Talk:Charles Darwin

Lede image

Wouldn't it be better to use this Featured image of Darwin instead of the current one?

GuardianH (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The current article is fine. It includes the above image with a suitable caption (search for "between 1862 and 1866"). Johnuniq (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

1860 debate

The account here is the popular one, but it is probably apocryphal. Wikipedia has a page on this debate which gives a more accurate version. MirrorSquirrel (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Darwin's support for the inheritance of acquired characters

It should be made clear that in "The Origin" Darwin attributes several adaptions to what he calls "use and disuse" which involves the inheritance of acquired characteristics which is a component of Lamarck's theory of evolution. Currently the article mentions that three of Darwin's contemporaries (Robert Grant, Ernst Haeckel and Herbert Spencer) held Lamarckian views. It also describes one of Darwin's notes as dismissing as absurd the Lamarckian view of progression to higher forms. This gives the impression that Darwin had discarded Larmarckian thinking which is wrong. Darwin argues for Lamarckian evolutionary mechanisms in "The Origin" and even more so in the later editions and other subsequent published material. References:

"Darwinian evolution includes Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters", International Journal of Epidemiology, Yongsheng Liu, Volume 45, Issue 6, December 2016, Pages 2206–2207 (https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw182) [This paper notes the (apparently) growing support for the inheritance of acquired characters today and suggests that Darwin was actually correct in his adherence to it]

"Lamarckism" in Encyclopedia Britannica (https://www.britannica.com/science/Lamarckism) [See the section titled "The influence of Lamarckism"]

It should also be stated in the article that Darwin did not understand that natural selection was responsible for species conformity (stabilizing selection) and this led him to articulate, in "The Origin" a confusing theory about variation being dependent on a change to the "conditions of life" (see the second sentence of "The Origin").

Reference: "Darwin on Variation and Heredity", Rasmus G. Winther, Journal of the History of Biology 33: 425–455, 2000 (https://philpapers.org/archive/WINDOV)

"The Development of Darwin's Theory" (book) by Dov Ospovat, Cambridge University Press [pages 77-83 (paperback edition) talk about Darwin's ideas on variation].

These two intimately related issues are interesting and noteworthy and, by including them in the article, will give a fuller, more balanced and more interesting account of Darwin. Failing to appreciate these points makes reading the Origin of Species a confusing exercise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gourdiehill (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Do you have any thoughts on this? To me, it seems a bit unnecessary to mention that 160-year old initial investigations concerning a ground-breaking theory might have had some rough edges. Is there something in the current article that is misleading? Is there a reason the reference in the article concerning the issue should be doubted? Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

The meaning of "Lamarckism" changed after Darwin's time, see On the Origin of Species#Developments before Darwin's theory: Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin outlined a hypothesis of transmutation of species in the 1790s, and French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published a more developed theory in 1809. Both envisaged that spontaneous generation produced simple forms of life that progressively developed greater complexity, adapting to the environment by inheriting changes in adults caused by use or disuse. This process was later called Lamarckism. Lamarck thought there was an inherent progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity, in parallel but separate lineages with no extinction. .... Some anatomists such as Robert Grant were influenced by Lamarck and Geoffroy. This article rightly describes one of Darwin's notes as dismissing as absurd the Lamarckian view of progression to higher forms – Darwin discarded that central Larmarckian idea. Lamarckism#Darwin's pangenisis notes that CD proposed natural selection as the main mechanism for development of species, but (like Lamarck) gave credence to the idea of heritable effects of use and disuse as a supplementary mechanism. There's a case for a very brief mention of this, but the focus has to remain on concisely outlining Darwin's theory of natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 06:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Full Title of Darwin's book

The complete title of Darwin's most famous book was missing from this article. I added the full title, but it was rejected as if it were not an improvement.

How can adding the complete title of Darwin's book not beneficial to an article about Darwin? Bushido77 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it doesn't matter at all to actual understanding of the book or its significance: the title of the article for the book is merely On the Origin of Species, because that's the name it actually goes by. In almost any place other than where it is given on said article, giving the full title is tantamount to introducing trivial clutter. Remsense ‥ 论 23:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Darwin gave the title to the book. I think it is highly disrespectful to write an article about a man and only abbreviate the title that he gave to the book.

Can we get someone else to weigh in on this? I am interested in a mediator to weigh in on this. Bushido77 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your opinions don't seem to be based in anything external to yourself. Wikipedia is a tertiary source: we decide how subjects should be discussed, named, etc. by weighing how the body of secondary sources do so. It's not your or my place to impose our idiosyncracies on a subject's presentation, or decide they deserve special treatment.

See WP:NC for our policy on naming conventions, which goes hand in hand with how we title articles. Specifically, see WP:SUBTITLE for how we deal with the subtitles of books, which directly contradicts your opinions on the matter. It's fairly clear what site policy is here, and I recommend not wasting anyone else's time in lieu of familiarizing yourself with it. In fact, this very book is used as an illustrative example of when not to use the full title. Remsense ‥ 论 00:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You said " It's not your or my place to impose our idiosyncracies on a subject's presentation, or decide they deserve special treatment."

My response: I did not give the book the title. It is not my idiosyncrisies. The title came from Darwin... not me. How is it "special treatment" to actually include the full title of Darwin's book?

I guess you are opposed to mediation? Why? Bushido77 (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be your idiosyncrasy to insist we call it what no one else calls it. Darwin doesn't have an editorial veto on Wikipedia, believe it or not. Remsense ‥ 论 03:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You said "It would be your idiosyncrasy to insist we call it what no one else calls it"

My response: Darwin called it that! Bushido77 (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If you have been considering my presentation of site policy in good faith here, it should be pretty clear that when I said "no one else calls it that", what I meant was "our sources rarely call it that". We are a tertiary source: when deciding what name we should use to refer to something, we usually refer to it by its common name in English, and generally do not favor its original, full, or official name instead. Remsense ‥ 论 12:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species is the title of the article on the book. It gives the complete title of the book which is just a distraction here. As said above, the book is known as On the Origin of Species and the extra words are unfamiliar and only confuse the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

OK. I still find no reason to exclude the full title of his book. But if you are the final authority... I guess that is that. Bushido77 (talk) 00:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And no reason to include the full title of the book when (a) the short form is usually used for it, (b) there is a separate article on the book, and (c) there is no confusion. Note that "Charles Darwin" in the book article is used instead of "Charles Robert Darwin" since the former is the usual name for him. I note the book title in full is given in the Works Cited section of this article and that is good practice for bibliographies (barring book titles where the title might be dozens of words long). Erp (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The reason, which has been plainly stated to you several times, is that we call things what they are usually called. You can have your particular tastes that differ, but don't pretend we didn't give you a clear reason. Remsense ‥ 论 03:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions. I wonder if mediation is available on this subject?

You said "And no reason to include the full title of the book when (a) the short form is usually used for it, (b) there is a separate article on the book, and (c) there is no confusion."

My resposne - if there is no reason for the full title of the book, why did Darwin give it that title?

(a) OK, the short form is usually used. It appears about 16 times in the article. Why are you opposed to using the full title even once?

(b) OK, there is a separate article, so why mention it so many times but never give the author's full title any credit?

(c) So, you are saying that Darwin was confused when he titled his own book?

You did not give a clear reason as to why it is unacceptable to include the author's chosen title of his most famous book in an article about that author.

I am still learning Wikipedia and hopefully soon I will figure out how to request mediation. It is simply wrong to not include the full title of the author's book. Bushido77 (talk) 11:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree (for what it may be worth) with Remsense ‥ 论, Johnuniq (talk) and Erp (talk). Errantios (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I second this while explain why adding the full title isn't an improvement, specifically addressing your reasonings.

(a) It's, in my opinion, not worthy of inclusion as it is merely trivial and does not benefit the article. Is it really important for readers to know a longer, rarely-used, harder-to-memorise name for a book?

(b) See previous letter

(c) They meant the readers would be confused, not Darwin _ZZ^Z'S 12:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You said "(a) It's, in my opinion, not worthy of inclusion"

My response - are you the final word in this matter? Thanks for admitting you deleted Darwin's title based on your opinion.

You said " They meant the readers would be confused, not Darwin"

My response - the title of Darwin's book is enough to confuse readers????

What are the steps to request a neutral mediator? Bushido77 (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, you did add material based on your opinion too. Earlier in the discussion, you said, I think it is highly disrespectful to write an article about a man and only abbreviate the title that he gave to the book. _ZZ^Z'S 12:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I expect a lot of people would agree with you both. But that does not make it right. Many times throughout history the majority were wrong.

What justifies you forbidding the full title of a book that was given to it by the author?

Darwin wrote the book and gave it the title. What makes your opinions superior to his? Bushido77 (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

And he also used the short form himself such as in the letter of 23 October 1880. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-12771.xml&query=%22origin%20of%20species%22

The short form is also used in "Emma Darwin, wife of Charles Darwin. A century of family letters" a book edited by his daughter. Erp (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There is nothing to mediate if you have read WP:SUBTITLE. You can start an RFC in an attempt to change what that policy says, but it's not really possible to dispute that it leads to this conclusion as presently written. If you're not interested in adhering to site policy, then this will be my final reply, and I recommend that others act likewise. Remsense ‥ 论 12:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You said "There is nothing to mediate if you have read"

My response - WP:SUBTITLE is addressing subtitles. I am interested in the full title of the book being included in the article. To my knowledge, that is not a subtitle, but rather the full title.

A subtitle is not the same thing as the full title.

What steps are necessary for getting a mediator to review this matter? Bushido77 (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not reply to me again until you have successfully read WP:SUBTITLE in its entirety. Remsense ‥ 论 12:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I read WP SUBTITLE. Do you know the difference between a subtitle and the full title? Bushido77 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Given you've successfully read WP:SUBTITLE, please let me know if there's any further discrepancy to clear up between it and the conclusion drawn from it here. Remsense ‥ 论 12:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Why is the full title not allowed in the article? Not even one time (and the book is referenced about 16 times.) Darwin's book has no subtitle. What animus do you have against the full title of his book? Bushido77 (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We refer to books, as we do with most things, using their common names. This is not unclear, and this will likely be my final reply here. Remsense ‥ 论 13:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem referring to things by their common names. Someone named Robert often goes by Bob. But in an official profile, I would expect "Robert" to be mentioned at least once.

So, why is it wrong to include the full title of Darwin's most famous book? Especially since it is mentioned about 16 times. I would expect that at least one out of these 16 or so references would be appropriate to include the full title. Bushido77 (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

If you truly understood the guideline Remsense reference, especially since the matter being discussed is one of the examples listed, then this discussion should be over. If you are not willing to recognise it, then I suggest following what Remsense said. Otherwise, I'm afraid you're on your own since there is nothing left to discuss. _ZZ^Z'S 13:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Mediation should be an option. I really do not understand why one (of the ~16) references to Darwin's most famous book cannot include the full title.

WP:SUBTITLE says that article is a guideline not a mandate.

If ~16 references to his most famous work are justified, how is it not appropriate to give the full title of that book even one time? Bushido77 (talk) 13:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any particularizing clause like, "we use the common name, unless we mention something many times and feel like mixing it up once or twice". Remsense ‥ 论 13:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are you so vehemently opposed to giving Darwin credit for the title of His book?

WP:SUBTITLE is a guideline... not a mandate.

How does one initiate a mediation in this matter? Bushido77 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right, it is a guideline. However, it should not be followed IF there is a good reason to. All of the participants here oppose your edits and the reasons you've used have been addressed. If you seriously believe that your edits should be implemented, either propose a change on the guideline's talk or initiate a RfC. _ZZ^Z'S 14:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Two other people have already told you no, and I doubt you'll listen to a third. Circling back to the beginning: you have given no reason why the guideline shouldn't apply beyond how it personally makes you feel. We are not required to agree with your premise that it is disrespectful or what have you: this notion is particular to you and does not compel anyone else's deep consideration or mediation. It is a you problem. Remsense ‥ 论 14:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You said - "All of the participants here oppose your edits and the reasons you've used have been addressed."

My response - you and if I count correctly two others think you are correct. I would say that is not "all." Also, the majority does not make something correct. Many times throughout history the majority was in the wrong.

You said - "Two other people have already told you no, and I doubt you'll listen to a third."

My response - so you are not going to tell me how to request mediation? Hmmm... I wonder why? I am new to Wikipedia editing, are you the ultimate authority in this matter?

Sooner or later, i will figure out how to initiate a mediator.

To me, it is very odd why you are vehemently opposed to the title that Darwin gave his own book. Bushido77 (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:DRR for a description of various methods of resolving disputes on wikipedia. I suggest reading carefully before taking action. Erp (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to state upfront here that I've been increasingly ill the past couple days, and I will not be spending any of my limited energy in the oncoming span at DRN about this pleading a conclusion obvious to most everyone on Earth. I'm usually willing to stress test the process and go though the motions, but I wouldn't expect any more engagement from me about this, since other editors are aware enough that I don't need to worry about the article. Remsense ‥ 论 07:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

A very well earned break. Get well soon! Errantios (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear of your illness. I am sure Wikipedia has measures in place for mediating this situation. I hope you get better soon. Bushido77 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the mediation information. I will definitely read it carefully. I don't want to make waves. I just want to give proper credit to where it is due. I know if i wrote a popular book, I would want the title I gave it to be documented in articles about me. Bushido77 (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The "full title" is in the article

This article is a concise overview of Darwin's life and works, and appropriately uses the common short title of On the Origin of Species, but the References section includes the full title of the 1859 and the 1872 editions. That covers that point. More detail is appropriately shown in On the Origin of Species#Murray as publisher; choice of title, which deals with the complex meanings of the wording. That detail isn't significant enough for this overview. . . dave souza, talk 10:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)