Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Darwin's life and Darwinism

Looking for Darwin http://www.lookingfordarwin.com is a website that follows one man's journey to uncover the relevance of Darwinism for the world. In it Lloyd Spencer Davis retraces Darwin's life and examines the evidence for Darwin's ideas and how they stack up against the alternatives offered by religion.

Seems bizarrely ill-informed, writing "Darwin did not stop in Tonga. Had he done so, I think it unlikely the locals would have welcomed his “story” with the same enthusiasm that they have come to embrace the Christian one", apparently not realising that Darwin's first (joint) publication was in defence of missionaries, with particular reference to their good works in the Pacific isles. ....dave souza, talk 06:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer review

Mind if I throw up a peer review and try to get this to FA? Adam Cuerden ^talk 05:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. ...dave souza, talk 06:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not quite clear what we are asking for review on. This article, or that site & quotes therefrom?DGG 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

This article: It's a Wikipedia thing where others look at your article and tell you where it needs improvement to get to FA class. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested citation

A citation was requested for: Darwin read Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology... "and wrote home that he was seeing landforms "as though he had the eyes of Lyell"." This came from the Introduction by Janet Browne and Michael Neve to – Darwin, Charles (1989). Voyage of the Beagle. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 0-14-043268-X., which states "Obviously Darwin was seeing landforms as though he had the eyes of Lyell, as indeed he said in letters to Henslow." However with Darwin's writings now available online I've searched for this and not found these words: Janet Browne makes a lot of Lyell's book inspiring Darwin at St Jago, so I've modified the text to reflect that. .. dave souza, talk 21:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The first volume of Browne's magnum opus has a similar quotation that could be used. It seems that with his large volume of correspondence, he could not avoid repeating himself quite frequently. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Did have a hunt but couldn't find it by using the index for Lyell being mentioned. However I was already thinking of adding the St Jago comments, hope you find the section improved. .. dave souza, talk 21:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that a nice quote. It may be a bit detailed for this page which is pushing beyond desirable article size, but certainly belongs on the voyage page. ... dave souza, talk 23:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Development of theory

In the section of this name a discussion of his ill health was mixed up with the discussion of barnacles. I made a start in spearating the threads, but this needs some serious editing. User:mal4mac, talk 20:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for tackling copyediting – that's a very good point, and I've tried to reorganise this section into historical sequence. The barnacles problem has been evaded by referring back to it when he gets the award, hope you find that an improvement. ... dave souza, talk 21:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I have problems with the heading. Coming to this article fresh, I find myself asking: 'Development of what theory'? Some theory about barnacles? I know you mean "Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection", but this needs to made explicit. The problem starts earlier with the title 'Inception of theory' with no direct reference to what specific theory (if any) is being talked about. I may attempt to fix this if you think I'm making sense. Maybe using headings like "Development of Darwin's Theory" or "Development of Darwin's Theory of Evolution" and saying in the first paragraph something like "Throughout this article we describe 'Darwin's Theory of Evolution' by natural Selection as 'Darwin's Theory'". We can probably drop "of Evolution" for sake of brevity, and because Darwin only had one significant theory. By the way, I hate 'inception'. What about "The Origin of Darwin's Theory"?Mal4mac 10:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Originally I thought explanation was superfluous as the intro mentions the theory, and the whole article's about D. Perhaps an option would be to quote the man, and call it Origins of "my theory". Just for info, I'm putting ideas together for a major shake-up of the South America paragraph of the voyage section, highlighting ideas prefiguring the theory and mentioning vol 2 by Lyell which refuted Lamarck in favour of "centres of creation". Also, the Australian quote is given more prominence than it may warrant, will move it to the voyage article and put a briefer quote here. ... dave souza, talk 11:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Imagine a 12 year old who knows nothing about Darwin. He may not know he only had one theory, so even talking about "the" theory is making an assumption. The "shake up" worries me - might this complicated material not fit better in a separate article? More important is to make the article, as it stands, read better for a general reader. I recommend checking out "12 Books That Changed the World" by Melvyn Bragg, which includes Darwin and Origin - not so much for the information (though that's good) but for the style. Good idea on the Australian quote - the article is long.Mal4mac 11:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a separate article and Dave knows about it. I think we should wait to see what he comes up with and then discuss. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's me for now regarding the Beagle section. There are several references from Browne and D&M which I could add, but that might overdo the citations. Look forward to your comments / copyedits and ideas for better titles for the "Theory" sections. .. dave souza, talk 20:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think thorough referencing is the way to go. I should really file a mediawiki/Cite.php bug to ask for hiding of references in the article. I should think about 20 more references evenly scattered, and we can seriously think about Featured status for this article. (Yes, I still haven't learnt my lesson about FAs - still the hunter...) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Bug report filed: [1] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

While the appearance of thorough referencing is undoubtedly impressive, my recollection of WP:Summary style#Citations and external links is that the detailed references go in the sub-articles. Will try to get the second voyage article up to speed with references, if only to get all these bookmarks out of my books, but will look over this article first. .. dave souza, talk 00:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Of those nine articles, only the Beagle one has more than a single footnote, and all of them are as long as this article. Plus eugenics, which is well-referenced, and social Darwinism, which needs some more work. I'd prefer to work on something that is realistic to achieve within a short time, and with the opening of the Creation Museum, this is as good a time to get Charles Darwin featured as there has ever been. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these pointers, I've tried out alternative section titles: please comment. The sub-articles are largely based on Desmond & Moore, point taken about getting this article up to speed first. We probably have till next summer for the museum opening. (see this and this) The citation required tags are really useful, please add them at any points you think a citation will be helpful. .. dave souza, talk 09:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks okay. The only thing is that your adjustment to the reference tags broke the magic. We could think about fixing the templates to accommodate multi-author books if we don't think it's fair or sufficiently accurate for only the first author to get mentioned until you scroll all the way down. How are your template coding skills?

I also think we should have a plan for how we're going to tackle these articles. We could do this one first, then maybe move on to second voyage of HMS Beagle or the book (I have a copy). To do something a little less heard of, we could cover his Descent of Man, or to be "in your face", we could fix up the Origin (again, all on my shelf). My favourite would probably be reaction to Darwin's theory, because it would offer grounds for reflecting on the current situation. I'll see if I can get hold of the Desmond & Moore book. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

No coding skills at all, I'm afraid. Desmond & Moore is excellent in my opinion, sticking closer to historical sequence than Browne, and I've just never seen it referred to as "Desmond". The Browne books have a slightly different focus, and each gives details not in the other. .. dave souza, talk 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The easy fix is to subst the ones in the reference section and make sure their tags match up with the ones you want to use. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I fixed it. It's not pretty, but if we feel that both need be mentioned... User:Saravask didn't bother when he wrote saffron, and I have to say that, seeing that the references are mostly for verifiability purposes, I'm not sure we should penalise ourselves with unwieldy syntax just to correctly reference what most people are happy to ignore anyway. The purpose of references for 99.9% of people is surely just to know that they're there... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for patching that, I guess that if someone thinks to click on the link it takes them to both names below so it's not essential, but less confusing. The Moore radio program you've added to the list is dated July 20, 2006 , which arguably is the date of publication: date shown to the left near the top here. .. dave souza, talk 17:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Subsections and text smoothing

I'm a bit rushed at the moment and would like to see discussion of these changes, but the aim of making the text clearer and more organised is welcome. The "main articles" cover relevant periods, so I've moved the link to the first subsection it applies to. The smoothing had introduced some inaccuracies, so I've tried to straighten these points out without losing too much of the smoothing. Will go over it again when time permits, comments welcome. .. dave souza, talk 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

See my recent edit summary. I'll wait for your comment. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Tricky, this. Essentially we've three opinions on the headings. In my opinion splitting the post-Beagle section into three makes one section too small to look right, so splitting it into two makes more sense. Since the Inception article covers both, it might be worth while making the second part a sub-sub-section, but that doesn't seem necessary. Here's my suggestions and comments.

1.3 Growing reputation and inception of theory

was Established geologist and naturalist + Free thinking and evolution

suggest Growing reputation, ideas on evolution

the point about not liking "inception" seems valid, though I picked it for the related article. Growing reputation seems to work better

The phrase "He was sent Lyell's second volume which decried evolutionism and explained species distribution by "centres of creation", but puzzled over all he saw and his ideas went beyond Lyell__Is this indicative of NPOV? Cyricx, 10:57, 6 December 2006 (EST)

It's indicative of what the reliable source says: Darwin was theorising, and branching out on his own in explaining species extinction. .. dave souza, talk 20:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1.4 Mid-life publications and heart symptoms

was Publications and palpitations of the heart

suggest Publications and palpitations of the heart

comment: the "Mid-life" idea seems good, but the term sounds a bit modern and odd when referring to a 28 year old setting out on his career

The opposite is true of "palpitations" - you what? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to say that the "palpitations" bit is rather Mills & Boon, suggesting romance as well as illness – and both are in that section. Seemed quite a good bit to me , though perhaps not terribly dull and encyclopaedic. .. dave souza, talk 10:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The palpitations quote is in the text; I don't think many people will have "palpitations" within their vocabulary. Also, it seems that his meeting Emma occurred after those words were written, so using "palpitations" to refer both to his feeling unwell and his consideration of marriage is not entirely accurate. I've made another attempt trying to take some of your comments on board. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

1.5 Marriage and children

1.6 Development of the theory of natural selection

was Research into natural selection

suggest Development of the theory of natural selection

1.7 Publication of theory

was Publication of theory of natural selection

suggest Publication of theory of origin of species

comment: either theory of nat. sel. or of origins ok

Already covered by previous header, repetition is tedious. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, no strong feelings either way. .. dave souza, talk 10:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

1.8 Reaction to the publication

comment: looks ok

1.9 Active into old age

was Further experiments, research and writing

suggest Variation, Descent of Man, plants and worms

comment – should avoid suggestion that old age came soon after the Origin or that he didn't do notable work

I'm not sure how "active" implies that he didn't do work, but okay. Can we swap "plants and worms" for "soil formation" or something similarly descriptive? You know, the article doesn't have to be written in 19th century English ;) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

He spent a lot more time on the plants, would suggest "experiments on plants" or "plant studies" .. dave souza, talk 10:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Descent of Man is without a doubt one of his two most influential works today. The Variation seems mostly historically significant. Maybe we can contract "plant studies" to "botany". Descent of Man is a real bitch because most of the book is really about sexual selection, which the title doesn't give away. I'm tempted to call it "interest in botany, variation, and the descent of man", which reads well, but is not chronological. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

These options look like an improvement on the old wording, but other suggestions welcome .. dave souza, talk 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations

This article, particularly the last half, is quite under-cited. If we want this to make FA, we're going to have to improve this. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what Dave and I been working on for the last week. ^^ - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I DID think there was an odd drpping-off half-way through. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Per your request, I've asked for cites where I thought them needed. I've also done a little copyediting. I've only gotten half-way through, though.

As a general rule, you want at least one cite per paragraph, I think, and almost always one at the end of a paragraph, unless there's a sentence at the end of a section clearly looking forward to well-cited things in the next section, or similar. This is because a paragraph break makes a natural "stopping point" for someone deciding how high up a citation goes: It generally can cover itself from its point up to the next cite and/or the start of the paragraph, but influence will rarely be seen as proceding higher than that. Or, well, that's what I think, and what I was told when being asked to add more cites to an already pretty well-cited W. S. Gilbert when it was a FAC. It would be nice to add in a few more biographies than just the one, if possible - Stephen Jay Gould has a lot of superb essays on Darwin's life, for instance. Using one reference too much seems to be looked on with disfavour. That said, go on using what's at hand, but if you have access to another source, go through while reading and "endorse" some of the cites already done, e.g. "See, e.g. Ainger, p. 288, or Wolfson, p. 3" - this is useful, because it shows to the FA reviewers that you have used multiple sources, which is potentially important. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Offer to help with citations

"This article, particularly the last half, is quite under-cited."

Question: why was an article on an important person like Darwin done without citations in the first place?

Offer to help: Tell me any cite you need and I will provide it. I have a vast library on Darwin and access to hundreds of books about him.

Ray

Ray, go ahead and put cites in. That is what Wikipedia is about, everyone pitching in where they have the ability. --Michael Johnson 02:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a list of ites needed at the temporary fork below. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Temporary fork

Please edit this version. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Be aware the fork just lost the discussion of Darwin's disease, and the links to it: [2]. We'll need to re-add it later. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Which of these is right? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin on Slavery

Fitz-Roy's temper was a most unfortunate one. It was usually worst in the early morning, and with his eagle eye he could generally detect something amiss about the ship, and was then unsparing in his blame. He was very kind to me, but was a man very difficult to live with on the intimate terms which necessarily followed from our messing by ourselves in the same cabin. We had several quarrels; for instance, early in the voyage at Bahia, in Brazil, he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he had just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered "No." I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answer of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything? -Autobiography, page 23

With the risk of sounding like Kdbuffalo, I think we should add this in either here or to the appropriate sub-article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The incident is mentioned at Second voyage of HMS Beagle#Voyage and I've added that useful link as a citation. ... dave souza, talk 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Major problem

The fork is citing up nicely, but it's just become clear that we don't actually have any coherent section on the development of the theory from the works of Malthus. These are the paragraphs that were to explain this:

Darwin considered Malthus's argument that human population increases more quickly than food production, leaving people competing for food and making charity useless. He later formulated this in the terms of his biological theory as: "Man tends to increase at a greater rate than his means of subsistence; consequently he is occasionally subjected to a severe struggle for existence, and natural selection will have effected whatever lies within its scope." He linked this to the findings about species relating to localities, his enquiries into animal breeding, and ideas of Natural "laws of harmony". Towards the end of November 1838 he compared breeders selecting traits to a Malthusian Nature selecting from variants thrown up by "chance" so that "every part of newly acquired structure is fully practised and perfected", and thought this "the most beautiful part of my theory" of how species originated.

Darwin found an answer to the problem of the forking of genera in an analogy with industrial ideas of division of labour, with specialised varieties each finding their niche so that species could diverge. He experimented with seeds, testing their ability to survive sea-water to transfer species to isolated islands, and bred pigeons to test his ideas of natural selection being comparable to the "artificial selection" used by pigeon breeders.

...I think we can all agree that this does *not* explain it well at all. Can anyone come up with something better? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hope that User:Samsara/Charles Darwin#Illness, engagement and natural selection now explains the transmutation / natural selection phase rather better: it's interwoven with Darwin's life, being a biography. There's a case for a separate article showing "the development of the theory from the works of Malthus" and many others, with no explanation of his life at the time: could be titled Darwin's development of his theory of natural selection since I've pinched development of Darwin's theory and it's tedious to move it and correct all the links. Anyway, first the biography. .. dave souza, talk 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Sorry, meant to strike that. I think it could do a bit better, but, seeing I wrote it, I think it's fairly good ;) Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Malthus Description

I've cut (on the work version) the line about charity being useless - It muddles the issue, though one can see the point underneath it, and makes it sound like Malthus was arguing that they should be left to starve now rather than more starve later, which isn't quite accurate, though, admittedly, unfortunately near. He quotes a Mr. Turner:

"Thus I unexpectedly discovered," he says, "where I had constantly seen the round of life moving in a tranquil regular routine, a mass of indigence and idleness, of which I had no idea. But yet it by no means surprised me, when I considered that, wherever indiscriminate charity exists, it will never want objects on which to exercise its bounty, but will always attract expectants more numerous than it has the means to gratify. No human being can suffer want at Teshoo Loomboo. It is on this humane disposition, that a multitude even of Musselmen, of a frame probably the largest and most robust in the world, place their reliance for the mere maintenance of a feeble life; and besides these, I am informed, that no less than three hundred Hindoos, Goseins, and Sunniasses, are daily fed at this place by the Lama's bounty."*91"

And later, again a quote:

"that distress and poverty multiply in proportion to the funds created to relieve them; that the measures of charity ought to remain invisible, till the moment when it is necessary that they should be distributed; that in the country parishes of Scotland in general, small occasional voluntary collections are sufficient; that the legislature has no occasion to interfere to augment the stream, which is already copious enough; in fine, that the establishment of a poor's rate would not only be unnecessary but hurtful, as it would tend to oppress the landholder, without bringing relief on the poor."

In short, Malthus' point about charity seems to be that if the poor are allowed to become dependant on charity, they will use it to increase beyond their means, and will require it forever. In short, what we'd call a modern Conservative viewpoint. This is a bit more subtle than "Charity is useless", and, since it's not actually germaine to Darwin's conclusions - indeed, tends to muddle the more central points Darwin is drawing from since charity is not generally something found in nature, I think we should leave it out. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Charles Darwin, not about natural selection. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Darwin and the inflences on him. By his own testimony, Malthus was a major influence. A full description of Malthus's views and later interpretations thereof belongs in the article for Malthus. A description of the part that influenced Darwin belongs here, and that charity is useless is not one of the key points, as faar as Darwin was concerned. That natural increase will be subject to the selection pressure of finite food resources, is the point. DGG 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi DGG and thanks for chipping in. My comment derives from a concern that we are tweaking this article to be all about the influences that led Darwin to develop his theory of natural selection. That is not what this article is about. This article is about Charles Darwin, the aspiring savant and "gentleman naturalist", who had opinions and concerns about many things other than natural selection. I am therefore making the point here that other aspects, such as his views on slavery, charity, his research on geology, soil formation and botany, are interesting in their own right and should find a mention in the article unless they were one-off comments, which none of the above were. For articles that focus on natural selection, see History of evolutionary thought, Inception of Darwin's theory, and Development of Darwin's theory. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Samsara, but the Malthus section is relevant only to his theory - it doesn't seem to have any other effects on his life. Hence, we're within reason to focus solely on how it affected Darwin (which is, in this case, identical to how it influenced Darwin's theory), and leave out aspects of Malthus' thought unimportant to Darwin. I don't think anyone intended their statements to be generalised farther than that narrow focus. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Browne and Desmond&Moore emphasise that Darwin was affected by the implication of population size being kept stable by death, war etc. rather than by the idea of Malthusian catastrophe, the mass starvation idea which is more relevant to the poor law. I've modified it to suit, with Darwin references: he refers to de Candolle's "war" in his "wedging" note of 1838 and in his "sketch" of 1842, so these are cited. .. dave souza, talk 00:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

My idea there was to meet Adam's point that the article tailed off, and move any "greatest" type comments out of the biography sections. However, the Commemoration section probably does this just as well, and there's enough about his importance in the lead section. ..dave souza, talk 14:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cites

Right! 24 22 cites by my count and this page'll be ready for FA fairly easily. =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Be careful not to underestimate the FAC process. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

HEh, true. But at least they won't be able to say it's not well-cited. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Could be complaints that D&M and, to a lesser extent, Browne are cited too much, it may be worthwhile finding others covering the same issues. .. dave souza, talk 13:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Eh, let's see if they complain. There's also a hefty primary source component, and a lot of that stuff courld be grabbed from Darwin sources. Anyway, W.S. Gilbert is fairly similarly cited, in terms of having a few main sources. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Paragraph

I removed a paragraph as the text does not come from where it says it does. If anyone knows where it does come from, add 'er back. (It might well be Krause's line misattributed to Darwin - the link I gave only shows Darwin's part.) Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, well spotted. I've removed it from Charles Darwin's views on religion, and commented it out of the Lady Hope article until a better ref is found. Always good to trim this article's size. .. dave souza, talk 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Aaargh! Just found where it came from: D&M p 6 – but as it says on p 7, Henrietta promptly censored her father's biography of his granddad, so that's why it's not in the printed version! Will restore it to the other pages, but this one needs to lose weight. .. dave souza, talk 23:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes/references 135 and 136 are useless. They link to entire works instead of to passages where Darwin says what the text claims he said. In other words:"read this entire work to find out if I have paraphrased Darwin correctly" It needs page numbers, or even a brief quote209.150.54.99 04:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)MIT Class of 1980

Wrong?

Also on the questionable claims front:

"In 1944 the American historian Richard Hofstadter applied the term "Social Darwinism"..."

I think this is wrong, as it appears the term was in use before then (dictionary.com gives a date of 1890 for first usage, for instance). Hofstadter at best popularised the term (though he certainly seems to have written the definitive analysis of the phenomenon) it might be good to mention Hofstadter, but I'm not sure he need be outside of the main article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A good source is The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, edited By Gregory Radick, 2003, Cambridge University Press, Diane B Paul: page 224, In case that link doesn't work, here's the relevant wording. "Coined around the turn of the century, the phrase 'social Darwinism' was popularised in the mid-1940s by the American historian Richard Hofstadter. It has ever since been a term of abuse, applied to people, policies and ideas of which the writer disapproved. (People do not identify themselves as 'social Darwinists') A New Deal liberal, Hofstadter's target was laissez-faire conservatism." I'm reviewing the wording of the section, .. dave souza, talk 11:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got to the heart of it. Nice job! Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

FAC

We ready now? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lots of references still to convert to the {{Harvard reference}}/{{Harvnb}} format. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. Is that template hard to figure out? I could have a go at helping. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The best way to learn is probably just to look at how they're used in the article, e.g. here and here, e.g. at the end of the first paragraph. Author name and year must match up with one of the references listed at the bottom. That's all there is to it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Right then! Are we doing websites this way too? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Some websites have been done so, do we want to do all of them or just the ones with long names? Also, where more than one cite presumably worth using "ref name=", as with van Wyhe, to avoid repeated refs with no new info. Some of the longer statements could be converted from refs into notes, but I've been a bit scared to tackle that. I've been thinking about rewriting the first paragraph of Descent of Man, sexual selection, botany and old age, but can't find a reference lodged in my memory as saying how he kept producing flanking moves, with Variations knocking on the head claims that there were no real deviations from fixed species, Orchids knocking back the idea that flowers were Created for man to look at, etc.. Will have a go at the references first, many thanks for all the input. .. dave souza, talk 20:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My personal preference is to leave the websites as they are, except where it's a website version of a book or journal article. Why make them click multiple links to get to a website? In addition, some of the links are highly trivial - e.g. adding all the websites I used in the commemoration section would flood the list of references with a host of websites only vaguely related to Darwin. Agree with the ref name, but I wouldn't add it too readily, since a few cites, like the Bannister one, ought to have page numbers added later. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's good to give author names where we can. It will look neater if everything is done one way. Also, my aim is to fit each reference into 1/3 of a line, to avoid line breaks. The "Desmond and Moore" ones are annoying me at the moment - they usually wrap. Of course, this will make things longer at the end. Compromise may be sensible, but no more than two formattings should be used (one for "quick web", one for full). Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. Perhaps the sensible thing is to divide the references section into References and Secondary References? Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I've done a few, by the way. Are they right? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's basically right. For future compatibility, you probably want to use the "p=", "pp=" or "loc=" parameter, and keep the details in the long version at the bottom. I made an edit to show how this would be done. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Feeling a little unsure about some of the remainder, notably the Radick, where it's uncertain if it's a family of three, or two people, one named Diane B. Paul

The latter. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: I'm a regular FAC reviewer but, as I've edited the Darwin article quite a bit, I would feel uncomfortable doing an official review at FAC. How about I then do an unofficial review here on talk to prepare the article? It's quite an effort (especially if it's something I care enough about to be extra thorough) so let me know whether you guys would find something like that useful. (I am, btw, going to bed now so if it happens it'll be next time I log on, in 14-15h from now). Mikker ^(...) 04:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly can't see any disadvantage of that, and many useful advantages. Please do! Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, look forward to it. .. dave souza, talk 13:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Informal review I: citation style

I've started the informal review and right off the bat I'm rather confused. I began, as always, with the references and, unless there is something I don't know or don't understand, they seem to violate 1c of WP:WIAFA. As you all know, 1c requires inline citations and compliance with WP:CITE, which in turn mandates the use of either Harvard, footnotes (i.e. Chicago) or embedded links and, obviously, whatever style is chosen has to be consistent throughout an article. The Darwin article, however, combines these styles oddly - it's a mixture of styles within a mixture of styles. There are improperly formatted pure Chicago references (e.g. ref 1 & ref 2 - cite web ought to be used for refs like these in pure Chicago, c.f. Richard Dawkins ref 1) and properly formatted Chicago refs (e.g. ref 57, ref 58). Then there are references which combine Harvard and Chicago - i.e. there is a footnote, which is written as Harvard instead of Chicago (e.g. ref 3, ref 6). To confuse matters further, some of the (non-inline; i.e. under "References" rather than "Citations") Harvard refs aren't properly formatted (all of them from Rothman to Yates).

On the mixing of Harvard and Chicago: whilst there is an example of how to do this on the talk archive of WP:HARV (here) and although the "Template" section of HARV seems to suggest it is allowed (though it is very unclear), Wikipedia:Harvard citation template examples doesn't include it and, personally, I think this mixing goes against citation best practice. I realise at least on other FA uses the same odd style - viz. Saffron - but I think articles should be references using either proper Harvard or proper Chicago. (For the Darwin article, at a minimum, the pure Chicagos ought to be converted and the improperly formatted (non-inline) Harvards fixed).

In any case, pending discussion of this issue (and I might just be wrong about the whole thing - perhaps this Harvard/Chicago mix is indeed allowed) I'll continue with the review and post it below when it's done. Mikker ^(...) 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what was intended with this mixing of Harvard and footnotes can be seen here. Mikker ^(...) 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, actually. I mean, look at W. S. Gilbert's footnotes, which are, frankly, a bit of a mish-mash of Harvard, weblinks, and notes, not even using templates (Though I think I may well do a tweak when I have time) and weren't commented on once. Anyway, this mixture seems fairly common procedure nowadays on Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Saffron is the gold standard to me. Not responding to that objection, sorry. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be pedantic, but, to my mind, WP:WIAFA is the sole gold standard for FAs. Any article - even one in other respects as good as Saffron - which violates the FA requirements ought either to be demoted or not promoted. In any case, to clarify this matter I've started a debate on WIAFA talk, here. Mikker ^(...) 02:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Informal review II: content

Ok… overall, it’s a damn good article that should most certainly become an FA (citation style issues aside). My detailed comments:

Citation issues (not wrt style, wrt content) [1c]

1. I think ref 2 ought to be replaced with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (which is both more rigorous and more famous). Online here.

   Done! Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Under “Journey of the Beagle” the article reads “In Australia the marsupial rat-kangaroo and the platypus seemed so unusual that it was almost as though two distinct Creators had been at work” and it then refs this. I suggest something like “Darwin thought it was almost as though…” because, otherwise, it seems like we’re endorsing that statement. (Which violates WP:NPOV).

   Sorted. .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Again under “Journey” Darwin’s statement that the people of Tierra del Fuego were "miserable, degraded savages" needs a ref; as does the sentence beginning with “Darwin now thought that humanity”

   both done, I've dropped the "clerical friends"; though that's supported by D&M p 221, it was mostly the lawyer Lyell who's mentioned as being horrified by man's descent from brutes. The Browne reference given doesn't cover New Zealand and Australia: I'm sure that D&M mention the point, worth another reference? .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   I think it's fine as is. Mikker ^(...) 04:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Under “Growing influence” the sentence beginning “Gould now revealed that…” needs a ref.

   included in the ref at the end of the para. .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Under “Religious views”, the sentence “Such stories have been propagated by some Christian groups, to the extent of becoming urban legends, though the claims were refuted by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians” needs a ref. (i.e. the part about historians refuting it does; his family refuting it is reffed).

   I take your point that we're not linking to a sufficiently scholarly site to fully make that claim. How about this Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   That'll be great Adam. My point was that, at present, we have no ref for the claim that Darwin's conversion has been "dismissed as false by historians" though we do have a ref for his family denying it. (As far as I can see, the talkorigins archive link provides no evidence of historians dismissing it.) The source you provided should cover that. Mikker ^(...) 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Prose issues [1a]

1. I realise the first sentence has long been an issue of contention (see talk archive), but I don’t like it stylistically. Firstly, “producing considerable evidence” is rather awkward IMO (but that’s minor) and, secondly, the transition between the first and second clauses (“through evolutionary change, at the same time”) is quite clumsy.

   How about "Charles Robert Darwin, FRS, (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist^[α] who achieved lasting fame through his theory of natural selection and his numerous books detailing the evidence for it." Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   I actually prefer the old version of the first sentence (I took this particular one from back in April): "Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was a British naturalist who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community of the occurrence of evolution and proposing the theory that this could be explained through natural and sexual selection. This theory is now considered the central explanatory paradigm in biology." Mikker ^(...) 03:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   I've blended the two. Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   Many thanks to both of you, that intro kept getting amended for the worse. .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   I think "the guiding principles of biology" is a bit too weak - the Dobzhansky ref provides sufficient support for something stronger. (Also... it mixes terminology - strictly speaking, theories aren't principles). I suggest "central explanatory paradigm" or "foundation stone" or something similar. Mikker ^(...) 04:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

2. In the second paragraph of the lead, the article reads “brought him eminence as a geologist whose work supported Charles Lyell’s uniformitarian theory of geology”. This, however, doesn’t make sense – whose work supported? The sentence should say (paraphrased) ‘Darwin’s work on biology supported Lyell’s’ but the current version doesn’t say that.

   It does now, I think? Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   He was eminent as a geologist, and while he'd collected creatures he only established himself as a biologist with barnacles ... dave souza, talk 08:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for sorting it, .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   I've reworded very slightly, and am now happy with it. Mikker ^(...) 04:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Under “Growing reputation…”, “and seeking experts not too busy to tackle the collections” is ambiguous

   tried to clarify. .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Again under “Growing reputation” the paragraph starting “On March 6, 1837 Darwin moved to London…” is somewhat confusing and not up to the high stylistic standard of the rest of the article, it ought to be reworded.

   have done, I hope.. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Under “Illness, natural selection and marriage” it says Darwin got “mired in more work” – reword, mired too opinionated.

   aww, think it's Browne's opinion, and expresses the struggle well. .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Again under “Illness”, the sentence which reads “relatives at Maer Hall, finding them too eager for tales of his travels to give him much rest” doesn’t flow and needs a reword

   have tried... dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

7. Yet again under “Illness”, the sentence beginning “William Whewell pressed Darwin to be Secretary” needs a reword (to become? Encouraged Darwin to become?)

   have clarified. .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

8. Again under “Illness”, the sentence “As species would always breed beyond available resources, favourable variations would enable organisms to better survive and pass on the variations to their offspring, while unfavourable ones would be lost, resulting in new species being formed” needs to be reworded (note the split infinitive, “to better survive”).

   rephrased, hope Adam's happy .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

9. The last sentence in “Illness” (starting “On 29 January 1839, Darwin and his cousin”) repeats information needlessly, either cut or reword.

   have trimmed out repetition, keeping it brief despite temptation to say that they left so quickly as to leave the wedding guests complaining. .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

10. Under “Reaction to publication”, the sentence “There was wide public interest in Darwin's book and a controversy which he monitored closely” should be reworded (a controversy?)

    seems ok to me. .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

11. Under “Commemoration”, the sentence beginning “During Darwin's lifetime many species and geographical features” needs a reword (esp. the Darwin Sound part).

    yeah, have got round to that at last. Could we dump the no. 16 in some boring list: after moses as an influential person? - thought he was just a message boy ;) .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Other [various]

1. Years that don’t form part of a complete date ought to be delinked per WP:CONTEXT. (i.e. 1836 shouldn’t and January 5th 1836 should be linked). There are several of these later on in the article.

   hopefully, have sorted these .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

2. Under “Religious views”, “As we have already seen” most certainly can’t stay, see WP:ASR
3. The entire section “Religious views” is unnecessarily repetitive – a good deal of the information there has been presented several times before in the article. Although some repetition is undoubtedly unavoidable, there is too much of it in this section.

   I disagree with your interpretation of WP:ASR - it seems to me that that's specifically saying that you shouldn't reference Wikipedia, not that you shouldn't reference the rest of the article. However, I added that because of the repetition, so I suspect the need for it will disappear when that's fixed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   Fair enough on ASR... "as we have seen" perhaps doesn't really qualify (but it's pretty close to "this article discusses"). In any case, mind if I delete it on stylistic grounds? Mikker ^(...) 04:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

4. It is rather odd that “Influence” mentions only eugenics and Social Darwinism – either this section should be renamed (“Controversial and unsubstantiated extensions of Darwin’s theories”? yes, yes… that’s POV, I know) or his positive influence should also be included. In fact, 1a considerations might require such inclusion.

   Commemoration was supposed to be part of that. But we could use a little more information on the development of biology after Darwin. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   Added a bit more of a summary to the introduction, to pull it all in. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   [3] Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Note η ought to be deleted IMO.

   Aye, was never sure about that one. The trouble is that there doesn't seem to be another copy of the list online. At the same time, the analysis, which we are not using, is highly questionable, so... Maybe we should just cite the book? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

   Well, why not just ref Michael H. Hart's book? Mikker ^(...) 04:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

   Ooops... you said that first. In any case, I've now fixed it. Mikker ^(...) 20:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

-- Mikker ^(...) 01:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for tackling that, .. dave souza, talk 14:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem Dave :-). By the way, everything I haven't commented on I'm happy with (either the changes or the argument that it doesn't need to be changed). Mikker ^(...) 04:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

What's the point of doing that? If its nearly ready for FA, get it ready and then send it to FA. There is no point wasting people's time at peer review, nor is that a requirement for an FA. You've got enough editors here who know what is needed to pass an FAC, why waste the resource? An aside, the template is horrible, its nearly impossible to find the link to the peer review. The edit button looks like its for editing the template. pschemp | talk 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Tht's why I killed that template. Forgot about that awful bug. Anyway, we're in the final stages of preparation, but it'll be a few days. This has failed a couple times before, and, though in my opinion it looks pretty good, it's possible that people not so close to the article could spot things we missed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd advise you to trust some of the editors on this page who have FAC experience and already know what is required. Anything that has been missed is probably so minor as to be easily fixed during the FAC or not be spotted by anyone. I still think putting an article this close to FAC on peer review (it will be ready in days) is a waste of everyone's time. pschemp | talk 04:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll take it off. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to Mikker's comments. I think that will probably be more useful in the end. pschemp | talk 04:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominate?

Okay, anything else that needs fixing can probably still be fixed while the opinions come flowing in. Are we all ready for a nomination? Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm ready. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see Mikker's comments first, and could do with at least 24 hours from now to go over the prose: still haven't got beyond the life section. The reference pages also need checking. It's certainly coming on. .. dave souza, talk 00:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph "Despite repeated bouts of illness, during the last twenty-two years of his life Darwin pressed on with his work. He had published an abstract of his theory, but more controversial aspects of his "big book" were still incomplete, including explicit evidence of humankind's descent from earlier animals, and exploration of possible causes underlying the development of society and of human mental abilities. He had yet to explain features with no obvious utility other than decorative beauty. His experiments, research and writing continued." needs sourcing. JoshuaZ 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read carefully, you will realise that this is just an introductory paragraph that refers to things that are laid out in more detail before and after, fully sourced. It's not necessary to source that summary paragraph on top of all else. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops my bad. JoshuaZ 01:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still busy with (a pretty damn thorough) review and I have about a page and a half (in Word) of comments so far. I'd appreciate you guys waiting and addressing my concerns first (given the effort I've put in). Mikker ^(...) 01:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Arr, right. Did think that the review that just dealt with the references was less than I expected. That'll explain it =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:-)... I obviously didn't make it clear enough that I was still busy. In any case, I hope the rest of what I posted satisfies your expectations. (To be honest, there is actually very little wrong with the article - I checked almost all the online refs, for example, and found only one possible improvement). Mikker ^(...) 03:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope the JSTOR stuff didn't cause problems: IT's worth a link, because many people will have access, but it's not universal. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact it actually supports in the article is plain even without registration, namely, the date of death, which is in the title of the obituary. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a couple other JSTOR articles too. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Addressing comments only

Guys, at this point, can we please stick to addressing comments rather than adding new features into the text that personally please us best? I promise you that this job will never get finished if you continue to add new material at this point. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, hopefully that's me done. ... dave souza, talk 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. It's ready for FAC, I think. I've set up the archives, so it just needs put on WP:FAC, and the nominator's summary - which I think one of you two, as the major forces behind the push, should do. It also needs set up over on Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography's lists of FA candidates, but that's trivial and not actually necessary. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Darwin references

moved from User talk:Samsara

I'd be cautious about removing non-trivial references, for the simple reason that having too many of our refernces being Browne or Desmond and Moore might get reviewers complaining our research lacked breadth. However, for trivial references, e.g. the snopes article on the Darwin Awards, if it can be replaced with a non-trivial reference, I'd go for it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Browne and D&M are reliable sources. Some of those other ones are just web pages. That is my major concern. Anything that's not appeared in print is somewhat by-the-by. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, that. Well, keep the web pages that are copies of books, the JSTOR ones, and the Darwin Online ones (since the Darwin Online essays are the published introductions to various books from Cambridge University Press. Lose the rest, also anything really tangental like the earthworm ecology cites, if you can simplify it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Whenever we can reference something to its printed incarnation, we should do that in addition to giving the hyperlink, e.g. the Chui page claims to be an excerpt from a book. Can we identify this book? Likewise for others. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Very reasonable. I've actually been doing that witht he Huxley and such. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Having a look, the book appears to be "Did God Use Evolution to 'Create'?" - This is a particularly tangental sounding book, and may even be creationist. Can we lose the link entirely? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Did a quick amazon search. The full title is Did God use evolution to "create"?: A critique of biological evolution, geological evolution, and astronomical evolution - definitely lose it =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

:) Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Should references 25, 162, and possibly 170 be turned into notes? It's going to be a bit annoying reshuffling, though. If there's anything else to make into them, I'd rather do it all at once. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll say yes to all of those. Note the publication date for Origin is wrong in 25. Should be 1859. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. Notes be sorted. I'm off to dinner! Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think the most important references to Harvard cite at present are 25, 40, 41, 46, 71 (especially bad. It's MAlthus, but doesn't say that - that's my next one), 64, 122, 135-6, 147, 149, and 150, and the replacement of 58 if we're going to do that, though that'll throw off all my numbering (I wouldn't harvard ref those two, as it'd give them undue prominence). There's a few out of the rest that would be good to do, but those - and maybe one or two more I missed - are, IMO, the necessary ones. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Updated. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Have I messed up something in the template for 71? Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Mathus for Malthus. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the D&M refs give a lot of page numbers: do you want them trimmed? In some cases it was just skipping a few off-topic pages, but the larger range still covers it and the intermediate steps can be omitted. The cite for the lead paragraph covers a lot of ground, so to shorten it we could change it to a cite for each sentence. Also, let me know if there are other cites you'd like deleted and changed to D&M or Browne. .. dave souza, talk 21:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say if the gaps are less than five pages, give the larger range. When you say cite for lead paragraph, I think you're talking about reference no. 4. I think it could be reasonably split. At the same time, we have referenced several sentences three or four times. We should consider whether each cite is necessary. Given that the number of references suggests at least three columns, we're not going to do the layout any favours by combining several cites into one, so I suggest we avoid that for now. I'm also still divided on whether we need to write out "Desmond and Moore" in the citations section. Moore, being the wikilinked author, is unlikely to get overlooked in the References section, and really, we're including them as references, not to give them attention in their own right. What do you think? Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's worth combining references when it improves text readability. Having ^{[160][161][162][163]} is very distracting. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think this might just about work without making the citations section look absolutely horrible. Can we please convert everything to Harvard style or seriously ask ourselves whether it belongs. If it's "just a website", we may be better off not having it, even if that means removing a few minor details from the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but the Commemoration section, and possibly the rst of Legacy is probably going to be a notable counterexample to this. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm on cough medication. Counter-example to/with respect to...? Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

In that it's going to be hard to talk about, say, the exhibition at the American Museum of Natural history, the Darwin awards and such without using websites. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking at what we have, the number of cites that aren't Harvard notation seems to be a cople in the opening which I'm CERTAIN we can replace from elsewhere if needed, one of which is from Darwin Online and thus scholarly anyway, And then just some some information on Asa Grey and Hooker, Malthus' obituary, a biography of Herbert Spencer, a list of 19th century books on evolution, and then the Social Darwinism and Commemoration cites. The social darwinism cites are the only worrying ones, IMO. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the page was to hand, I've extended the D&M cite to cover Owen's neutral stance then attacking review. Hope that's ok. .. dave souza, talk 22:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Samsara, I've put it into the list, but I honestly don't know how to use the Harvnb tag with multiple authors. Can you set up 64 for me? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is still the unanswered question of whether both authors necessarily need be mentioned. I think we should go with what's best for the layout, and that's to initially mention only the first author. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I personally prefer both, but either way works. But I still don't know how to set it up so it will link properly =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure if cite... currently 117, "A year later Darwin published his last major work, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, which focused on the evolution of human psychology and its continuity with to the behaviour of animals. He developed his ideas that the human mind and cultures were developed by natural and sexual selection, an approach which has been revived in the last two decades with the emergence of evolutionary psychology.[117]" Actually covers it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Once that footnote I mention just above this is fixed, shall we submit it? If W. S. Gilbert's footnotes pass, the remaining work - though worth doing - probably won't matter to FA. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right that the bit about evolutionary psychology is not covered; also, that ref still needs converting to Harvnb/Harvard citation. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think I've Harvnb'd everything left that can be reasonably. (Well, maybe 100, "Introduction to the Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Volume 14." - though we might have to do that as an Anonymous, and might get a better cite than 147, "Snopes.com page on the Darwin Awards") Just that last citation needed now. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Right! That's the cite. Forgive my enthusiasm, but... think we be ready now? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for enthusiasm, but let's wait for Dave to get back and give his consent. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikker's review, nominating for FAC

moved from User talk:Samsara

I generally agree with Mikker's requests for rephrasing, so let's get them done, I think. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC) As I rather thought might happen, they've already been done. I've half-set-up the FAC, but think you or Dave, as the motivating forces, should get to write the nomination. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Maybe we should all sign it. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead

No criticism or any significant review of darwinism in the lead, should be fixed IMHO. --Brand спойт 20:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no need for that. Mikker ^(...) 04:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Why the hell should there by criticism in the lead? That would be POV-pushing, which encyclopedias don't do. 216.165.144.240 01:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's no criticism in the article, is there? Closest are reactions and political interpretations, but reactions don't really count and the interpretations section is all about how his ideas were perverted or abused. Therefore, unless you want to add a section, backed up with references, you really can't put anything in the intro anyway. WLU 02:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: the opening sentence:

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an eminent English naturalist[I] who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community that species develop over time from a common origin.

This formulation strikes me as incredibly awkward and stilted, maybe worse. It makes it sound like Darwin pulled some kind of confidence trick on the scientific community. Also, given the initial failure of natural selection (rather than evolution per se) to win many scientific converts, it's somewhat inaccurate. Jamrifis 00:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Got a better proposal? Best to start a new section for discussion of it at the foot of this page, ...dave souza, talk 01:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Further reading

• Haupt, Lyanda Lynn. Pilgrim on the Great Bird Continent: The Importance of Everything and Other Lessons from Darwin's Lost Notebooks. New York, 2006.
• Keynes, Richard. Fossils, Finches and Fuegians: Charles Darwin's Adventures and Discoveries on the Beagle, 1832-1836. (London: HarperCollins, 2002) ISBN 0-00-710189-9.
• Moore, James and Adrian Desmond. "Introduction", in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (London: Penguin Classics, 2004). (Detailed history of Darwin's views on race, sex, and class)

Are these really so important as to need listing? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, they're a hangover from references before there were inline citations, so aren't needed now. dave souza, talk 22:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Moore and Desmond intro is worth including with the references — it is a good overview of just what it says it is. I don't know about the others. --Fastfission 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for the removal... it's not necessary given our refs. Mikker ^(...) 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be appropriate to add the Moore and Desmond as an inline citation to the current paragraph on Descent, replacing the current reference 99? Sounds worthwhile to me. .. dave souza, talk 11:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, sounds like a good idea to me. Mikker ^(...) 11:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Have added it to the references, but can't persuade an inline link to work. .. dave souza, talk 18:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the link? I'll have a look if I know where to look. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What's happened is I've added a reference to Moore, James & Desmond, Adrian (2004), "Introduction", in Darwin's The Descent of Man... etc, and tried replacing inline link 99 with the ref tags and two curly brackets each side of Harvnb|Moore|2004 or Harvnb|Moore & Desmond|2004|Ref=CITEREFMooreDesmond2004 – both of them look fine, but if you click on the blue link it reloads the page (without saving a change if in preview mode). No doubt I've done something wrong, probably Samsara will know what to do. It was certainly a waste of time me trying it out: haven't got the magic :( .. dave souza, talk 18:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, but I had to look at the page source to do so. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Magic! .. dave souza, talk 19:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

ambiguity

In the second paragraph:

"During the five-year voyage on the Beagle, his explanations of geological features, based on Charles Lyell's uniformitarian geology, brought him eminence in the field, and his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author."

This seems to say that he came to eminence during the voyage (which is partially true, but "eminence" is probably too strong at that point) and (as a likely misreading by visitors) that the journal made him famous during the voyage as well. --ragesoss 06:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, that's right: He did. He was sending things back on ships going the other direction. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As you'll have seen, in reviewing the lead I've changed it to:

"His five-year voyage on the Beagle established him as a geologist whose observations and theorising supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas, and the subsequent publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author."

The fossils and his letters to Henslow (covering some of the points in his Journal) made his name in scientific circles, the publication of Journal and Remarks made his fame as an author, as well as teaching him not to sign publishing deals that don't give you a percentage! Hope that's now clearer, .. dave souza, talk 10:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflicted reply (looks irrelevant now):

The journal definitely didn't make him a popular author until it was published in 1839. As for the first part, "eminence" seems a little bit of an exaggeration; compare that to the language in the body of the article: "celebrity in scientific circles". "Eminence" has more of a connotation of authority than "celebrity". This is where the Desmond and Moore heading is "A Peacock Admiring His Tail"; eminence just doesn't seem to capture the right spirit of it. Janet Browne's description of Henslow's promotion of Darwin, pp. 335-337 of Voyaging, is more muted than the cited Desmond & Moore; neither one evokes "eminence".--ragesoss 10:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, agree that the voyage was the beginning rather than fame happening "during" the voyage. While his being established let alone eminent arguably followed after his papers on atolls and rising coasts, hope the present wording suits a bit better. The detail Browne gives is useful, and glad to note that she mentions the publisher of the pamplet.. will add that. .. dave souza, talk 11:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought "a geologist whose observations and theorising supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas" was one of the phrases that was objected to? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

How do people feel about replacing the rather satanic picture that's at the head of the article, perhaps with the one further below, Julia Margaret Cameron's portrait of Darwin? The one that's there now is really, really bad. WLU 16:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier, and there's value in showing Darwin as he was around the time of publishing Origin rather than later. .. dave souza, talk 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There's better photographs of him from that period, though.... Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds nice, do please find: I'd a look earlier and didn't succeed. Also, it's desirable to have him facing the viewer or looking to the left so that it works on the page: Janet Browne's Voyaging has a nice shot on its cover (slightly obscured by lettering), but he's looking to the right which would have him gazing off the page. .. dave souza, talk 00:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You can always flip if you think that is a problem. --liquidGhoul 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Guess any photo will be public domain, but I've a dim memory of such editing being a copyvio problem. .. dave souza, talk 00:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If they are in the public domain (which they should be unless painted/taken by a very young person), then you can do anything to them. --liquidGhoul 13:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

But not if they're on DarwinOnline - we'd have to access the originals. I'll poke around appropriate old newspapers. Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article Queue

I know it's a ways off, but what about a request for 19 April (125th anniversary of his death) o, if that's too far away, 12 February (198th anniversary of his birth) for the suggested date on the front page? It'd give us all a well-deserved break. (See Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests) Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, you could wait two years and have it on his 200th birthday. JACOPLANE • 2006-12-27 16:19

It could be repeated in two years for his 200th. --liquidGhoul 23:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any article has been featured twice on the main page yet. Then again, if you harass Raul654 enough I'm sure he'd go for it. JACOPLANE • 2006-12-29 22:29

I think Christmas was (though it doesn't say on the talk page). There would be a 2 year gap, so it wouldn't be that bad to put it back up. It is a good enough article to justify it. --liquidGhoul 00:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Today's Featured Article Text

Charles Darwin

Charles Darwin, aged 51, shortly after publishing On the Origin of Species

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an eminent English naturalist^[I] who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community that species develop over time from a common origin. His theories explaining this phenomenon through natural and sexual selection are central to the modern understanding of evolution as the unifying theory of the life sciences, essential in biology and important in other disciplines such as anthropology, psychology and philosophy.

Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine, then theology, at university. His five-year voyage on the Beagle established him as a geologist whose observations and theorising supported Charles Lyell's uniformitarian ideas, and the subsequent publication of his journal of the voyage made him famous as a popular author. Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, he investigated the transmutation of species and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838. He had seen others attacked for such heretical ideas and confided only in his closest friends while carrying out extensive research to meet anticipated objections. However, in 1858, Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay describing a similar theory, forcing early joint publication of both of their theories.

His 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. Human origins and features without obvious utility such as beautiful bird plumage were examined in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.

In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence, he was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.

(More...)

Charles Darwin is, quite simply, one of the top two, if not the most, important scientists in the field of Biology. Only real rival I can think of is Gregor Mendel. 19 April, as the 125th anniversary of his death, seems particularly appropriate. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Notes

Can we do better on the lead, think ye? Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does "Church of Science" get directed here?

Is this a mistake?--Filll 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidently a hoax by Skrooball. Well spotted, it's been deleted. .. dave souza, talk 09:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)