Talk:On the Origin of Species

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Peer review On the Origin of Species has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
On the Origin of Species was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 10, 2006


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the On the Origin of Species article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3

This article uses British english dialect and spelling.
According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.


Archive
Archives



Contents

[edit] Descent of Man images

Please see Talk:The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Richard001 (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

While I'm here, I might point out that, as with many other articles, the lead isn't as long as it should be. The two paragraphs are solid, but for something as long as this three or (better still) four are needed. Richard001 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Concise is good, and I'd rather see two short paragraphs than a screed which is almost an article in itself. However, both the lead and the article reflect interest in the theory and reaction to the theory rather than the book itself. van Wyhe, John (2002-7). Charles Darwin: gentleman naturalist: A biographical sketch. The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. University of Cambridge. Retrieved on 2008-02-02. has a very useful brief summary of the main points in the book, rather than being focussed on the theory. Suggest making the Summary of his theory section a subsection of a broader overview of the book, will try to think of a title. That could then be concisely summarised as a third paragraph for the lead. .. dave souza, talk 10:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Among scholars and the such, it's referred to only as "The Origin of Species," and should be reflected as such in the title. Elfred (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Already discussed and agreed – evidence shown at Talk:On the Origin of Species/Archive 3#Requested move onwards, see also Darwin Online: On the Origin of Species. Retrieved on 2008-03-25.. .. dave souza, talk 05:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

should there be some list of criticisms such as the racist nature of it. Rds865 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

How can it be racist? The book doesn't even discuss human beings. --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the Publication section fully covers that point – note "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage". . . dave souza, talk 06:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article suggests that it does talk about humans. If Darwin didn't suggest that humans came from animals in Origin of the Species, then the picture of Darwin as an ape as well as the part about peoples reaction to the idea that humans came from animals be edited. Also Huxley's sketch of primates doesn't really belong here. Some pictures of finches would be more appropriate, wouldn't you say so? Rds865 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

it refers to the notion of intelligent design as unscientific, also it describes On the Genesis of Species, as "the cleverest and most devastating critique of natural selection" The article also implies that theology and Science are separate, however, if God is a being, and creator, then he is involved in the natural world.

also checking the sources for the line "A number of non-scientists in the United States and a few other countries disagree, often on religious grounds.[47]" finds the line to be misleading. the article is about "a petition signed by 514 scientists and engineers." The point of the petition being that those opposing evolution, none of them explicitly cite religious grounds. Personally, I find it hard to know the validity of the numbers given, since it cites a 91' poll, gives no definition of a scientist was, how many were polled, where they were polled, and so on and so forth. Rds865 (talk) 05:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure you aren't talking about another article? --Michael Johnson (talk) 05:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Some fair points: there were some fossils in the article from the days when ID was pushed more seriously. I've removed "A number of non-scientists in the United States and a few other countries disagree, often on religious grounds.< ref>Chang 2006< /ref>" and "Still, despite these ostensibly religious references, the actual mechanism of natural selection as described in the work bears no semblance whatsoever to the non-scientific notion of "Intelligent Design." Rather, Darwin was couching his arguments in the terms that resonated with the discourse of his time." as they're really rather off-topic. Janet Browne covers the issue of Darwin holding to a non-teleological line if discussion of that issue is needed. The reference to Mivart's On the Genesis of Species, as "the cleverest and most devastating critique of natural selection" is described by Desmond & Moore as a significant influence on the 6th edition, will look up a page number and give a reference for that in due course. . . dave souza, talk 08:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Also it seems to me that Mark Isaak's quote, it letting the opponents of Creationism, define Creationists. A quote from a Creationist should be found. This article is not about a modern scientist's reaction to an opposing view of Darwinism, but rather reactions to the Origin of Species. Rds865 (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
You're suggesting using a primary source for a scientifically non-notable viewpoint, thus contravening WP:NOR. We can and do cite reputable historians on notable points relating to the book, and while it's reasonable to mention the creation-evolution controversy with a link, that long postdates the book and isn't really relevant to this article. See WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ for relevant policies such as NPOV: Making necessary assumptions and NPOV: Giving "equal validity". .. dave souza, talk 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophical implications removed

An anon removed the Philosophical implications section,[1] and I've sympathy with the point that it's related to Darwinism or Darwin's ideas rather than the book.. . dave souza, talk 18:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)