, as I did, adequately demonstrates your concerns. There is nothing being taken out of context here. -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 17:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Darwin doesn’t make use of varieties for human races” when he uses “the Negro” and “the Hottentot” as a human example for the classification of varieties? Common sense contradicts your assertion.
that this has sufficient significance to be mentioned in the article” is original research is false. From Editorial Discretion: “It is not original research to make judgement calls on what content to include or not include, how to frame an issue or claim, or what claims and subjects are suitable for Wikipedia.” Most of your posts include editorial discretion, so by your own criteria, most of that would be original research.
explanation of wording in the title”. It explicitly discusses Darwin’s use of race and variety “[h]ere and elsewhere in the book”, [4] and includes his comment that sexual selection could illuminate the origin of the differences between human races. So, yeah, that’s more than just the title and my post is entirely on topic here!
you need an explicit secondary source to give any WP:WEIGHT in the article” is complete and total bullshit. Wikipedia does not restrict citations to secondary sources, so please stop pretending it does. This article has dozens of citations to OTOOS without “an explicit secondary source”. Do I need to remove them all to prove the WP:POINT that Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources???
Darwin doesn’t make use of varieties for human races” when he commented on “the Negro” and “the Hottentot”. Where is your “explicit secondary source” for that? You know very well that this claim has no basis in reality and neither does the claim that “
CD is … not speculating about races”. It is your WP:BULLSHIT that will “mislead the modern reader”, not an accurate reporting that he commented on “the Negro” and “the Hottentot” in his discussion on classifying varieties.
A commonly used shortcut to this page is
WP:POINT. However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".
|
the modern understanding of ‘race’”. But, here is what Costa actually wrote about the sentence in OTOOS ( page 424) which speculated on the relationship between “the Hottentot” and “the Negro”:
James Costa,
The Annotated Origin, p.424, comment 1
|
---|
“Hottentot” was the name given to the pastoral Khoikhoi people of southwestern Africa by the European colonists; it is considered offensive today. The Khoikhoi are one of several ethnically distinct southern African groups, along with the Nguni, Basotho, Zulu, Khoisan, and Xhosa. The Khoikhoi possess several distinctive physical characteristics, including steatopygia (significant fat deposits in and around the buttocks) and elongated labia minora. In Darwin’s day these features led naturalists to identify the Khoikhoi as a distinct “race” and to speculate as to their relationship to the more widespread Bantu ethnolinguistic group, which white Europeans collectively referred to as “negro.” This is the context for the idea of the Hottentot “descend[ing] from the Negro.” (This sentence was dropped from the fifth and sixth editions.)
|
see any problems with the wording”, although no justification or explanation has been provided for such a glaring contradictory. Not only was Costa’s comment not about modern times, he never even mentions the term “variety” or “varieties”. While one might wonder who exactly is making the argument that ‘variety’ equals “the modern understanding of ‘race’”, one thing is clear: it sure as hell wasn’t Costa saying this.
1. This talk page section is titled “Meaning of favoured races: sources” which includes a subsection with the (wishfully-named) title “ Reliable sources on the usage of "race".” Based on discussions there showing the sources to be not exactly reliable, I removed the citations to Hodgson and TalkOrigins. They provide more misinformation that helpful information.
2. The section also discusses an alleged “common misunderstanding” about the “Meaning of favoured races”. In the subsection “ Meaning of "race"” definitions are provided from thefreedictionary along with unverified claim (see WP:NOR) that Darwin excluded a number of them from his usage, including in particular,
No justification was given for this baseless claim that Darwin’s meaning of race was more narrow than modern times, and indeed Darwin does refer to the Celts as a race in his second most famous book, TDOM ( Ed.2 p.138), demonstrating this analysis to be inaccurate. This is further contradicted by authors such as Elliot Sober, Adrian Desmond, and James Moore who make the point that, not only does the term race have a very broad meaning throughout OTOOS, but also in the subtitle, Darwin does not exclude humans, as these passages demonstrate:
Murray didn’t care for ‘Natural Selection’ in the title, but Darwin insisted on it because ‘selection’ was ‘constantly used in all works on Breeding’ – and this was a book that would begin with fancy pigeons. They settled on ‘Natural Selection or the preservation of favoured races’, which Murray liked. Everybody knew about race, and not just the pigeon variety. Racial Anglo-Saxonism was sweeping Britain and America…
— Desmond & Moore, Darwin’s Sacred Cause, 2009, p.306
Darwin saw European nations outcompeting the nations, kingdoms, and tribes that occupy the rest of the globe. In this one very salient example, Darwin did see races struggling with each other. In any event, the word race in Darwin’s subtitle needs to be understood very broadly; it encompasses competition among individuals, competition among groups in the same “race,” and competition from groups from different “races.” This is a much broader meaning than the word “race” tends to have today.
— Elliot Sober, Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards, p.45
3. There is a paragraph in the article describing Darwin’s use of the term race, in the subtitle “and elsewhere in the book”. Consequently, I made this edit to incorporate what these sources are saying on this point. I also removed the line about the controversies over slavery and imperialism, as even Desmond and Moore don’t think that was why Darwin didn’t elaborate on humans: “But the full explanation of human racial origins was omitted because Darwin lacked the overwhelming evidence to convince a skeptical world.” (2009, p.310). -- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a proposal to have this article listed as a feature article, which is a fabulous idea… except that it means that we can’t cite passages claiming 2+2=5. How can we remove them? --- Stan Giesbrecht ( talk) 03:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)