Talk:Charles Darwin

Template:WP1.0

Neutrality

Old discussion reopened, see Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 11#Neutrality for context and subsequent discussions

First of all, I am an evolutionist myself, so let it be clear that there's no bias on my part. However, several aspects about the article are an obvious violation of the neutrality expected from an encyclopedia. The phrase "the fact that evolution occurs," for example, is meant purely as a childish challenge towards non-evolutionists, and nothing else. It does not contribute to the quality of the article, offers no information, and will merely serve to increase the schism. The only thing that will be achieved by this is to exasperate non-evolutionists, so that they might not even read further and remain in ignorance about the evolutionary point of view. Many of the people who visit this article may themselves be creationists in doubt of their opinion, and just as they might come to greater open-mindedness, they are put off by the equally biassed opinion of the evolutionists who wrote the article. Whether the theory of evolution is true or not does not matter: as long as we are dealing with theories which are not universally accepted, we should be speaking in terms of these. As long as there are several beliefs, we should, as an encyclopedia, represent each belief. As long as there are people who do not believe a certain theory, we should encourage them to be open to all points of view. This is not a way of "hiding things": removing this does not retract anything from the information offered by the article. On the contrary, by avoiding to take sides, people will be more likely to accept the information we offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovic (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Evolution is validated by strong evidence, hence fact. Surely people dont need to confirm "some people speculate on the theory that the sky might be above us"...it is obvious, supported by heavy evidence, and in all eyes but the staunch religious minded, mainstream. I for one dont feel the need to state the fact that water is a liquid without having to word it correctly in order to please a minority group who belive that water is a metal.

No theory, fact or other, can ever be belived 100%...there will always be those who oppose it. Some people beove the world is flat, some that there is no universe other than earth. If the neutrality balance is changed to suit the stubborn few, then we unbalance it as we are no longer neutral but in bias for the few. It isn't taking sides, but stating the obvious. DarkMithras 31/3/2010

"[I}t is obvious" is probably the sort of thing taken issue with here. It is not "obvious" in some objective sense. If it were, there would be no controversy. While I agree with you that we can't wait for 100% universal acceptance because no such thing exists, the point is that we cannot treat biological evolution as a truism as long as there is a large and vocal body of people who don't see it that way. It would be foolish to give a platform to every point of view because every point of view isn't legitimate simply by virtue of its existence. Scientific consensus is the most reliable point of view when dealing with this scientific topic. However, this is a question of tone, not content. The tone reflected in the claim that biological evolution is as plainly obvious to everyone as the liquid, non-metallic (not mutually exclusive properties, mind) nature of water or the relative position of the sky to the Earth (both things that are obvious from simple and basic visual and tactile observation, as opposed to the intensive study of millenia-long trends unobservable to the naked eye) is the sort of provocative arrogance that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Prolefeedprocessor (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's obvious or not, we can make necessary assumptions here and leave the debate to the appropriate detailed pages. Also note that "the fact that evolution occurs" no longer appears in the article, the lead has been carefully rephrased after considerable discussion. . dave souza, talk 09:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of extending this unproductive discussion I will reinforce Dave's point by stating that the core problem with your argument is "If it were, there would be no controversy". Wikipedia policies like WP:UNDUE require articles to reflect the the opinion of experts in the relevant fields, not the opinions of the genral public. As long as the consensus of the vast majority of working biologists and historians of science (as reflected in the contents of articles published in peer reviewed journals) is that "Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature." then it is acceptable to state that fact in an article regardless of what kind of debate might be occuring in non-scientific circles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

References

• Lewens, Tim (2006). Darwin. London: Routledge. p. 289. ISBN 978-0-415-34638-2. Retrieved 2010-08-21. was added without being used as a reference for anything – this article is rather large already, and we can't list all the books about Darwin. . . dave souza, talk 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

heavy ip vandalism

Seems like this article should be semi protected. de Bivort 18:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We're evidently trying out pending changes, which means that the vandalism has no visible effect for non-logged-in users. Don't know whether this is a good idea or not. . dave souza, talk 18:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The pending changes test has ended on a lot of articles I monitor. I wonder why not here. de Bivort 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The pending changes test is over, but the application of pending change review to affected articles was not lifted automatically when the test concluded. I have now asked for the article to be semi-protected again.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic has restored semi-protection, many thanks to Amatulic and everyone for reviewing this. Hope the vandals don't now stray onto less well watched articles, not very sure myself where to strike the best balance between protection and welcoming newbies, but semi certainly makes life quieter on this article. . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Darwin inbreeding study

There is a new paper published in Bioscience regarding inbreeding depression in the Darwin/Wedgwood dynasty... This new information should be commented in the Darwin input.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.81.43 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

NB this was pasted over content, I reverted the edit then copied the added text to a new section Jebus989^✰ 12:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, no doubt when this becomes available it can be used as a source for improving the Darwin–Wedgwood family article, and may have some relevance to Charles Darwin's health. . . dave souza, talk 13:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at that study and the conclusions are rather limited when you actually read them, as opposed to the media's version. 贾宝玉 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the study but I find it very unlikely that inbreeding had anything to do with Charles' health (having one set of grandparents being third cousins is hardly inbreeding and probably wouldn't have even been noticed except that they both had the same family name). His children might be a different matter and that of some of their cousins (I wonder how the study handled the children of Fanny Macintosh who did marry her first cousin but was also known to be having an affair with a non-blood relation [though a relation several times over by marriage])--Erp (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The study's most widely cited conclusions concerned Darwin's children. They might be relevant on the page about the Darwin-Wedgwood clan, but be careful to use the actual journal article as the source. 贾宝玉 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I’m Francisco C. Ceballos, one of the authors of “Was the Darwin/Wedgwood Dynasty Adversely Affected by Consanguinity?” Our paper confirms Darwin´s fear; the Darwin/Wedgwood dynasty clearly showed Inbreeding depression in survival of their offspring. According to our findings and based on the scientific bibliography over inbreeding effects, we can claim that Charles and Emma family suffered from inbreeding depression too. In my opinion this information should be added to “Darwin´s Children” chapter. For further information or if you want a copy of our paper please contact me at: Francisco.ceballos@usc.es —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.81.43 (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This paper is about the Darwin/Wedgwood dynasty broadly, so I suggest adding it to Darwin-Wedgwood family. (Those unfamiliar may see here for a good summary.) It could perhaps be added here too but most of the sources here seem to be high-level secondary or tertiary sources and so I'm leaning toward waiting until it is cited in one of those. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It´s Francisco again. For a good summary I suggest here or here. Science Daily and The New York Times are rigorous sources. I agree that this new light over the Darwin/Wedgwood pedigree has to be first added to the corresponding wiki-entry. However it should be addressed in “Darwin´s Children” too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.81.43 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Darwin is right

i think that darwin is right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.172.193 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he was right about many things, though he did get some wrong. I think we've covered that reasonably well in the article. . dave souza, talk 20:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? 贾宝玉 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC) (kidding)

Well, we mention his greatest blunder and his unsuccessful hypothesis, both briefly noted in this very concise overview. Who can be sure? . . dave souza, talk 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

have did he died wasx he sick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.4.102 (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Full gory details here and in the next section, diagnosed as Angina pectoris. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Influenced?

Why isn't Richard Dawkins listed under the influenced section? He's only the biggest name in all of modern evolutionary biology. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

One suspects that even RD wouldn't say that, but I make no claim to expertise in evaluating biologists. More to the point, Template:Infobox scientist#Usage guidelines – "influenced List names of any notable people who were significantly influenced by the scientist. The intention is to only list those that were influenced by physical contact with the scientist. Only list those who are notable enough to warrant a wiki article." RD is rather young to have had physical contact with CD.[1] . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I would probably say directly and significantly influenced such as students or colleagues. Given that much of Darwin's immediate influence was by letter writing not physical interaction, I wouldn't make physical contact a key point. One cannot include RD because then one would have to include every single modern evolutionary biologist with a wikipedia page. --Erp (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

perhaps another important influenced evolutionist could be Florentino Ameghino [[2]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francois serra (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

He might, but there's no evidence there that he met or corresponded much with Darwin, and the influence is less notable than, for example, on Romanes. Thanks for the info, dave souza, talk 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 

David Hume

Hume's philosophical ideas were exceptional for pre-evolution thought. He was easily one of Darwin's greatest influences. On the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page for Hume it states: "Charles Darwin counted Hume as a central influence, as did “Darwin's bulldog,” Thomas Henry Huxley. The diverse directions in which these writers took what they gleaned from reading Hume reflect not only the richness of their sources but also the wide range of his empiricism." I don't understand why David Hume and William Paley are not listed as influencing Darwin. This page is deprived of important information by leaving that out! It doesn't even mention Hume once. It's also one thing not to mention Rousseau on Darwin's page, but leaving Hume's name out is just blasphemy! --Caute AF (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people influence a well-read person such as Darwin, and it is quite reasonable to list only those who specifically influenced Darwin's scientific achievements. However, the main point is that the documentation for {{Infobox scientist}} includes: Do not insert those influences that were not in person (e.g. via study of works or books) as this is more tenuous and there are generally too many for each scientist. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is crap. I'm telling you, it leads to the loss of available knowledge to people who look at the pages of scientists rather than philosophers, since the pages of philosophers on wikipedia list a reasonable amount of influence, which many people find helpful. --Caute AF (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] ::I also don't think Hume should be in; the case with Huxley is different: he wrote a book on Hume, and was interested in philosophy. Personally, I would not have listed Herschel, but would have considered Malthus, Paley, Lamark and Erasmus D. (all from their published works). I am pretty sure Malthus should be in the list. The evidence is good that CD and Wallace both read and remembered the Essay on the Principle of Population. Hmm... I seem to be suggesting only people he didn't meet face to face. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Googling shows that many people say Hume significantly influenced Darwin, but I wonder how justified those statements are. Here are three interesting sites: Stanford (mentioned above), Rough Guide, History of Ideas. The Stanford page includes "Charles Darwin counted Hume as a central influence" but it does not seem to justify that statement (although I have only very quickly skimmed it). Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Having had a look at the Rough Guide info, it seems fair to say that Hume strongly influenced Paley, who in turn had a significant influence on Darwin, and Darwin read Hume when considering responses to Paley. Both were unavailable for any direct discussion with Darwin. . . dave souza, talk 10:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Humboldt and Herschel

In Darwin's own words, "During my last year at Cambridge I read with care and profound interest Humboldt's Personal Narrative. This work and Sir J. Herschel's Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy stirred up in me a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science. No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much as these two."
As the article notes, Darwin met Herschel at the Cape of Good Hope, Freeman says "CD also dined with him in London."
Darwin had contact with Humboldt through correspondence; in 1839 a letter of praise stirred in Darwin the reply with thanks "That the author of those passages in the Personal Narrative, which I have read over and over again, & have copied out, that they might ever be present in my mind, should have so honoured me, is a gratification of a kind, which can but seldom happen to anyone." . . dave souza, talk 10:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Adding to that, Freeman notes Humboldt as: "German naturalist and traveller. CD once met, when CD was resident in London, at Murchison's house." . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Darwin and Homeopathy "

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/nep168 "Darwin grew to appreciate water cure, but remained skeptical of homeopathy, even though his own experiments on insectivore plants using what can be described as homeopathic doses of ammonia salts surprised and shocked him with their significant biological effect. Darwin even expressed concern that he should publish these results. Two of Darwin's sons were as incredulous as he was, but their observations confirmed the results of his experiments. Darwin was also known to have read a book on evolution written by a homeopathic physician that Darwin described as similar to his own but ‘goes much deeper.’

Is that useful?--BeatriceX (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one reference in a rather obscure small journal that mostly deals in pseudoscience, which homeopathy is. I'm not sure that this material is appropriate for his page, unless more references can be established that establish that this was a rather large part of his life or beliefs or he published papers on it or something beyond what mostly looks like speculation to try to bolster a pseudoscience then I don't think we need to even address it. — raekyt 06:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Is this an obscure small journal ? http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/nep168. 2. Isn't interesting for the readers to see what Darwin was thinking of all the above? Homeopathy hydrotherapy and why he found amazing the results of the experiment with drosera? He had his sons replicate his study for many years. Is not that notable - even without connection to homeopathy? --BeatriceX (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

120K+ bytes means any additions must be well justified. The abstract does not list sources, so anything in our page would need page references to reliable sources, especially "goes much deeper". This abstract is not by itself reliable enough. He was certainly treated by Gully. Probably best to consider it for Charles Darwin's health. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/7/1/33 this is the entire article with references. Darwin experiments about drosera should have a place since he had his sons replicate them and he was so astonished by the results. --BeatriceX (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot find a letter to Gray of August 20, 1862 in the Darwin Correspondence Project. His letter of 21 August does not contain the passage quoted. Probably there is a simple explanation of this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The quotation does not come from a letter to Gray, but is sourced from the introduction to the letters of 1862 in Francis Darwin's The life and letters of Charles Darwin (see p. 383). The introduction starts by referring to a letter to Gray dated August 21st (which is possibly where the confusion arises), but it is clear from the source that the comment about the German homeopath is part of Francis's commentary about "an example of the odd letters he received" - i.e. it is a note about the contents of a letter Darwin had received. This becomes even more obvious in the original source of the comment, a postscript to a letter to Joseph Hooker dated 16 January 1862: "P.S. The letter with curious address forwarded by Mrs Hooker was from a German Homœopathic Doctor—an ardent admirer of the Origin—had himself published nearly the same sort of book, but goes much deeper—explains the origin of plants & animals on the principles of Homœopathy or by the Law of Spirality— Book fell dead in Germany— Therefore would I translate it & publish it in England &c &c?!" This is clearly an account of a letter received, and of an unreasonable request by the homeopath, rather than of a book Darwin had read. There is no indication here that Darwin had read the book in question, or that he viewed the communication from this unnamed "German Homœopathic Doctor" as anything more than an "odd letter". Brunton (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Darwin's experiments with Drosera had anything to do with homoeopathy. Homoeopathy itself, or the principle of "like cures like", is not mentioned; the solutions used were not prepared by serial dilution with succussion, which appears to be essential in the preparation of dilute homoeopathic remedies; the experiments established that the effect became smaller and more difficult to observe as concentration decreased, arriving at a point at which no effect was observed, thus contradicting the so-called "law of infinitesimals". See Insectivorous Plants pp. 136-173. Brunton (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The most important argument against high dilutions is that they have no biological effect on living organisms. Ullman says that Darwin dilutions are equivalent to 6x homeopathic dilutions which seems to be accurate. 6x dilutions are prescribed frequently in homeopathy. It shows that 6x dilutions (not shaken though ) might have an effect to a living organism something that impressed Darwin and had his sons replicate the experiment. All these do not prove homeopathy of course but they might say something about high dilutions which is part of the whole homeopathy debate. So I find it interesting for readers who want to know about Darwin's adventures and fascinations in science. Isn't it?--BeatriceX (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This really doesn't warrant specific inclusion in this article, because it is not that important a finding. 6X is not a particularly high dilution in homoeopathic terms, and it is uncontroversial that some substances can have effects in dilutions of around 1 part per million. But I fear that we're going off-topic as far as an article about Darwin is concerned. Brunton (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, take it to a homeopathy related article if you must. It doesn't belong here. Medical science was in a very different state in Darwin's time, and to isolate one particular piece of casual research out of many he no doubt performed is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought that accurate information on experiments which fascinated Darwin and his sons for so many years on a such controversial topic like high dilutions have a place in a encyclopedia article. I don't know why it is not appropriate to inform readers about these facts. --BeatriceX (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with why we have an article on Darwin. His possible interest in homeopathy is not what he is notable for. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you read his actual experiments? It's linked further up in this topic. What evidence do you have besides this one article in the insignificant journal to backup the assertion that this "fascinated Darwin and his sons for so many years"? — raekyt 05:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Darwin experiment on High Dilutions

I posted it above:

The reader will best realize this degree of dilution by remembering that 5,000 ounces would more than fill a thirty-one gallon cask [barrel]; and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added; only half a drachm, or thirty minims, of the solution being poured over a leaf. Yet this amount sufficed to cause the inflection of almost every tentacle, and often the blade of the leaf. ... My results were for a long time incredible, even to myself, and I anxiously sought for every source of error. ... The observations were repeated during several years. Two of my sons, who were as incredulous as myself, compared several lots of leaves simultaneously immersed in the weaker solutions and in water, and declared that there could be no doubt about the difference in their appearance. ... In fact every time that we perceive an odor, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves (p. 170) Darwin C. Insectivorous Plants ( 1875;) 173:. New York: D. Appleton & Co. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/insectivorous/insect_fm.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatriceX (talk • contribs) 05:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't mention homeopathy, Reminds me of an experiment often done by early years high school science students, using potassium permanganate solution. Nothing remarkable there at all. And it's mainstream science, not homeopathy. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I m not talking about Homeopathy at this point. (Ullman made this connection -it seems valid in terms of numbers )I m talking about the experiment itself. You don't have to mention homeopathy to report it. --BeatriceX (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC):::

Did Darwin mention homeopathy? If not, just forget it. Any connection is tenuous. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Try to read what I wrote above . "I m not talking about Homeopathy at this point. (Ullman made this connection -it seems valid in terms of numbers )I m talking about the experiment itself. You don't have to mention homeopathy to report it".--BeatriceX (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Googling for "reader will best realize this degree of dilution" shows that there is a campaign to misuse Darwin to lend credibility to the concept of homeopathy (I suppose that's fair, since Darwin has been misused for lots of other things). If anyone can be bothered reading it (I didn't), here is what the Quackometer says about the issue.

Re the question asked here ("Is that useful?"): No. Darwin spent nearly his entire life investigating lots of issues, and apparently one of them involved the effect of a very dilute solution of a substance. That is not homeopathy. Per WP:DUE, there is no need to add the opinion of one person re what Darwin was doing (many reputable sources have written about Darwin; use what they have said, if anything). Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep responding to something I don't suggest. I said ( 3rd time I have to write it ) "I m not talking about Homeopathy at this point. (Ullman made this connection -it seems valid in terms of numbers )I m talking about the experiment itself. You don't have to mention homeopathy to report it" Darwin's fascination about these dilutions for several years does not have a place in an encyclopedia article on his work? That seems strange to me. Can you give me some reasons ?--BeatriceX (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

But you WERE talking about homeopathy, until that was demonstrated to be a silly thing to even attempt to link Darwin with, and now you have stuck in a new section heading AFTER THE FACT, as if you never were. You are playing a tricky game here. Please take your little obsession elsewhere. Apart from yourself there's a pretty strong consensus here that your proposed content doesn't fit. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

So, here's the big and important question, who, besides you, says that Ullman's article about Darwin's fascination with dilutions is significant to Darwin?

Please give me a citation to an article in a significant journal, better yet, a couple of journals and a book, that shows that Ullman connecting Darwin to dilutions/homeopathy, whichever you want, is significant to Darwin and should be mentioned in an article or biography about Darwin. I don't have to mention Ullman to report Darwin. And, this is an encyclopedia, so I can't really mention Ullman's article and decide its significance, someone else, in the literature, has to do that. As Johnuniq points out, Darwin did a lot of things. You want an article about everything he did? Write an Encyclopedia of Darwin. You want an article about Darwin and homeopathy? This seems to be the case. Write a blog about it. "Many reputable sources have written about Darwin." How many of these have written about his homeopathy? Please give some citations. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly try to be kind and don't be so emotional. You don't seem to be reading what I wrote. You know in dialogues, this is important.

There's nothing to be emotional about, but, your attempting to move away from the questions asked does not change the questions. Is there anyone besides you and Ullman, as promoters of homeopathy, who consider this to be relevant to Darwin? If not, please do not continue posting this on article talk pages. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I started a new thread because even if I wrote 3 times the same thing which you did not bother to read: - even if I find Ullman's article which is published in a reliable source- interesting, my suggestion was to include this piece of information about his experiments with high dilutions without mentioning homeopathy. The main reason is his fascination. about these experiments which lasted several years. I asked from people to justify their objections and you are telling me to leave the article and go to write a blog? Is this an appropriate response? Secondly "big and important question, who, besides you, says that Ullman's article about Darwin's fascination with dilutions is significant to Darwin?" Even if the question is kind of silly the answer is : Darwin himself -read above. Please.--BeatriceX (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's your first post, titled, by you, "Darwin and Homeopathy."

Revision as of 22:05, 24 December 2010 (edit) (undo)

BeatriceX (talk | contribs)

(→Humboldt and Herschel: Darwin and Homeopathy)

So, your intentions are clear: to tie Darwin to homeopathy.

We don't have to justify any objections. You have to find a reliable source that says Ullman's article is authoritative, reliable, and significant to Darwin. Otherwise, your fascination and a single article are your original research. Your original research can be published in journals or books that publish original research, or in your blog, or in many other places. But, it doesn't belong on wikipedia.

Wikipedia:No original research Please read. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You're also a single-purpose account that seems to not be acting like a genuine new user of wikipedia, new users rarely bring stuff up like this on talk pages. Possibly a sock puppet? You've been given what is required to meet WP:DUE and there is significant consensus against adding this to the article without overwhelming reliable sources. So either produce those sources or stop wasting our time. — raekyt 08:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

How many times I have to say that I don't suggest any link to homeopathy to Darwin based on his experiments on high dilutions?. Give me a number and I will repeat the my sentence. I mentioned it in the beginning because Ullmans' s article (published in a reliable source and I gave darwin's book). above. Darwin;s own book is not a reliable source ?You changed the name of the thread I started to make clear that I don't link any homeopathy terms with this suggestion. You have crossed the line here. Please do not put words in my mouth. Any other person here with to help? I just want to make clear why such a fascinating topic for him cannot be considered for inclusion. It is written in his own book which I gave before. --BeatriceX (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You started by clearly promoting homeopathy, and we all see it. Still.

We're not publishing Darwin's book. We're not promoting homeopathy. We're not promoting Ullman. This is just an encyclopedia. As I advised you on your talk page, and consider this another warning, you are not the first person to think they could come to wikipedia and promote a fringe theory in a mainstream article. Darwin is the target of creationists, flat-earthers, homeopaths, pseudoscientists by the baker's dozen. It's a well guarded page. You are disrupting it and wikipedia with your continued promotion of this Ullman article.

The article you want to include is a commentary. It's speculation. That's all. Speculation can go in blogs. It can go in journal commentaries. But it's not a source of facts. Until someone besides you becomes interested in Ullmans' theory and writes about its significance to Darwin, your disruption of wikipedia will not move the theory to article space.

Hypotheses, Conjectures, Comments: Evidence-based CAM will publish in the section Hypotheses-Conjectures-Comments papers proposing hypotheses that are interesting but still lack certain evidence. The paper can be purely speculative, but authors are requested to thoroughly discuss existing data related to the hypothesis and also to propose a methodology (experimental, epidemiological or statistical) as to how the hypothesis can be tested.[3]

Again, see WP:NOR. We don't allow original research, and Ullman's speculation only becomes worthy of reporting in his article when another researcher says it is and publishes that research. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)