Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Abraham Lincoln info in the Charles Darwin article

After I write this, I am going to remove the AL info, because it is just a bit of trivia that is unnecessary to the CD article. If there was any other connection between the two men it might be worth mentioning. Before he adds it again, I think that User:Vfp15 should explain thinks that it is so necessary to keep adding it back into the article. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 06:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should also note that Darwin was born the day after Robert Fulton patented the steamboat! And one hundred years to the day of when the NAACP was founded! And 190 years to the day that Bill Clinton was aquitted at his impeachment trial! I mean, isn't that amazing!! ;-) --Fastfission 18:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... Anti-american British bias? Well maybe not.It's very interesting, and given the emphasis CD placed on coincidences, there's a little positive irony made there. It's one of the often cited coincidens. Finally wiki is not paper, and the deletors are suppressing a fact. Reinserting.

The Wiki may not be paper but it is an encyclopedia. You are insisting on putting a bit of irrelevant trivia into the article that has no connection to Charles Darwin, science or evolution other than a stupid bit of coincidence. I, and the rest of the wiki editors who keep removing the AL reference, are not suppressing a fact. We are removing a bit of minor trivia from an important article. There is enough irrrelevant trivia littering the Wikipedia already (witness the innumerable minor bits from the Simpsons animated TV show that show up under the Trivia header all over the Wikipedia for example), but I would rather keep the science related articles uncluttered. If you want to include the AL fact, put it at the bottom of the article under a "Trivia" header, rather than up at the top of the article. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 07:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not about "Wiki is paper," and putting in mindless and meaningless coincidences is just bad writing. There are plenty "facts" being "supressed" aka being left out because they are totally irrelevant under this model. Why not comment that he was born 100 years to day before the NAACP was founded? Because it has no bearing on the topic of the article. And it's not that amazing of a coincidence, either -- 1/365 for any two people born in the same year! Darwin was born on the same day as a few million people! It's not encyclopedic, it's not notable. --Fastfission 14:54, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 15:20, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I'm with Ff

In "Gettysburg" (a rather good dramatization of the Battle of Gettysburg) on the night before his eponymous charge, General George Pickett and other officers are discussing Darwin's recently published Origin of Species, ending with Picket saying "Perhaps I am descended from an ape, but I dare anyone to affirm that General Lee is". Did that fireside chat happen? Probably not. (The remark is even a little anachronistic since "The Descent of Man" had not been published.) Is it relevant? Very much so: it sets the time context it terms of events rather than just flat numerical dates. CD and AL were in the news at the same time. Their being born on the same day is one of those serendipitous coincidences of history, one of the things that makes an active mind go "Oh really?". Leave it in, it's interesting. Vincent 00:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being in a "trivia" section, but to assert it is anything more than that is just silly. Lots of things happened in the 19th century, but only the ones even tangentially related to Charles Darwin should be included in an article on him. Lincoln and Darwin had next to nothing in common (the closest: Darwin officially published his opinion on the liberation of the American slaves at some point in the 1860s, supporting it; it is the first time, I believe, that Darwin acted on his status as a public intellectual for a contemporary political issue, I think). It certainly didn't belong next to his date of birth. --Fastfission 06:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have inserted a reference to the Simpsons under trivia as a protest against the ridiculousness of having such a section--XmarkX 07:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And IIIIIII, herewith, hereforth, and also here (for good measure), am inserting a protest to your protest protesting the inclusion of the section, as well as a forceful and UN-E-QUI-VO-CAL protest against the stupid, idiotic, imbecilic, and just plain dumb Simpsons reference.

I love edit wars. But seriously, if Darwin disciple Stephen Jay Gould thought fit to focus on the link between CD and AL's birthdays in one of his many essays on natural history, then I think it can be considered a relevant bit of historical information.

BTW, I wasn't the one who inserted this factoid, I just restored what I thought was an uncalled for deletion. Vincent 12:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If that's what makes it so relevant, put it in the article about Stephen Jay Gould!! Seriously, how can such a small thing cause such a large discussion. It is already well known that Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were two notable 19th century men. The fact that they were born on the same day is entirely irrelevant to an article about Charles Darwin. Now, if he met Lincoln at some stage, that's a different matter. - PaulHammond 15:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gould's use of it was probably not as a "just something to think about" quotation, though I don't know which essay you refer to. I do know that he talks about Lincoln and Darwin in The Mismeasure of Man (he basically says that Darwin may have had what are today considered backwards views on race, but he was no more backwards than Abraham Lincoln, to put him into historical context). It isn't a relevant bit of historical information for an article which is strictly on Charles Darwin. Neither is the Simpsons reference. Both clutter it up and I predict that within a month or two the trivia section will have to be deleted because it will become overblown with crap (like the "examples of mad scientists" in the Mad scientist article, which just invites everybody to post any little piece of nonsense they remember from a movie or cartoon). When you invite people to insert trivia into an article, you get a truckload of crap, in my experience. --Fastfission 15:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it was an essay in Bully for Brontosaurus, perhaps the same one that started with a story of lord Castlereagh (the UK's rep to the Vienna treaty that ended the Napoleonic wars, and also uncle to Captain Fitz-Roy who commanded the Beagle (gee! yet another coincidence! But my goodness, heaven FOR-BID, let us not mention that one!) who was clinically depressed and later committed suicide, which was known to Fitz-Roy as a family trait, which is why Fitz-Roy asked Darwin along, namely to have a gentleman companion.). Scientific American (sorry again for that ghastly intrusion of Americana into such a British topic) had (has?) a monthly column about just this sort of coincidence. The writer starts with an interesting fact, and through a long chain of instructive coincidences, returns to the starting point. But my stars, let us not waste precious wiki resources on interesting coincidences... Vincent 01:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The question is whether it is interesting or not. You seem to be the only one who thinks so. And yes, there is plenty of popular writing which delights in pointing out meaningless coincidences, but I hardly think that is what an encyclopedia is supposed to be. Also, why is it a "coincidence" that Fitz-Roy's uncle was the UK rep to the Vienna Conference? What's the coincidence, there? --Fastfission 04:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BTW I'm OK to delete the trivia section (although it improved the Bjørn Lomborg article no end) provided the reference to AL is reinserted where it used to be. It is EXCELLENT writing (not my own) and a very interesting coincidence of history. Relevant and factual, and quite possibly (though this is speculation) the coincidence was known to Darwin. One can imagine him saying to guest during the Civil War "Mr. Lincoln and I were born on the same day you know." Vincent 01:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I haven't heard you say why it is relevent, other than it makes you say "Gee!" Could you elaborate what this tells us about Charles Darwin and how it informs our understanding of him or his ideas? Can you explain how it is "instructive"? I have to admit, I'm finding it pretty irritating that you are insisting on a marginally useful edit that seems to strike not only me (three people, so far) as not belonging in the article. Is there a reason you're so invested in this? It's pretty annoying behavior. --Fastfission 04:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Annoying? Same to you, bub! ;) I'm interested in this page because I am a Darwin fan (but not an expert): I've read Origin twice, Worms, Voyage of the Beagle, and his autobography. I read history, both manmade and natural and I found that little bit very interesting when I found it out.

If you can honestly say you haven't heard me say why it is relevant, when I've been pointing out that it is relevant, seredipitous, interesting, etc. etc. all through my postings, then you've stopped arguing and gone into "automatic gainsay" mode. No point continuing. Since it IS at least factual and about two people of import to world history (Montgomery Burns isn't, sorry), I conclude that I'm right and you're wrong, and I am adjusting the article accordingly. Tata. Vincent 08:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But one LAST attempt to convince you: CD and AL were not minor historical figures, they were tops in their areas: CD is arguably the most prominent British scientist of the 19th century, while AL was the most important Amrican president of said century. We're not comparing William Smith or Charles Babbage with Congressman Benton. We're comparing two people who are usually recognized as being among the top 10 prominent people of their entire country's history. Coincidences about such people are interesting. Vincent 09:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

: Look, if one wants to know which, if any, important historical figures were born on the same day as CD you click on the CD birth-date at the beginning of the article--XmarkX 03:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have once again removed this completely irrelevant digression from the article. It can be removed because it simply adds nothing to our knowledge of Charles Darwin to the article. It is an irrelevant piece of trivia that has no place here. Vincent - you have added this to the article now on at least 17 different occasions, and each time it is subsequently removed. It is removed for a very good reason. Please finally give up and respect the consensus here. I will personally remove it every single time I see it creaping up.

Why are you so obsessed with such a small and trivial point, anyway? I cannot believe we are having an edit war over this. Aaarrrggh 11:42, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine, I will keep on reinserting it, but no more than three times a day.

I've made the point that it does add to our knowledge of CD by associating him to a marker in time (Lincoln) rather than to a date, etc. etc. No one has built on that argument, and everyone has been going into automatic gainsay mode. Another similar example of the use of a marker is saying the pyramid of Cheops is roughly a third as tall as the Empire State Building vs. that it is 135 meters tall. The first statement vividly illustrates the height, the second statement is a plain fact.

Finally, it's an interesting coincidence, and as I've said above, CD was interested in fortuitous occurences. I was willing to compromise by putting it in a trivia list at the bottom of the article. Reinsert the trivia list, and I'll leave it out of the Early life section. Vincent 12:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's interesting. It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article on Darwin. PaulHammond 15:23, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To say "Fine, I will keep on reinsterting it, but no more than three times a day", is effectively akin to saying "fine, I am going to be a real nuisance around here, but only in so much as I don't technically break any rules." It is an irrelevant fact; it has no place in an enyclopedia article about Charles Darwin, it certainly has no place whatosoever in a section dedicated to his early life, and I do not see why we should create a trivia section just to accomodate a random piece of irrelevant information. I don't see why you can't just drop it. Aaarrrggh 13:50, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vincent: A coincidence is not encyclopaedic. Please stop doing this. There are a number of editors who are reverting you; you have not made your case effectively; an edit war is not a good thing for Wikipedia. Noisy | Talk 14:26, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

I wandered in from RfC and read this section, and I recommend... no Abraham Lincoln. If Darwin was unusually interested in fortuitous occurrences (and there are several examples, enough to show it was a definite personality trait of his), and if there's evidence (not just "One can imagine him saying....") that he knew and commented on this one, then it would be OK to add a reference to this quirk of his personality, illustrating it by saying, "For example, he commented in a letter to Lord Drunkensot that he had been born on the same day as Abraham Lincoln." Otherwise, sorry, it's just not an interesting coincidence. JamesMLane 03:36, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seconded; this is not relevant. I don't buy that historical marker business either. Using Abe Lincoln to somehow 'calibrate' Darwin presupposes everyone who uses the wiki knows not only who Lincoln is but when he lived. Outside of the US you'd have trouble with this just as you'd have trouble using the Empire State Building as a comparator to the Pyramids; if you haven't visited the ESB and experienced its size, the comparison is meaningless. adamsan 09:20, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just went to Google, that great Wiki arbiter, and found that a search on "Charles Darwin" "Abraham Lincoln" and "birthday" yields over 4000 results. (Can't wait for the flames that are going to follow this comment...) Vincent 05:18, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have come over because of the RfC. I have read the article, but not all the history. I have also perused the google search that Vincent provided, over 4000 results. He is right that the coincidence of birthdays has become a cultural factoid that a number of writers have felt must be passed along, even in extremely short biographies. A never-ending stream of famous people share birth or death days. Wikipedia has a special listing of such events. I was just reading the article on Aldous Huxley, which mentions that he died the same day as JFK and CS Lewis. Coincidence? Hmmmm. Anyway, as a resolution to this impasse, I suggest that at the very end of the article, in the Legacy section, a sentence be appended to include the old chestnut, that Darwin and Lincoln were born the same day. (And anyone else born the same day, too.) It's time to move on. -Willmcw 05:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think what you have here is a case of asymetric relevance. There are plenty of articles where a piece of information or a link is relevant in one article, but would not add significantly or would be distracting in the article linked to. Clearly, coincidences in dates of birth are interesting to some people - in fact there is a good maths problem related to it: Birthday paradox. A large part of every date page is composed of vaguely related birthdays and this factoid is already implicitly mentioned on the 12 February page. Also coincidences in dates of birth with dates of death are interesting to people who believe in reincarnation. This factoid, would be perfectly at home on an article that listed such coincidences, but doesn't have to be mentioned on the Charles Darwin page (nor even linked from here). -- Solipsist 06:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Summary

A summary of my argument follows.

1. The AL/CD birthday coincidence is factual.
2. It is a vivid time marker.
3. Coincidences are especially relevant to Darwin's thought, so it's good style to put one here.
4. There are examples in published popular science writing of pointing out this coincidence and one column in Scientific American devoted to coincidental relationships (Connections I think it's called). This is not an appeal to authority, it is justification by precedent.
5. I have been open to consensus, accepting the "Trivia list" solution (which I didn't much like BTW). I reinserted the coincidence AFTER the trivia list was deleted.
6. It is culturally significant. Google backs up the relevance of the shared AL & CD birthday with over 4000 results, while it only yields 14 results for the same search on, as FastFission suggested, Junichiro Koizumi (current Prime Minister of Japan), Stephen Hawking, and birthday.

Actually, I reinserted it before, then noticed the trivia list including the coincidence, so deleted the coincidence from the "Early Life" section myself.

I suppose this is sarcastic, but a summary of the other side's argument goes like this.

1. It's irrelevant.
2. It's IRRELEVANT!
3. IT'S IRRELEVANT, DAMMIT!
4. IT'S IRRELEVANT, DAMMIT. IT'S IRRELEVANT, DAMMIT. IT'S IRRELEVANT, DAMMIT.!!!
5. AAAAARGH, IT'S IRRELEVANT!!!!!

Finally, one of my edits was reverted (the Darwin losing his faith bit) by Aargh and replaced with a false story. (I admit and appreciate that this was also changed back by someone else, and improved in the process.)

As for the editors reverting me, well what can I say? Listen to you guys! One interesting little line of 10 words and you are pilloring me rather than letting it go. Arguments (I mean real arguments, not fights) are never resolved except in court. You guys are just as guilty (ha! guiltier!) as I am of flippant reversions.

I want an arbitration on this, and in the mean time, I insist the fact be included, either in the "Early Life" section or in a Trivia section. You guys decide where.

Vincent 09:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a frustrating place at times, and everyone loses a few battles here and there. Losing has really got to me at times, but I've learnt that the only way to survive is to turn the other cheek, or to walk away and put a battle down to experience: maybe I'll get back to the article in a few months and it will have changed such that my input is more relevant than on the previous occasion.

Let me address your points:

1. The AL/CD birthday fact is a coincidence.
2. It is a vivid time marker ... for that small proportion of the world's population who have some sense of the times AL lived in.
3. Correspondances and convergences are especially relevant to Darwin's thought, so it's good style to put one here. (Coincidences are only symptoms.)
4. There are no examples in peer reviewed literature of pointing out this coincidence. (I don't know the Scientific American column, but I'd expect that there would always be a second layer behind the coincidence, rather than just the bold fact.)
5. Consensus is when agreement is reached by all parties: it's a nice thing to aim for, but it's sometimes a struggle in the wiki world and we end up with the majority view. That's life.

If it's on RfC already, why aren't there a flood of people to back you up? (Sorry, that sounds snide, but it isn't meant that way.) Turning your idea of wanting arbitration around, is the insertion of ten words in an article a just use of the arbitration process, and of the valuable time of the people that put themselves out for the good of the community by handling dispute resolution? Noisy | Talk 10:51, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

RFC reply. Vfp15 - take a deep breath and say "OK, I accept it's completely irrelevant. Let's move on." Exercise for the reader: how many people (roughly) were born on 12 February 1809? Rd232 14:33, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I put it on RfC last night only because it did not seem that this discussion was really making any progress, and this seemed like an ideal place for outside commentary (one user with some sort of axe to grind in a revert war against everybody else). Vfp15, I think it's a really silly thing to waste everybody's time just because you want to insert your coincidence into the article. The article is perfectly fine without it, its merits are contested to say the least, and you are looking a bit obsessive in your insistence. Even if you think it is perfectly germane (and you seem to be about the only one who does), this is not a fact which warrants obsessive and rude behavior to insist its inclusion. It's trivia. It is trivial. Move on, already. --Fastfission 14:41, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vinncent contacted me (not sure where he got my name from to contact) and asked me to comment on this. As a complete outside observer, I must say that the concurrent birth of Abraham Lincoln adds no meaningful information to this article. Anyone who wishes to look for such facts can click on the February 12 link, which is the first thing in both articles. If user Vinncent/Vfp15 wishes to create an article on astrological coincidences, lists of trivia facts, or something of the sort, than that would be a completely different debate. Perhaps Vinncent could focus on working the information into a separate article focusing on such things, and others could concern themselves with the content of that article. But it has nothing meaningful to do with the life, history, or work of Charles Darwin, and does not belong in this article. — Cortonin | Talk 07:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can see no reason for not including the factoid. I could understand if Vincent was triying to overemphasize it, make it appear insightful, etc..., but he's not. Do you dispute its factual accuracy, or what? Is my first impression, that this is deletionism gone haywire correct? Wheres the beef? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 10:33, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Complete irrelevance is no reason for excluding a fact? Just imagine that as Wikipedia convention... Rd232 17:39, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone can explain how a coincidental birthdate of a US politician and a British scientist is anything other than completely irrelevant, I'll raise my glass to him/her. It's not just pretty irrelevant, like what Darwin had for breakfast on his 25th birthday - it's completely irrelevant. And if you can't accept that as a sufficient criterion for exclusion from a encyclopaedia entry, you're not thinking clearly - probably because you're befuddled by swarms of irrelevant facts. Rd232 17:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to go for the reductio ad absurdum argument (because it seldom helps and might just encourage people), but what the hey, its just too good...

I'm disappointed that no one has added the line 'Hawking was born in Oxford, England to Frank and Isobel Hawking as their first child (coincidentally on the same day as Junichiro Koizumi, the ex prime minister of Japan)' to the Stephen Hawking article. Particularly as Hawking has been known to comment that his birthday is 300 years to the day after Galileo Galilei's death (fortunately Italy was already on the Gregorian calendar) only to then point out that he probably shares his birthday with over one thousand people in the UK alone and he isn't sure how many of them chose to become scientists. -- Solipsist 20:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to think this is because people are respecting the principle of Don't_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point, but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. -- PaulHammond 15:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the "Category:YEAR births" takes care of any importance with coincidence. Keep in mind that while 'honest Abe' has a cultural immortality in the US, he's still 'just another American president' outside of it (all cultures tend to glorify their own, no?). Darwin's context, of a man who raised the bar of the then-sloshy endeavors of human understanding (aka "science") itself is Far Superiour - maybe the same difference as between Lincoln and Britney Spears. That they share the exact same day of birth is rare, and therefore notable as a footnote, maybe. But this makes for a precedent of some kind - if its a precendent of inclusion (of material) rather than exclusion, then I'll agree. If its based on 'useful triviality,' then no. Summary: it is perfectly fine to mention that 16th US President Abe Lincoln was born on Internationally Honored Scientist Charles Darwin's birthday, but not the other way around. -Janust 21:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd have expected better grasp of logic from someone who has chosen Solipsist as a username. A reductio ad absurdum argument proves a proposition false by assuming it is true, and deriving a contradictory result from that assumption. All you did was create a parody.

I maintain the fact is interesting and worth mentioning, but as Sam Spade said, I do NOT read any deeper significance into it. He words my sentiment exactly. I'm stubborn about this because it is, to use his expression, rampant deletionism gone haywire. It's a group of people having assumed ownership of an article. And that's not Wiki. Vincent 04:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A paradoy? I'm hurt. I've linked a leading scientist to a world leader/politician via their birthdays being on the exact same day. Its a fact. Can you explain why you don't think my example is as good as yours? -- Solipsist 06:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Soooooorrrryyyy. I meant it in jest. Really :) Seriously, Google backs up the relevance of the shared AL & CD birthday with over 4000 results, while it only yields 14 results for the same search on Koizumi, Hawking and birthday. Vincent 09:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Coincidences in the life of our hero :)

Here is an excerpt from Darwin's autobiography (linked in the article) on how he felt about coicidences. OK, it doesn't mention Lincoln, and it doesn't find any special "deeper" meaning in them (for that matter, neither do I) but their presence impresses him nonetheless. Vincent 09:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Next day I started for Cambridge to see Henslow, and thence to London to see Fitz-Roy, and all was soon arranged. Afterwards, on becoming very intimate with Fitz-Roy, I heard that I had run a very narrow risk of being rejected, on account of the shape of my nose! He was an ardent disciple of Lavater, and was convinced that he could judge of a man's character by the outline of his features; and he doubted whether any one with my nose could possess sufficient energy and determination for the voyage. But I think he was afterwards well satisfied that my nose had spoken falsely.

...

The voyage of the "Beagle" has been by far the most important event in my life, and has determined my whole career; yet it depended on so small a circumstance as my uncle offering to drive me thirty miles to Shrewsbury, which few uncles would have done, and on such a trifle as the shape of my nose.

(William M. Connolley 10:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)) This doesn't say anything about coincidences. If Darwin had been accepted because his nose was the same shape as FR, *that* would have been coincidence. This, if anything, is butterfly-causes-hurricane stuff.

It doesn't say anything about coincidences, it says something about how Darwin felt about trivial things, of which coincidences may be called a subset. Vincent 00:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC

The comment on the RfC page was biased against me rather than neutral. I have corrected this.

Old:

• Talk:Charles Darwin - User:Vfp15 insists on adding coincidence that Darwin and Lincoln were born on the same day into article. Many others find this sort of coincidence non-notable. User:Vfp15 has now reinserted it into article over 15 times, has been removed again by probably six or seven editors. Would appreciate it if others would give input as to 1. germaneness of addition, 2. behavior of user.

New:

• Talk:Charles Darwin There is an ongoing dispute between one user and a group of users about the inclusion of a ten word sentence about Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin sharing a birthday. What would the best resolution of this dispute be?

Vincent, I simply cannot believe that you are so obsessed with this one irrelevant fact that you have managed to turn it into something fast closing in on the size of a university dissertation. Interestingly, I totally agree with your analysis above, in that my argument consisted exactly of

1. It's irrelevant.

2. It's IRRELEVANT!

3. IT'S IRRELEVANT, DAMMIT!

4. IT'S IRRELEVANT, DAMMIT. IT'S IRRELEVANT, DAMMIT. IT'S IRRELEVANT, ::::DAMMIT.!!!

5. AAAAARGH, IT'S IRRELEVANT!!!!!

You see, the point is this: this fact is irrelevant. Becoming more and more frustrated upon each insistance was simply a result of the fact that you insist upon re-insterting such an irrelevant fact.

Above you noted that I (quite justifiably) removed this irrelevant fact on a number of occasions. You also commented on the fact that I removed your notes about Darwin 'quoting the bible' on the Beagle. While I did do this, I did not replace it with an 'untrue story', as I feel was implied by your above statement. You did not explicitly accuse me of this, but it felt implied by your phrasing.

Finally, I don't think I should even feel the need to bother on the following comments, left by you on my talk page:

"That's why it's a coincidence, but it is still an interesting one. Unless you're british, and then you're insulted at having Darwin the Holy smeared by association with the evil Lincoln."

Aaarrrggh 12:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's a little thing we have in Canada called sarcasm. Never tried it yourself, have you?

The untrue Darwin story bit was that you said his developing scientific opinions led to his crisis of faith. As far as I know, that's untrue. He never went (sorry for oversimplifying) "Natural Selection is true, therefore there is no God". What I heard was more along the lines of "How could a benevolent God let my little daughter die." Vincent 00:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The comment wasn't ironic. It was just an unfounded insult. Regardless, the fact remains that this is *sigh* a completely irrelevant piece of trivia that has no place in such an important article. I cannot believe you are stretching it out to such a ridiculous length. Of all the things we could be arguing about in a Charles Darwin article, I cannot believe we are arguing about this. If you were some insane know-nothing christian fundamentalist on a mission, I could at least understand why you were so insistant, but to put such effort into placing something so irrelevant, and something that has been removed so many times by so many other people, just seems beyond my comprehension.

Also, you will find that I did not 'insert a false story' into your previous change. I simply reverted it back to how it was prior to your change.

Aaarrrggh 10:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote

People are still adding and removing this. I suggest we vote and the minority have to put up with it. Joe D (t) 22:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, but at this point, there is no way I will accept the results of a vote. None. Not a snow ball's chance in the magma of our planet. I have asked for mediation and will wait for the results of that. Vincent 09:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's fine, I only really started the vote to point out that you've failed to convince anybody that the fact should be included. I sugest you do at least stop adding it until you can persuide people of its importance, because until you can it will continue to be removed. --Joe D (t) 23:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Vince, thanks for asking for my input. I understand very well the tendency of new wikipedians to pick fights in order to test the material implications and philosophical tendencies of the general community. I agree that a vote process does'nt feel satisfactory, but you should also understand that there is very little interest in this issue, and therefore the limited vote will represent that. I humbly suggest that you consider taking the vote as it is, for what it is, and saving your energy for more important battles; if there are any of those left. ;) -==SV 20:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Include the fact at the bottom of the page in a trivia section

1. -Willmcw 23:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. chocolateboy 11:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. at0 14:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. LizardWizard 01:18, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
5. Kevink 11:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do not include the fact at all

1. Joe D (t) 22:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. Fredrik | talk 22:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. William M. Connolley 22:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. Adamsan. 22:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
5. Adraeus 23:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (This article is about Charles Darwin and not Abraham Lincoln. This fact adds nothing to the article except childish inferences which amount to POV. By the way, I do agree with some of Vincent's points but I think the inferential comparison of Darwin with Lincoln doesn't need to be there in order to produce a factual time marker.)
6. Noisy | Talk 09:16, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
7. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
8. Aaarrrggh 10:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) It's an absurd and completely irrelevant fact.
9. BM 22:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
10. Dunc|☺ 23:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) ( and a happy chrstmas to Sam Spade)
11. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 00:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
12. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 01:53, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
13. Zero 04:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
14. Jerzy(t) 06:32, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC) Silly, except for the persistence in struggling for it against such a mass of sensible colleagues, which is abusive as well.
15. Dan100 15:47, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
16. —Morven 16:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC) This is what we have year and day pages for.
17. Morven said exactly what I was going to say. We have a page on the day that presumably lists the both of them. That is more than ample documentation of this supposed curiosity. Tuf-Kat 22:36, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
18. A big no to irrelevant trivia in an encyclopedia. --Fastfission 00:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
19. Jonathunder 05:13, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
20. PaulHammond 15:58, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
21. Irrelevant. --Nasrallah 11:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
22. I agree with Morwen. However, coincidences like this do have a place if the two things are actually related in some way: for instance, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake occuring exactly one year after the Bam earthquake in Iran (both are earthquakes with ensuing large loss of life), or Sergei Prokofiev dying on the same day as Josef Stalin (the latter persecuted the former, so it's mentioned in the Prokofiev article). Or perhaps even if the death of one is so newsworthy or spectacular that it overshadows the death of other (eg, mentioning that C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley's deaths were overshadowed by the Kennedy assassination). In other words, some spark of relevance beyond the mere coincidence itself. -- Curps 03:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
23. Psychonaut 19:00, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
24. What Morwen said. Also, editors should stop disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. --Mrfixter 21:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
25. Coincidental trivia of two unrelated people of their births on different continents. This revert war makes me laugh because of how stupid it is. Cburnett 01:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
26. Chuck it, irrelevant Floflei6 05:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
27. Skyraider 02:57, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) I just don't think it belongs here. Put it in an article about shared birthdays or coincidences.

(discussion between Vincent and Jerzy moved. Discussions shouldn't appear in the middle of votes)

1. • Hi again, User:Vfp15/Vincent; you replied on [[User talk:Jerzy|my talk]:

   • Silly thing to argue about? Sure. And you are entitled to your opinion as to the relevance of the item in question. But when you say that my behaviour is abusive, I feel I must respond to you personally.

   My position is that I am the one being abused. I have a developed argument, I have accepted compromise, and I am not the original author. I am being bullied by a POV majority who became incensed at having someone stand up to them. I think the old expression "a tyranny of the majority" applies here. For that reason and because of the abuse I have been subjected to, I am boycotting the vote and waiting instead (failing a compromise) for the results of mediation. Vincent 08:52, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   You seem think that compromise means you back off slightly from your absurd expectations, and everyone else owes you acceptance of your still absurd expectations. It doesn't; it's a practical mechanism for reducing inefficiencies where interests conflict:

   • One kind of inefficiency to avoid is when i've got a mansion and you've got a drafty hovel, and we each recognize that a particular comfy little cottage would enhance our respective lifestyle. The benefit you'd get is greater than mine would be, and a principal thrust of political progress in the last 6 centuries has been reducing that kind of inefficiency, that results from the traditional result where i get the cottage, by economic compromises. (Notice this is not about you having some right of equality; it's about the whole society gaining from acting a little bit as if you did.) But you are not seeking that kind of compromise, bcz WP's contribution to human welfare would be decreased rather than increased by the precedent of according silly ideas the same stature we give to reasonable differences of opinion.
   • Another major kind of inefficiency worth avoiding involves conflicts that destroy more than what the winner gains. (Sometimes this situation is also a situation of the previous kind.) But this is not a case of that either. Slapping you down, via an overwhelming consensus that you are misusing our principles, is relatively low cost, compared to the precedent that we should compromise the value of WP in cases like this one, by accepting a reduced degree of silliness.

   "Tyranny of the majority" is also not intended to describe your situation. Such classic documents as the US Bill of Rights, advocating or implementing limitations on majority power, are based on (what was summarized last night on PBS in discussing, IIRC, Peter Stuyvesant's governance of New Amsterdam as) the principle that "tolerance is good business". They carve out a private sphere that is not subject to control thru the public sphere. (Cynically or naïvely -- since this it's all about efficiency -- it may be described in terms of "inalienable rights", which gives rise to all sorts of, well, silliness.) Your dispute is not about your private sphere, but about your seeking to control a tiny corner of the public sphere. Being paranoid doesn't prove that they aren't out to get you, but being the target of an overwhelming mob of WP'ians opposed to you doesn't make you right.

   Your campaign is abusive bcz you are perverting good WP practices and good ideas, and forcing diversion of your colleagues effort, for the sake of your selfish silliness.

   --Jerzy(t) 18:12, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a majoritocracy!

1. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 22:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Just to let good Wikipedians know: Sam Spade is a self-identified "anti-atheist" "Christian fundamentalist" known for POV pushing. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements/Sam_Spade for a list of users opposing him. By the way, since Wikipedia articles under heavy fire require consensus, Wikipedia is a majoritocracy. Sam Spade and his cronies would like nothing more than for Wikipedia to promote POV pushing and deletionism. Adraeus 23:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Read Consensus, and Fundamentalist. Misquoting me doesn't help either. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 23:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Spade says, "I am militantly anti-atheist. ... I am a fundamentalist theist, with a close, personal relationship to God."

   Here's some more Sam Spade quotes:

   • "For me, 'without theism' translates directly to 'apart from God'. Being apart from God is a decision, it cannot be done accidentally. God is always here; we must choose not to accept him. have you ever wondered why every culture on earth has God and/or gods? The concept is omnipresent, a Jungian symbol, inherent and instinctual to the human animal."
   • "I also happen to know God is conscious, since I have a personal relationship w him (this is an extra bonus not everybody has, or so I hear). Since God is all, and imminent within all things, all things are alive and conscious to me. Its called Pantheism, Monism, Panentheism, Sanatana Dharma, lots of things, but it is in no way illogical or disprovable. Science is simply one way of reading Gods law."
   • "As far as 'what’s the point of having a God', that’s a nonsensical question to a believer in an immanent God. We might as soon ask 'why exist?'. God is more than efficient; he is the only basis for reality. His absence leads to a removal of existence. In other words, without him there is nothing."

   Adraeus 23:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   Hey look, I got my own P.R. volunteer (*yawn*)... Its too late tho Adraeus, the elections over. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

2. Wikipedia is a community project. Let's not let the perfect stand in the way of the good. The fact is that this silly factoid of the Darwin/Lincoln coincidental births has achieved its own life, well beyond Wikipedia, by its frequent repetition. If the mention of it goes into a trivia section now we can all go back to making useful edits. Someday, future editors may decide that a trivia section is too trivial and it may quietly disappear. This passes the Google test. Let's move on. -Willmcw 23:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fitz-Roy, Castlereagh, Darwin, and the Origin of Species

Captain Fitz-Roy was a "gentleman" and could not dine on board the Beagle with non gentlemen (stupid, but par for the course in those days). He was also nephew of Lord Castlereagh, UK rep to Vienna in 1815. Castlereagh committed suicided due to what Fitz-Roy thought was a family propensity to melancholia. Therefore, to avoid loneliness and an ensuing attack of the blues, Fitz-Roy needed a dining companion of equal social standing to share his meals and provide conversation during the five year voyage. Darwin was asked on the Beagle in that capacity; he was not the Beagle's official naturalist, someone else was. I forgot who, but not a proper gentleman, anyway. SOOOO, if Castlereagh hadn't existed, Fitz-Roy quite possibly wouldn't have advertised for a gentleman companion, Darwin would never have travelled on the Beagle, and the Origin of Species would never have been written.

Oh something would have been written by someone, and we'd still have some sort of evolutionary theory today, but not Darwin's deep and insightful work. Contemporary evolutionary scientists still read Darwin for the insights he brings. Coincidences often matter, and interesting should not be censored. But then any student of the history of science would know this already. Vincent 08:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep bringing up censorship. We are not removing the reference to Abraham Lincoln because it is politically, religiously, or morally unacceptable. We are not removing any significant facts relavant to the life of Charles Darwin or trying to rewrite history. We are removing the reference to Abraham Lincoln because it is an unneccessary bit of clutter in an article that is only about Charles Darwin. The fact that two famous men were born on the same day provides no enlightenment into the understanding of either individual, so it is nothing more a useless bit of trivia. Offering the fact that Stephen Jay Gould found it interesting is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. If there was any other connection besides the birthdays, such as Abraham Lincoln commenting on the evolution controversy, it might be worth keeping the info in the CD article to show that they were contemporaries. Otherwise, the information about a coincidence in birthdays is just a banal, insignificant, superficial, niggling bit of piffle. Will it be necessary to take a vote to show that you are alone on this issue? [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 09:00, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SJG ref not an appeal to authority, it is an example of someone else finding the fact interesting. It's an empirical argument, not a logical one. So arguing that I am guilty of a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy.

But, SJG was not writing an encyclopedia article. He was writing an article in his own voice, full of his own personal opinions, and as a good popularizer, it is a positive thing for his articles to contain personal, quirky touches. Good journalists do the same thing. But a good newspaper article is not the same thing as a good encyclopedia artcle. -- PaulHammond 16:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now, if you guys are really serious about clutter, I think it would be much more profitable to overhaul the article in other ways. The section "Before Darwin" and the following sections are all about evolution and controversies surrounding evolution rather than about Darwin. Now there are separate articles on evolution, so that info should be included in those articles, not here. That's HUNDREDS of words of clutter, as opposed to the ten or so words that make up the Lincoln ref, which at least have the virtue of being about Darwin, or something he shared with someone else. 80.250.128.5 12:03, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree with the last point so i've done it. The Castlereagh connection should go in the FitzRoy article. In UK English there's a distinction between correlation which is what I understand Darwin to have been interested in, and coincidence which he wasn't. but I've added a wee section for you trivia freaks...enjoy...dave souza 01:06, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The usual confusion regarding correlation is with causation. That is to say: A happens, then B happens, so A must cause B. This doesn't take into account that there could be an event C that causes both A and B. Actually CD was very interested in coincidences; they are a vital part of natural selection. Part of the random nature of evolution. Vincent 05:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Correlation indicates a link though not necessarily a causal relationship, and such indirect links are what CD looked for as evidence of a common origin: coincidence implies a chance similarity with no such links, and provides an argument against evolution theory. My preference is to leave out such coincidences, though I note that abe's linked back to chas on birthdays...dave souza 15:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that correlation indicates a link, but that's no reason the link can't have happened by chance. Structure can arise from chance. For example, pour sand on a floor. Each grain will fall, hit the pile of sand already there, and bounce around at random until it stops or it is hit by another grain of sand. When you're done pouring the sand, the mound will have a structure, a shape that is not random, but was built by a random process. That's deep. That's what the bell curve (the normal distribution) is about.

Coincidences matter deeply in natural selection, especially when you split the word and take its plain literal meaning co - incidence or happening at the same time. Darwin understood the importance of organs having more than one function (see chapter 6 of later editions of Origin where he answers some criticisms). The best example (from a SJ Gould essay) is the 5% of a wing problem.

To make a long story short, an incipient wing has no aerodynamical effect whatsoever, so how could natural selection have grown one? The answer is that it did not. Parts of the body that can be expanded at will are however useful in another way: they allow the animal to modify its exposed surface area and so help regulate body heat. Even a tiny such organ is useful; call them heat regulators. NS selects bigger and better heat regulators, until at some point a bigger heat regulator does not help. Then NS stops selecting for bigger heat regulators.

As luck would have it (and it is a lucky coincidence) that's when the heat regulator begins having a non-negligeable aerodynamic effect. From then on, NS operates of the heat regulator's ability to support the animal in the air. Now call it a flying wing. To Charles Darwin, this fortuitous (coincidental) combination of functions in a single organ, as well as the redundant implementation of one function over many organs, was a key feature of natural selection. Coincidences mattered to Darwin, not for any pseudo-mystical synchronicitous reason, but just because he found them again and again to have such an impact on our natural history. Vincent 05:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What does any of the above have to do with "Darwin was born on the same day as Lincoln??? PaulHammond 16:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

I have just requested mediation. I'm sorry it has come to this, but I have been willing to compromise, and my Summary above stands. I give good reasons for keeping it in, and those who want it out are just gainsaying me because they have already made up their minds. Vincent 01:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The RfM is here. I've put in my two cents worth. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you need an Association of members' advocates advocate, I can help you. The possibilities that this problem will get into an Arbitration is almost obvious and there, you'll need an advocate against so much people. Contact me on my Talk page if interested. --Neigel von Teighen 23:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've seen the request for mediation, and I'll keep an eye on the article for awhile. If edit warring continues, I'll protect the page. I hope you guys can sort out your differences before it comes to that. Good luck. :) Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

As I said, again and again and again, I am open to compromise, and I hope the page won't have to be locked. The initial posting on July 19th was by User:Brutannica and the word coincidentally was put in on 16 September.

So the shared birthday with AL was in the article for over four months without anyone being bothered by it, then one user decided to call it irrelevant and deleted it outright, and then all hell broke loose. Now why was that? Why the sudden desire to delete it? Is POV irrelevance OK simply because a majority of posters say it is OK? That's the point at issue. Well, POV is POV even if it's by the majority of contributors. Leave it in! Vincent 08:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I just realized that someone will say that my desire to insert the coincidence is itself POV, so who am I to say the majority is POV? Well I backed up my assertion with a developed argument, while the opposition simply repeated theirs, louder and louder. I found external support in the Wiki arbiter of first resort: 4000 Google hits. Vincent 08:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've just locked the page; people are still reverting each other's edits. Please discuss it here first and come to a concensus or agreement before editing. Mgm|^(talk) 11:56, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, my feeling about this is that the only thing sillier than insisting that it be out is insisting it be in, or maybe it is vice-versa. I don't see why the page should be protected because of this. It means that if these people don't reach a "consensus", the article is locked from serious edits by serious people. Let them just keep editing it, 3 times per day. Neither side in a "dispute" like that deserves to have it resolved. As long as the edit war is confined to one sentence (or one short Trivia section), who cares if a couple of people edit it back and forth -- forever. Let them spend the rest of their lives doing it, 3 times per day. Maybe they can hire school kids to take over for them on vacations. I can't see that it makes much difference who wins. --BM 12:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but protecting in revert wars is a standard procedure. As the template says, serious editors can still comment on changes on the talk page, and I won't keep it protected forever, serious editors will get a chance. See it as a cool-off period. Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 12:28, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I don't think this page needs protection (even though its my version you've protected, in clear violation of the policy of always protecting the wrong version). Its an edit war, yes, but over a minor aspect of the page. If it makes people think it over, wonderful, but I'm not hopeful.

I'll keep a look out on the article and unprotect somewhere within the next 24 hours. If revert warring continues, I'll post an RfC regarding the article instead of the people involved to gain a larger, hopefully binding, community consensus about this. Mgm|^(talk) 12:34, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

• The protection is uncalled for, tho i will not be the one to unprotect it. The message says "until disputes have been resolved on the discussion page". The dispute has been resolved by an ovewhelming consensus on the talk page that it has to go, and even if that is not final, what Vpf does (by pushing 3RR to the edge of punishability) is now vandalism, and rv'n of Vpf is simply routine maintenance by responsible editors.

If "A vote isn't acceptable" to Vpf, then they can go follow some procedure to its limits, but until some process overrides the consensus, responsible editors know vandalism (however well intended or how dresssed in rhetoric) when we see it; it only calls for protection when and if the responsible editors tire of the effort and begin to clamor for protection.

--Jerzy(t) 18:53, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

I've just seen this on the Request for Mediation page (much of my time in the last few days has been occupied with Christmas, & what time I have for Wikipedia I've devoted to edits), & I'm not sure just what Mediation can do to help in this matter.

• Arguments whether to include or exclude this coincidence of 2 famous people have not changed anyone's position.
• A proposal to vote how to include this coincidence has been rejected on the basis that Wikipedia is not a democracy.
• It's been commented that various editors have been rude or insulting to other editors. If a Mediator were to get all parties to apologize for this, forgive, & promise not let this happen again, would that break the logjam here? (Although that would be nice to try, I doubt it would solve the problem.)
• Someone could just mark the article as Disputed . . . but it would look awfully silly to admit the dispute is over the inclusion of a piece of trivia.

Do you see my point? This dispute is silly!

Frankly, I don't care if this trivia is in the article or not; including it or excluding it will not be the end of Wikipedia. But I am concerned that a number of people who might not otherwise enjoy working together on various topics not only are mistrustful of each other, but some will decide Wikipedia is not worth the trouble & leave. Is fighting over this one point really worth harming the rest of Wikipedia?

So, does anyone have a solution for solving this matter? If not, here is my proposal: at the next scheduled WikiMeetup, I will ask someone to flip a coin in front of a number of Wikipedians, who will attest to the result. Heads, the factoid stays in the article; tails, it's out. And then the matter is over. Failure to agree to this or something better means the lot of you would rather just sit in front of your computers & argue. --- llywrch 06:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

One last try

Votes are fine to decide issues of style (e.g. the infobox dispute last September) but they do not apply when deciding factual assertions, and here the minority (i.e. Sam Spade, Brutannica, JackOfOZ, Willmcw, , at0, chocolateboy, and me) is right and the majority is wrong. I am willing to settle for a consensus on how the fact is presented, but not on if it is included.

Here are the facts.

1) Lincoln and Darwin were in fact born on the same day.
2) There is precedent for mentioning this particular coincidence in the non-Wiki world, as shown by 4000 google hits.
3) There is precedent within Wiki for mentioning coincidences.

• C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley died on the same day as John F. Kennedy.
  
• There is a whole section on how Miguel Cervantes died on the same date in the same year but not the same day as William Shakespeare (in case you're curious think Gregorian vs. Julian calendars).
  

I am just as tired as everybody else of this silly edit war but the deletions are clearly made because a small group of people (compared to people who are simply reading the article) is deciding what ought to be removed. I submit that if Boldness is the Wiki motto when adding, then Caution should be the motto when deleting. Vincent 04:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletionism is anti-wiki

Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 20:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverting war

Although I'm Vincent's advocate, I'm also a Harmonious editing club member (actually, if I belong to the HEC or not it doesn't matter). I want you to stop the revert war now and stay on the current (BM's) article until the mediation begins. --Neigel von Teighen 18:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On adding trivia to the main body of an article such as Charles Darwin

Except for a very small number of articles, the addition of some inconsequential and unessential bit of coincidence should not be into the main body of the article. For a couple of examples of where it might be appropriate, look at the Birthday paradox article, or the mention near the bottom of the Mark Twain article about his association with Halley's Comet. Mark Twain not only knew about the coincidence, but had commented on it (and proved prophetic as well).

For most other articles, the elevation of a minor trifle to a place of importance in the main body of the article (especially near the beginning) is a distraction that only helps to devalue and trivialize the importance of the rest of the information in the article. In that sense, the inclusion of a simple bit of coincidence then does real harm to the article. Keep in mind that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (and not a miscellanea).

If the coincidence is mentioned at all, there is an appropriate place for it in a Trivia section at the bottom of the article. There is certainly enough precedence for doing it that way in the Wikipedia (just do a Google site-search on trivia and The Simpsons TV show, for example [1]).

I can certainly see how the coincidence between the birthdays of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln might seem important to mention, because it is an attempt to put Charles Darwin in some sort of context, but there is a much better way to do that. For major individuals, such as Charles Darwin, it is probably a good idea to add a small section explaining things in a broader context than just the details of that person's life. For Darwin, the section would include information about which British monarchs were ruling while he was alive, and what other major scientific discoveries (such as in physics and chemistry) were being made around the same time that he was writing "Origin of the Species". If America is brought into the discussion, it should be to include any scientific breakthroughs that were being done in the New World. gK ¿? 22:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"the inclusion of a simple bit of coincidence then does real harm to the article" Aren't you overdoing it? It does real harm? So you're saying that someone coming to Wikipedia wanting to learn about Charles Darwin will have a distorted idea of Darwin if the Abraham Lincoln bit is in the article? All you people are convinced that having the information in takes away from the reader's mind knowledge of Darwin?

As a child, in the 70's way before the Internet, I would go to the family 20 volume set of Collier's Encyclopedia and start at one article then refer to another article, and another, and so on. That was fun and interesting. Having links that incite people to make a connection between otherwise unrelated people encourages browsing through Wiki. It is a good and positive thing.

People have been accusing me of all sorts of things, but one thing of which I am not guilty, is saying that this factoid is anything more than a coincidence. However as a coincidence, it's a fun and interesting thing to know. If anyone is guilty of attaching too much importance to the factoid, it is you for insisting it harms the article in a meaninful way. Vincent 05:13, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

gK is right: Wikipedia is not a miscellanea. Put the factoid is in a trivia section and the reader will decide if it's relevant or not. While putting the Trivia section, we're advicing the reader that is nothing more than a triviality, but a fact also. Encyclopeadiae deal with facts and, sometimes, these facts are somewhat irrelevant. As Vincent said, all of you that are arguing that it must be deleted are giving too much importance on this. If the whole Origin of the Species was the problem, the discussion would be more understable. And, what's less understable is why users insist vandalizing here saying that's fun to revert Vincent (see [2] and [3]) --Neigel von Teighen 16:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is Vincent's continued insistence on putting the trivia in the main body of the Charles Darwin article after I had provided the option of a Trivia section that was the reason I wrote this section (see [4] for just one example of many). It is this same obstinance that has hardened many editor's attitudes from "I don't want the trivia, but will accept it in a Trivia section" to one of "Over my dead body will it go in the Charles Darwin article at all". From the very beginning Vincent has insisted that he was the only one that was right [5] and everyone else was wrong, and he continues with that same attitude--" I conclude that I'm right and you're wrong".

Even after it has become obvious, even to him, that he will never get the Abraham Lincoln information in the "Early life" section, so he has finally decided to "compromise" on putting it in a Trivia section, he has shown his stubbornness and contempt for the opinions of the other editors

• • "reinserting unsatisfactory compromise (though I prefer "Early life"))"
  • "A vote isn't acceptable"
  • "Sorry, but at this point, there is no way I will accept the results of a vote. None. Not a snow ball's chance in the magma of our planet. I have asked for mediation and will wait for the results of that.".

Throughout all of this, Vincent has doggedly insisted on getting his own way. "Fine, I will keep on reinserting it, but no more than three times a day. If you think it's such a small thing, then why don't you take a deep breath and give up?" [6]

If Vincent thought that his Request for Mediation might bring more allies to his side into the debate, or allow him to get his own way (the Abraham Lincoln info in the Early life section), then it has backfired, since now there are even more people involved, with most of them in the no-trivia-at-all camp. It also looks like there are now some who probably care very little about Darwin, but just want to join in the controversy. gK ¿? 19:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A new vote

1. If it will end the revert war and the name calling and allow all of us to get back to creating an article on Charles Darwin that might be worthy of being a Wikipedia Featured Article, then it is acceptable to have the mention of the connection between the birthdays of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln in a "Trivia" or "Darwin in popular culture" section.

• Votes:

1. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 19:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. --Neigel von Teighen 16:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
   • Neigel, is it really normal advocacy practice to both advocate for one party in a dispute *and* vote with him on this issue, thus doubling the value of his vote?
3. PaulHammond 16:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2. The mention of the connection between CD and AL absolutely must go in the "Early life" section.

• Votes:

3. There is no way in hell that I will allow the mention of Abraham Lincoln's birthday in the Charles Darwin article, and will continue the revert war until hell freezes over.

• Votes:

1. gK ¿? 07:40, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

4. The pro-trivia editors should give up and accept the results of the original neutral poll, which they refused to take part in, rather than starting their own with biased wording.

• Votes:

1. Joe D (t) 20:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
2. PaulHammond 16:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Indeed. Interesting to see how the pro-trivia crew jump to vote in a stupidly biased poll but cried over the original straight forward poll that they were were destined to loose. Joe D (t) 20:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please notice that I did not vote (it would be hypocritical of me to do so) and because I want to find a compromise, I have for now not been reinserting the factoid. And what do I get for my pains? Well, I get this Interesting fact section below, I get phrases like "stupidly biased" used about something in my favour. Vincent 06:16, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You don't think the wording of this poll is unnecesarily biased? Are you still paying attention to what we're talking about? Did you choose the wording of the poll? If not, I don't know why you think my comments are aimed at you. Joe D (t) 10:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that the wording of this poll is unnecessarily biased, although as a person new to this dispute I *have* voted for putting it in a "Trivia" section if it ends this silly dispute, as well as adding my vote in the first poll for removing the irrelevant info altogether (my preferred option, but "over my dead body" is totally over the top.

My comment here - what is going on when people who originally argued that "Wikipedia is not a majoritocracy" start a new poll. Is it an instance of "We'll keep voting until we get the right result?" Very few people will have read this far, btw. PaulHammond 16:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's part of the fighting ambient in here. Anyway, the impression I have is that anything Vincent does (good or wrong) is considered "stupid". --Neigel von Teighen 20:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am reinserting the trivia section after a one week truce. I maintain that the factoid is factual and that with 4000 results, it passes the Wikipedia:Google test. I also stand by all the other reasons given above. I hope people will see that it does not destroy the article, and that deleting it is very much against the collaborative spirit of Wiki, which first and foremost is designed to encourage contribution. Vincent 02:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was a reason this "New Vote" was so biased and "over the top" in its descriptions. It was supposed to be a tongue-in-cheek commentary on how rigid all sides of this argument had gotten. It was also an attempt to show a possible way out of the stalemate. Apparently nobody got the joke, and nobody wants to compromise. Vincent will continue to emulate the labours of Sisyphus, and everyone else will take delight participating in a very one-sided revert war while adding their own insults. gK ¿? 07:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"... take delight ... while adding their own insults." Everyone? I don't recognise that description. Poor joke. Noisy | Talk 10:25, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

An interesting fact

Did you know that on February 11, 1858, exactly one day before Charles Darwin's birthday in the same year when On the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection was published, The Virgin Mary appeared to St Bernadette of Lourdes? I will add it to the article, but I want to know your opinions first. Please vote:

Votes for including that fact in The Origin of Species section

Please sign with #~~~~

Votes for adding a new Virgin Mary section

Please sign with #~~~~

Votes for including that fact in the introductory paragraph

Please sign with #~~~~

Votes for including that fact in the title

Please sign with #~~~~

The last option means renaming Charles Darwin to Charles Darwin and Virgin Mary or, alternatively, to The amazing facts about Charles Darwin and Virgin Mary. The voting will end after 7 days, i.e. at 04:00:00 UTC on January 11, 2005, exactly one month before Darwin's 196th birthday.

Instead of making this poll withou logging in, why don't you try to cooperate and make things easier? --Neigel von Teighen 20:09, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moved from the main Talk page

That discussion is somewhat long - and about something which is not inserted into other articles. In short, no connection between Charles Darwin, an English naturalist, and Abraham Lincoln, an American politician, has been established other than sharing a date of birth. Including the fact that they were born on the same date confuses rather than establishes context: being brought up in early 19th century England being somewhat different to being brought up in early 19th century America. Also, readers can already link to 1809 and Category:1809 births. Leave it out, jguk 09:18, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Because of Noisy's latest removal, I have concluded that mediation failed to resolve the dispute and I have asked for arbitration. Vincent 05:01, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since the arbitration committee rejected hearing the case, the dispute was not settled. I will therefore continue reinserting the fact in the Trivia section, following the three revert rule, until an acceptable compromise is reached. Vincent 04:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

William M. Connolley 10:31, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Continuing with this in the face of so much opposition is pointless.

I don't think it's pointless, or I would stop. I presume you don't think it's pointless either, for the same reason.

I'm sorry you and all the others are against me, but I feel strongly about this. Oh, not about the fact itself. The article would not have been materially harmed had the factoid never been omitted, just as it isn't materially harmed by having the factoid in. But the factoid was in already (not put by me, BTW), it is factual, it does pass the Google test, and it is about Darwin (or to be precise, about something he shares with someone else). So I strongly oppose deleting it. I believe strongly that the people insisting on deletion are forcing a POV, whether or not you realize it, on what they feel Wikipedia ought to be. If I had put in the factoid myself as a personal discovery, I would probably not have insisted, believe it or not.

In any community, one must also take into account what the minority thinks, otherwise you wind up with mob rule. Maybe a well meaning mob, but mob rule isn't really democracy. And I think that I have been subjected to insults etc. far more than you and the others have been.

So, again sorry, but I am forced to keep my stand until a compromise is reached among all parties. Vincent 07:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adraeus 05:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) ...and I, like many others, will continue to revert your reinsertions, which amount to childish vandalism. I think the good Wikipedians of this article should seek administrative action against Vincent.

Please do try, but the request for arbitration was rejected already. Vincent 07:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I would be happy to have some mediation, which is what the arbitration committee recommended; frankly we could use as much admin scrutiny as possible. The ability of Adraeus to create substantial levels of conflict out of minor differences of opinion should be examined. This is not the first, nor will it be the least instance of this. The faster we solve the real issues (like incivility), the faster we can move on to improving articles, leaving petty conflict behind. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 01:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think criticizing Adraeus does little to foster an atmosphere of civility, Sam. IMO the problem on this page is primarilly a short list of impolite users unwilling to discuss anything honestly. I have heard your schtick about admin scrutiny before, and admins are irrelevant when it comes to what is in articles! Wikipedia community consensus, not constant RfM/RfC/RfAr bullyboy tactics will decide Sam. What do you think consensus means? --Mrfixter 02:51, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but Adraeus is one of those making the fight personal. He has followed me elsewhere only to imply I was a loon and and a cronie. And as soon as Sam began supported me (see above) he posted a "warning" about what a terrible person Sam was. Greek avatars who live in glass houses... Vincent 03:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sam is "extremely popular", didn't you know that? Sam's statements wouldn't be so hysterically funny, if he didn't act the way he does on Atheism et al. I wait in horror for Sam's solution to "leaving petty conflict behind" and improving this article. --Mrfixter 04:47, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Historically, I appeared in Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/The_Ten_Most_Influential_People_of_the_Second_Millennium one day before you, Vincent. Claiming that I "followed" you is like what I said below: utter nonsense and simple-minded propaganda. I don't need to promote Sam Spade's detriment to Wikipedia as such is readily apparent in his history. Many Wikipedians have already spoken against them and there is currently a movement to push for his permanent removal from Wikipedia altogether. If I do say anything about Sam Spade, what I say is far more civil than my actual thoughts about him. Adraeus 05:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This conflict does not prevent improvements to the article. The idea that somehow this conflict is preventing editors from working on the article is utter nonsense—it's simple-minded propaganda. Adraeus 05:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Using Adraeus' rhetoric, this conflict does not prevent improvements to the article. This is producing an edit war and, surely, new contributions were acidentally reverted. Anyway, no one wants to contribute in a battlefield like this. I'll be honest: I was who requested Sam to come, but not expecting that the Talk:Atheism incidents would revive and, if you both, Sam and Adraeus, won't stop this discussion, please leave and discuss everywhere not here. If you're here it's to put a solution to this, nevertheless you don't want this resolved.

About the problem itself. Fact 1: there is (or was) a trivia that is (or was) causing great problems in the article and Vincent, who I'm supporting, wants it back. Fact 2: in the discussion, there are people that don't want the trivia and discussed politely, like gK, and others than not. Fact 3: there has been no solution to this and this is getting into a total chaos. Fact 4: Now, personal attacks because of other articles arrive here. Let's solve this! I suggest starting by making a list of the reasons why the trivia should be or not into the article and, after knowing both parties' arguments ordered in this list, start a reasonable discussion.

Vincent, I'm doing the best I can here... --Neigel von Teighen 21:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A "silly thing to argue over"

Vincent: As much as I try, I can not understand your attachment to the CD/AL factoid. To use your own words: "Silly thing to argue about? Sure." (22 Dec 2004)

One point of confusion for me is your suggestion that those trying to remove it are doing POV edits. It is not as if we were a bunch of creationists who were trying to remove any reference to his nonconformist background and then add in the bogus story about his deathbed conversion. We are also not a bunch of atheists trying to delete any mention that he had studied for the ministry, but instead want to turn him into some paragon of atheism.

Take a serious look at the people that are involved in this debate—look at their Talk pages and their Contributions. They are not rigid ideologues, nor are they difficult people prone to edit wars. If they do a revert, most likely it's because they are reverting vandalism. Some of them have engaged in serious and informed debate on some topics, but that is part of the Wikipedia process. But look at the current WP:RFC, WP:RFM, and WP:RFAr, and except for the RFAr that you initiated, you will only find one person involved in a dispute.

It has been suggested that that removing the information is rampant deletionism, but even the most fervent inclusionist will agree that the term usually refers to the voting for deletion of entire articles, and not to a single sentence within a large article. All we want to do create the best article on Charles Darwin possible. As an eclectic group of individuals interested in Charles Darwin, the vast majority have come to the conclusion that the single sentence on CD/AL is unimportant and unnecessary to the article.

Please tell me, what principle are you upholding by continually inserting a minor bit of trivia into the Charles Darwin article?

If you had not shown total disregard for the opinions of others ("I'm right and you're wrong" 8 Dec 2004; "Fine, I will keep on reinserting it, but no more than three times a day. If you think it's such a small thing, then why don't you take a deep breath and give up?" 17 Dec 2004 [7]; " there is no way I will accept the results of a vote. None. Not a snow ball's chance in the magma of our planet." 21 Dec 2004), you might have had more luck in persuading some of the participants in this discussion to accept the information in a Trivia section. If you hadn't done your own bit of insulting ("Fighting the ignoramuses three times day 'til me dyin' day!!!" 24 Dec 2004) people would probably give more consideration to your opinions. If you had accepted the inclusion of the information into a Trivia section (instead of deleting it from there) when it was first proposed at the beginning of December, and not shown your distaste for it later ("unsatisfactory compromise" 20 Dec 2004) much of the fuss probably could have been avoided. Instead, you insisted on putting it back into the "Early life" section as late as 23 Dec.

Let's face the facts. Your Request for mediation was basically ignored by the mediators except for a one day page protection (21 Dec?). Your Request for arbitration failed. When there was a vote, over 80% of the votes were for not including the information at all (seems like an overwhelming consensus to me). In total, there have been 39 people to date who have reverted, voted against, or comment against the inclusion of the CD/AL factoid.

The only real reason that you've given is that you find it interesting. Well most of the rest of the Wikipedia editors have shown that they found it an irrelevant bit of trivia. What a silly thing to argue over. gK ¿? 07:33, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(GK quotes in bold.)

Take a serious look at the people that are involved in this debate—look at their Talk pages and their Contributions

I have and am mindful of that. I have toned down sarcasm and cheap rhetoric. Now have the others taken a look at mine? (You seem to have done so, and thank you.) So why are we all arguing? Obviously you and Noisy and William and many others take it as seriously as I do. If you did not take it seriously, you would let go.

All we want to do create the best article on Charles Darwin possible.

So do I. I do value the factoid in itself, and I really did think "Gee, cool!" to myself when I first read it in Wikipedia. So I believe it improves the article.

Please tell me, what principle are you upholding by continually inserting a minor bit of trivia into the Charles Darwin article?

That might does not make right.

The majority is angry at me and will not accept any compromise with me. They made up their minds very early on and decided to shout me down for what they see as impertinence.

I believe I am right because I also believe that

• That the fact is topical and relevant.
• That consensus be respected.
• That bias should be removed.

The fact is topical by virtue of being about Darwin (he shares something with Abraham Lincoln) and is it culturally relevant: it passes the Wikipedia Google test. The birthday paradox does NOT apply. I looked at 10 dates at random and found not one instance of major historical figures born on the same day and on the same year. (The number to look at in not the 365 days of a year, it's more like 36,525 days of the 19th century.)

Consensus is NOT simply majority, not even a crushing majority. I have brought up very good arguments for mentioning it. I have not brought any good arguments to give it special prominence. That should give room for consensus.

The majority is biased in this case. Biased as to what Wikipedia should be, slightly biased against the USA, and now biased against me personally.

Your Request for arbitration failed.

Partly, but also note that the arbitration committee did not find against me. So the question is not settled. I welcome arbitrationm and will abide by their decision.

The only real reason that you've given is that YOU find it interesting.

Again, the four thousand Google hits show that I am not the only person in the world who thinks this is interesting. Stephen Jay Gould wrote the factoid up in one essay. This is NOT an appeal to authority, merely an example of someone else finding it interesting.

No, you are not a bunch of creationists. You are thoughtful, educated, liberal people. My kind of people. So you should know better than simply shouting down someone who has brought up all the points I have. And without an impartial jury, distinct from the arguing parties, simply rebutting each of my points does not make your views the right views.

Vincent 08:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(I forgot to anwer one important and valid point.)

If you had not shown total disregard for the opinions of others...

It was not total disregard. At that point, the argument was already heated, and I had already been verbally assaulted. I was already being shouted down. My rhetoric was no worse than anyone else's. I was unfairly accused of vandalism, but I wasn't the one who included the idiotic Monty Burns factoid in the Trivia section, was I? You'll notice that when the Trivia section first went in, I did not delete it and return the factoid to Early Life. I left it untouched until the Monty Burns factoid went it. Accepting the compromise.

And I wasn't the one who added the "Darwin awards" mention either. Now is that more relevant than the Lincoln coincidence? But that is still in the article, isn't it?

Vincent 10:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln being born on the same date is irrelevant to the Charles Darwin article. A career politician who is most known for his declaration of war on his own people has nothing to do with a British scientist interested in the evolution of species. Your proposed factoid is irrelevant and uninformational. Emphasizing this coincidence adds nothing positive to the article and only contributes bias.
2. You disrespect consensus, not us.
3. Bias should be removed which is why we continually remove your factoid. You should research the science of coincidence and understand why references to coincidences are biased.
4. The opinion that something is interesting does not make something valid for inclusion.

Adraeus 03:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About the original question:

• Even a mere trivia like the shared birthday establishes a connection between the two persons that is just not there. It would imply that there is some more of a connection beyond the coincidence. That would be misleading. I even think building those coincidental bridges would actually cast doubts on our selection of the factual data in the article. Unprofessional!
• The factoid doesnt say anything specific about either Darwin or Lincoln because so many people were born on the same day. And if I keep looking I will find someone else who is considered a historical celebrity born on that day. But if it is not specific it is not interesting or relevant. We might as well include that they both had two hands and needed to eat once in a while.
• That many people believe in the significance of coincidences and write about it on websites doesnt make something eligible for an encyclopedia.

So, I am for removal.

About the discussion:

• This is one of those rare examples where a compromise in the decision itself is not an option. Either the factoid is in or not. As there is apparently no one prepared to make a final judgement and Vincent doesnt want to accept the majority vote, but none of the parties want mor e attrition editing, there is only one option left. Someone has to back down! Someone has to go over all the arguments and admit that the other side has got better ones; say f... it, at least I had a good discussion that is preserved for eternity and then move on honourably. Because,
• This thing has been, and is, sapping resources from wikipedia. A lot of people have devoted a lot of their time and brainpower on this discussion. So, I would ask you to ballance the weight of your cause against the effort that insisting further would demand from everyone. I think it is time to stop now and fight for other causes.

Floflei6 09:36, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...and Wittgenstein

To put into context how silly, and potentially harmful, the edit war over birthday trivia is, my first impulse was to revert this addition by an anonymous editor to the Ludwig Wittgenstein article today. But if you check the rest of the paragraph, which has been around much longer, you will see that it is both relevant and potentially significant. Quite a contrast to the Darwin/Lincoln birthday which is just a coincidence. -- Solipsist 07:25, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)