Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

MayI please edit i will add more facts. Lollypop312 (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. Improper formulation of edit request: "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." - DVdm (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm new here, what's the proper formulation of the edit request? is there a template I can use? --Btw order (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

You need to use a template to add the request ({{Edit semi-protected}}), but the specifics, you just type. A well-formed request would be "Please change "Charles Robert Darwin" in the first sentence to "Gladys Elizabeth Darwin". (It would be refused :) - Nunh-huh 05:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Inheritance of acquired characteristics

This article could mention that Darwin did believe that acquired characteristics could be inherited. Vorbee (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Source for significance? This is an overview article, and details like that are covered in the sub-articles, but not included in the overview unless they're particularly important to CD's life. See On the Origin of Species#Variation and heredity for this topic, and note that it's a bit more complex than saying "Darwin did believe" – any coverage would have to be concise but still put the issue in context. . . dave souza, talk 15:12, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2019

The Darwin page has misspelled words Schoolzombie (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

the beagle

it was created in denmark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.253.24.235 (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Presumably a replica? . . dave souza, talk 21:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Mary Treat

I don't think it's right that there should be no mention of his scientific interactions with any women. It seems the most important such was with Mary Treat so I've taken the liberty of inserting her in the infobox and text NBeale (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks a bit undue in this brief overview of CS's life, I've left it in the article since you've put it as a "for example", but removed it from the infobox as that was intended to be people he'd had personal contact with, and had significant influence on the development of science. He corresponded with many women about scientific work, Clémence Royer for example, and the source cited Lady Florence Dixie as another. It would be good to expand the detailed sub-articles on CD's life, but for this main page significance would be better established by citing one of the main biographies rather than a brief paper on his dealings with women. . . dave souza, talk 22:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Did Darwin say this?

I’ve seen the following quote floating around the Internet attributed to Charles Darwin. Usually it’s either quoted approvingly by racists on sites such as Chimpmania, or else by creationists to attack him.

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Given that other racist quotes have been falsely attributed to Darwin in the past by creationists and racists for their respective purposes (one such quote was from Thomas Dixon’s novel, The Clansmen), I’m skeptical the above quote was actually Darwin. But you never know. 97.116.72.212 (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussion of article improvements, not general discussion of the article subject. If you have general questions rather than article suggestions, you can try the Reference Desk. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

Well, I think that if the quote DOES turn out to be accurate, then it should go in the article as an example of his views. So it’s not entirely unrelated to the article. That said I definitely will submit this to the Reference Desk. 2600:1014:B024:12AF:D8C:772B:5474:843E (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems that this is a direct quote from the Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, a book written by Charles Darwin. So yes, he did say this.

Please sign your posts. A reliable secondary source is needed to show what CD's writing signify. His words should not be taken out of context, or misinterpreted on the basis of modern racial sensitivities. . . dave souza, talk 22:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Leaning technique

I've found this information while I was working on Polish article about Feynman Technique (I'm working on English Translation) I wanted to include the sentence that similar technique was used by Charles Darwin. He was trying to explain what he was working on in simple terms to someone imaginary that came into the room, but I've only have Polish reference (book) and was not able to find a reference about this in English.

Do you know any reference that confirm that?

jcubic (talk) 11:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not familiar, is this the concept referred to in Active recall? Perhaps if you can give some more detail about what Darwin's supposed to have done and when he did it, that might enable s search. . . . dave souza, talk 14:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2020

Charles darwin never earned degrees in science but in ministry, if you are truthful then you would ad the truth 105.225.65.165 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 13:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Read the article. Note there weren't degrees in science at English unis when he studied there, and he didn't do a degree in "ministry". . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPOV - Lack of criticism

The current WP article lacks of any reference to the quantitative method of the science founded by Galilei and his closely spiritual brother Isaac Newton. Science is made through numbers and Maths. Einstein said that "all that can't condensed into an equation, can't be told to be science". We don't know the equation of the evolutionism.

Any scientific theory can be reproduced in a lab and controlled, measured as welll as reversed (from the thesis to the hypothesis). The evolutionism is anything of them.

Any scientific theory can predict the existence of previously unknown phaenomena, and it can predict them in a numerical way which enable to anticipate, reproduce and control them. Evolutionism didn't do anything of them. We uniquely know the genetic informatics, after three centuries and nt so closely to the offspring of Darwin.

Until the 1990s, the reliability of a scientific theory was used to be classified into a qualitative 4-levels pattern just based on the points above: reproducibility, measurability, lab controllability, existence of mathematical exact equations (or at least approximate-solvable), prediction and/or control of new unknown measurable phaenomena.

It was also contemplated the presence of a logically-coherent chain of proofs, describing a continuum in accordance with the Newtonian principle Natura non facit saltus (that was also of part of the Newton's thought). The latter rejects the theoretical possibility of any discontinuity (Latin: "saltus") in the human as well as in the natural history. On the opposite side, Museums related to the evolutionism show artificially built models of existinguished species of animals, trying to realize a continous chain of evoluion. are in part or totally To those it can be added the introduction of new useful applications in the everyday life.

Criticism is unconcerned in the current article, with particular regard to the Christian creationism which has similarly a lot of historical and spiritual proofs. It would be useful at least to say that we don't have any numerical equation of the evolutionism in order to be acknowledged from where we come and to where the human kind is going. I apologize for the unusual lenght of the topic. It makes the article combined with the discussion more WP:NPOV.Philosopher81sp (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm just responding to the first paragraph. What does Galileo or Newton have to do with Darwin? They didn't establish the scientific method. At a glance, you seem to be saying we should lend equal weight to the perspective that evolution is false. (Correct me if I misread you.) But that would be injecting POV into an otherwise objective discussion of one of history's most successful scientific theories—more so than Newton's simple laws of gravity, which have been superseded by Einstein. UpdateNerd (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Newton and Galileo founded the modern science in terms of its experimental method and main starting discoveries. NPOV usually derives from the comparation of more points of view (POV), like here is going to be. But here and in some points elsewhere the ideas of Darwin as presented as best possible approximation of the truth. It is not, for the reasons said above. May be it's a limit of the matter described itself which can't be object of a quantitative and numerical analysis, typical of the modern science. Hence, the Darwins' thought can be rejected, given that one of its main limits is not be quantitatively measurable, reproducible and controllable. If we don't have an equation, how can a theory be experimentally verified? For the same reasons, surgery is said to be not an exact science. On the other side, medicine has cured many people, while we aren't able to verify its truthfulness by way of some material benefit that is a certain consequence of it.

Perhaps, we have "he has told that", the circulation (of his books) and the number of people freely believing in his religion. Such criteria can't be a meter of evaluation. They are closely concerned with what a part of people is -mainly out of WP- trying to impose evolutionism as a mantra and the unique possible truth. We don't need particular qualifications to note such high limits. Anyone can edit to improve it, as it is said in the WP motto. And the results are frequently better than many "commercial scientific papers" that are subjectively oriented to the dominant theory and the related economic return it can cause in terms of wages, notoriety and so on, even in the academic world. As I am used to do, I've try to read anyone till the last sentence, without stopping to the first, but anyone has a different available time to be sent on WP. So, I hope someone else will have the "courage" to publicly give his opinion and if he eventually agree to point one or more sentences in the WP article, according to Wikipedia:Consensus. Thanks for your reply.Philosopher81sp (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

See no original research policy, and present your proposals with verification from reliable published sources making exactly the proposed points with explicit reference to Darwin. Then we can discuss it. To reach consensus, we'll also have to consider the sources that note both Darwin's application of scientific methodology, and how he influenced its development. . . . dave souza, talk 15:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should bring your ideas (with sources, as Dave souza said) to Alternatives to evolution by natural selection. Cheers, UpdateNerd (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Similar propositions were told on the Italian TV by the prominent professors Antonino Zichichi, among others. My answer comes from a good level of memory because I am interested to a matter which strictly concerns the faith in God of many people, like me. I will try to recover that video. During the 1980s, there was an attempt to reconcile the teachings on evolutionism, given to students of the Italian secondary schools, with Genesis 1 and the faith in the divine creation. Now, it happens the opposite so as to move a lot of people towards atheism or different types of spiritual religions. But this not matter of this topic. I agree with you that one or more sources are needed, given that it is required by WP and also I am not a NERD, but also I am not a specialist nor a scientific authority. I was the first not to edit the WP article and to open this discussion. Hope to find them. Thanks for your reply.Philosopher81sp (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A memory of a TV chat by a physics professor associated with American conservative think-tank the Heartland Institute? Nope, won't do. There are books on the topic, but for a readily accessible introduction try Darwin and the scientific method | PNAS and Darwin: From Origin of Species to Descent of Man (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy #2.2. The Central Argument of the Origin. Lot of references there. As you can see, it's a complex topic, and probably beyond the scope of this overview article. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathematical insights were not developed far enough, or even available yet, in Darwin's time. Maybe a link to the Price Equation article? Dkspartan1835 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

New hatnote

Added a hatnote taking people to Darwin (disambiguation) JayPlaysStuff (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Darwin's abominable mistery

Could someone add this bit in please? https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55769269 Why wasn't this in the article already?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.251.65 (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be WP:UNDUE to include this. The fact that Darwin was vexed by a question in evolution that he couldn't answer, and that his inability to answer it was being exploited by creationists, is mildly interesting but not notable enough to merit being part of his BLP. Of course, when a scientific answer to some question has not yet been found, fringe views are likely to enter the picture with some nonsense. But it's not always worthy of note when that happens. NightHeron (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I would disagree. i think this is a very important part of Darwins life and work, that he identified the angiosperm explosion as a test of his theory, and saw how it challenged the theory, and could not identify the mechanism for it happening. there are other references to this. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/can-scientists-solve-darwins-abominable-mystery-about-angiosperm-explosion . i dont think it needs to be a large item in his article, and def dont think it should be an excuse to add any modern creationist claptrap to the article, but its a fascinating problem, and his identifying it is a perfect example of the power of his thinking. it seems he was hypothesizing a south arctic continent where the evolution might have occurred. he didnt know that antarctica was once green. I wont be adding it myself, and would expect debate before adding it, as the question of UNDUE has to be addressed first. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Darwin spent decades studying and worrying about many issues. The fact that he was unable to solve all problems is not a surprise and while this particular mystery (the rapid and recent development of all higher plants) is interesting, it does not add anything to a biography about Darwin's life. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The article is garbage. "And is the mystery solved? In short, no." What?? The answer is Amborella. I will also point that those articles were forshadowing to this article https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-01387-8 (also see https://phys.org/news/2021-01-unravels-darwin-abominable-mystery.html)109.252.90.66 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021

Please consider changing "primitive peoples" to "indigenous peoples" in Views and opinions > Human society. Thank you, Bianca Crowley 18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Bianca Crowley 18:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Darwin was a psychologist as well as biologist

Darwin who is known for his contributions to biology also contributed a lot to the academic field of psychology. He studied emotion in animals. Danny j thomson (talk) 12:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

That's covered appropriately, in the section on Charles Darwin#Descent of Man, sexual selection, and botany. This is an overview article, and CD did a lot! . . dave souza, talk 13:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

2A02:C7F:5CA2:7A00:A8D1:66CD:CEF4:61D4 (talk) 16:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Charles Darwin was a disappointment to his father because of his education and the way he used to learn with others as well.

No actual edit requested, so I'm closing this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Gertrude Himmelfarb's "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution"

It's interesting (but not surprising given the attitude towards evolutionary theory here on Wikipedia) that the book with perhaps the most extensive research on Charles Darwin's religious views is not even mentioned in the article. She notes that Darwin's father was a secret unbeliever and that, in a passage deleted from Darwin's autobiography, Darwin refused to believe in Christianity, "Citing the 'damnable doctrine' that would condemn all disbelievers to eternal punishment, he protested that 'this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends'-which made it an unthinkable, to say nothing of thoroughly immoral, idea. There may be more sophisticated reasons for disbelief, but there could hardly have been a more persuasive emotional one." Gertrude Himmelfarb "Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution" p.22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritashistorica (talk • contribs) 03:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, and WP:assume good faith as required by WP policy. This is a specific detail, which is shown in context in Religious views of Charles Darwin#Discussions with Emma. The passage is included in CD's full autobiography, which notes that '1 Mrs. Darwin annotated this passage (from "and have never since doubted"…. to "damnable doctrine") in her own handwriting. She writes:—"I should dislike the passage in brackets to be published. It seems to me raw. Nothing can be said too severe upon the doctrine of everlasting punishment for disbelief—but very few now wd. call that 'Christianity,' (tho' the words are there.) There is the question of verbal inspiration comes in too. E. D." Oct. 1882. This was written six months after her husband's death, in a second copy of the Autobiography in Francis's handwriting. The passage was not published. See Introduction.—N. B.' (Nora Barlow). Your "secret unbeliever" stuff looks to be unsourced synthesis or original research, and taking a few words out of context is inappropriate in this overview page. . . dave souza, talk 11:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have an issue with the image in the info box

The image of Charles Darwin in the info box isn’t how he usually is depicted. Why not use a more recognizable image of him, what was wrong with pictures of him having a beard. Also Wikimedia already has images of him with a beard.CycoMa (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This was a deliberate choice, fully discussed among editors, and validated by detailed community assessment which made this a featured article. It shows Darwin's appearance when he'd achieved international fame for The Voyage of the Beagle and On the Origin of Species (1859), before the bearded stereotype began in 1866. This article is largely focussed on the earlier period, but also covers his later years and in these sections has five portraits and three caricatures of Darwin. . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

But doesn’t Wikipedia select the most recognizable images of a person on their articles? I mean it makes more sense to have the bearded Charles Darwin. CycoMa (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

That's not a really strong reason to replace an image which, according to the caption, shows Darwin in 1854 when he was preparing On the Origin of Species for publication. According to the caption on the bearded image later in the article, he grew a bushy beard between 1862 and 1866 which has no particular reason to be highlighted. Johnuniq (talk) 09:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason dave souza wasn’t a very good reason either. CycoMa (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Numerous editors have thought these good reasons, the stereotype is misleading if used to headline his achievements predating the bushy beard which only appeared in public in 1866. In my view the current image, as used in the featured article version, works best. . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2021

I would like to edit the Charles Darwin page and add some interesting information and hope you will like it. Thank you. Dinu W. 112.134.165.210 (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The main content: Voyage of the HMS Beagle

Not done. This is not a "complete and specific description of the request". NightHeron (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Why isn't this mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55769269 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.139.141 (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE; see earlier discussion [1]. NightHeron (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Wrong, it should be mentioned. If it's IN the BBC, it should BE on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.122.250.223 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP just got rewarded with a week's block for disruptive editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Danim14.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This should be added in

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55769269

This should be added in as well:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-55769269

It's from the BBC, it's official, it happened, this is an encyclopedia which is supposed to document truth.

It is historical fact.

Don't be prejudiced, don't be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:A702:EA85:29E2:A978:54EC:91D7 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

We cannot quote every article ever written about Darwin, otherwise the article would be many thousands of pages long. What is so special about this one that we should include it? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a minor case of punk eek – see punk eek#Darwin's theory. A BBC article about a paper by a Professor (Associate) in the QM School of Biological and Chemical Sciences doesn't have much weight in relation to all the histories of Darwin – have reputable historians covered this? Note that he often used melodramatic language humorously when writing to friends. . . dave souza, talk 20:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Improvements

@Dave souza: Thank you for taking the initiative to keep this vital FA! I have a suggestion regarding the lede. Currently, the first sentence states "[...] best known for his contributions to the science of evolution", but what about "best known for his contributions to evolutionary biology" with a link to evolution? This subfield is by definition the "science of evolution". Wretchskull (alt) (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull (alt):, thanks! Looks a good idea, so have implemented it, with credit to you in the edit summary. Hope that suits you, . dave souza, talk 17:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Thank you for your tireless work here! No pressure, but are you willing to continue work here? There are many unsourced sentences. Wretchskull (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: hardly tireless, am a bit worn out but remain glad to try to contribute to this team effort when available. Where sentences are unsourced, will appreciate others adding references, or tagging for citation needed and discussion here. No need to wait for me to make improvements. . . dave souza, talk 15:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Children's names

Don't have strong feelings about whether the name box should show forenames only (as previously) or full name at christening inc. surname. Have edited it to avoid redirects, and there's no point in linking to the non-notable Mary Eleanor Darwin and Elizabeth Darwin, both are just uninformative redirects. Also, I've abbreviated months as the table adds extra lines and gets very confusing – still happens in some cases, so table needs to be wider but don't know how to fix that. . dave souza, talk 10:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)