Talk:Charles Darwin

Event

An event mentioned in this article is a June 19 selected anniversary

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Social Darwinism

I removed this text from the main article:

The theory of evolution was also applied to the human world (economics, politics, etc.). The most famous of these doctrines is Social Darwinism.

on the grounds that social Darwinism is considered to be unrelated (and possibly contradictory to) the ideas of Charles Darwin. See Mayr in his The Growth of Biological Thought, for example: so-called social Darwinism...During the 1880s and 90s when social Darwinism was confused with real Darwinism

110 years later we would hope Wikipedia is still not confusing the two. Darwinism and social Darwinism might be mentioned in a section (or article) on how Darwin's ideas have been perverted, alongside, say, Darwin and racism.

user:TimShell - 10 Aug 2004

I'm only in partial agreement here. social Darwinism simply refers to the of the Darwinian algorithm to social situations, be they used to explain economics, politics, sociology, memes, (perfectly legitimate) or racism and eugenics (pseudoscience). The whole sections relating to this are a bit of a mess, unfortunately, and could do with sorting out. Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:21, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it should stay in, if only for the disambiguation. -- Netoholic 21:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I originally wrote it, and support its inclusion. That makes it two against one (with one undecided?) so I'm re-inserting it. But I see TimShell's point of view, so I'll explain that the relations are dubious. Brutannica 21:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote and qualified. SD has been totally discredited by all academics, save for a few white supremacists (e.g. Jared Taylor) and their various asian and african counterparts. Also, I'm now reading Darwin's journal of the voyage of the Beagle. While it is clear that he considers himself superior to most of the men and women he meets on his travel, he doesn't seem to consider himself as morally superior, that is he gives less civilized men the same right to live as they choose and he explicitly condemns slavery. Indeed, relating the story of an enslaved black woman who threw herself down a cliff rather than be recaptured by her enslaver, he notes she was called "obstinate" and comments that if she had been a Roman matron, the same behaviour would have made is call her heroic. Darwin would have repudiated SD if it had been formulated in his lifetime, and those who formulated SD usurped Darwin's name when they did so. Vincent 05:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I never said that Darwin believed in "SD". Your edits are fine, though. Brutannica 19:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think you did, but if SD is mentioned I think the point ought to be made that Darwin didn't believe in it. Never mind his theory, the man himself is easy to misunderstand, e.g. chapter 6 of the Origins of Species dealing with difficulties on the theory is often used by Creationists to support their ludicrous idea that "even Darwin wasn't comfortable with evolution"! Cheers Vincent 05:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph that stated Darwin had anything to do with SD. He didn't, and even the quote supported this idea since it implied voluntary participation (both sexes should refrain). He was a man of his times and he did see White Anglo Saxon Victorian English society as being the most advanced civilization, but that's a long way from attributing to him 1) that members of "lesser" societies should be crowded out by the fitter ones or 2) that governments should promote plans to force the unfit not to breed. Vincent 12:13, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Other

I've heard that Charles Darwin did not want to publish his ideas because he felt it would hurt his wife, whom he loved. She was not an evolutionist.

That could be part of the answer. At least, so much can be read in Darwin's original autobiography, which was first published in 1887, esp. in footnotes in the chapter about the development of his own religious convictions. Another reason (also clear from his ab) might be his frequent illnesses, and his zealous drive to publish as much as possible about other biological/zoological fields of research. He was always frustrated he could not do more.Fact is he produced an enormous amount of work!. A third reason Darwin waited 19 years was that he simply was afraid of being 'prejudiced' (word quoted literally). His theory needed more time to ripen, so to speak. Anyway, maybe this is of some help. Anyone with more knowledge about it,please go ahead.

Imho the first sentence "Contrary ..." should only appear later. One who does not know anything about Darwin reading this page should have a short introduction as first paragraph, not a negation of something assumed to "be publicly known". (Yes, I am picky ;).

Framework is now in place for a good article, but a lot more work needs to be done. I'm going to get to this on and off over the next few weeks (hopefully), but anyonelse should feel free to wade in - however make sure your "facts" come from works in the history of biology, not from popular works as these often make sweeping generalizations about Darwin. John Lynch

Assertion that "However, toward the end of his life, Darwin abandoned his own theory, since he was unable to postulate a mechanism by which characteristics could be passed from one generation to the next. " moved here. Is there any cause to believe this 'abandonment'?

Also, is it really Down House in Downe, or is it Downe House in Downe?

Someone else

Yes and No. The sixth ed of Origin becomes almost Lamarckian in that Darwin believed in an inheritance mechanism. The key component missing from Darwin's work is inheritance mechansism; see Mendelian genetics. Someone Ronald Fisher perhaps (?) later showed that such a mechanism couldn't result in evolution, as the blending would lead in a few generations to each organism of a species being identical. Not to be confused with the Lady Hope nonsense.

I have the Darwin family tree done in PowerPoint. Please post on my talk page to request changes or email me to get a copy of the PowerPoint.Cutler 21:16, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The text mentions Josiah Wedgwood but he doesn't appear on the family tree. All Darwin's children should appear. Who are the Galtons and why are they in bold in the family tree?
Yes it is Down House. The spelling of the village was changed to Downe but the house kept the old spelling. Adam 04:31, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am not happy with the computer diagram "thing" User:Duncharris; I think it is unhelpful and innacurate.

I would have to agree with Duncharris. The diagram is confusing and difficult to follow. User:ChicXulub 18:41, 27 Mar 2004

The Views on religion section has poor punctuation in the quotes – dashes after commas, poor spacing, etc. Would someone with the original text/book at hand clean this up? Also, the use of – or — would look nicer... Thanks, Lee J Haywood 08:06, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, agree with Lee. I linked numerous topics contained in that section to their relevant articles, but it needs more attention.

Also the religions mentioned are all spelt incorrectly (Hindoos, Mahomadans, Buddists). Were these spellings in the original text? Were they Darwin's mistakes, or common spellings at the time?

SimonEast 07:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, Hindoo is not a mistake, it's just an alternate spelling that was more common in the 19th century and is almost never used now. Orthography is not such an exact thing; one might expect to see Mahometan substituted for Mohammedan as well (there are about 10 different spellings in the OED for this one), and a number of diferent spellings for Buddhist, so a check against the originial would seem to be in order. --Nunh-huh 08:06, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Beagle vogage was not originally intended to be 5 years long. The way the article is written now, that impression might be given.

Darwin -- Wedgwood family

I have about twenty articles that need expanding on this family; I've done most of the geneaology, I just need biographies now. Please see talk:Darwin -- Wedgwood family/to_do for a list of tasks. These are below:

Talk:Darwin -- Wedgwood family/to do

Cheers, Dunc_Harris|☺ 14:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Right. I've uploaded new images. This means that is no longer needed. Also this silly thing has been taken out:

[[Image::evolution_drawing.png]]

Duncharris 21:04, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

changed "account" to "accounts" (Quite apart from the wealth of detailed biological accounts they give, Darwin's published account also provide us with social, political, and anthropological insights into the areas he visited.) in the name of grammar. had nothing better to do

-random tagger

Strange thing to post in a Discussion page... Brutannica 02:07, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aargh

What's happened to the infobox? The new version is disgusting! I'm going to hunt out its nest and use my flamethrower on nuke setting. [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 18:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You certainly have strong opinions.... Brutannica 04:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That idiotic title always appearing on my watchlist was getting to me. No need to shout, you know. Vincent 00:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vote: Infobox vs. Plain image and text

The "vote" tracking is at the bottom of this section.

I don't particularly like the infobox and prefer the plain picture. The data should certainly be there, but written in the first line of the article e.g.

Charles Robert Darwin, F.R.S. (born 12 February 1809 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England; died 19 April 1882 in Downe, Kent, England) ...

May I suggest we vote on it before reverting or deciding to leave as is?

The tally would now be:

No box: 3 (Vincent, Noisy, Moriori, Steinsky) and

Box it: 1 (Ed g2s)

Does this seem fair? Vincent 00:43, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I imagine that Netoholic, who came up with and added the infobox in the first place, would support its continued use. Certainly, I would.

Your suggestion would be contrary to practice, which is to have the opening as simple as possible: "Charles Robert Darwin, FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) [...]" and keep the extra information in the article - which, indeed, is exactly how it is in the article (barring the use of full stops, that is).

James F. (talk) 00:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Noted James. I presume you vote to keep the infobox, but it's not because infoboxes exist that they ought to be used all the time. Anyway No box-4 Pro box-3 Vincent 01:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd prefer no infobox myself--it's distracting and there's really no need. Janet Browne's Darwin biography doesn't have any infoboxes--she keeps our attention simply by being a fantastic writer. Why not aspire to her level? Opus33 01:02, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that its necessity should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but here I would hardly call it a distraction. It occupies the space vacated by the table of contents and functions merely as formatted image caption. ed g2s • talk 01:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I should try to articulate my objection more clearly. The infobox makes very prominent (by using the graphic technology of advertising) some data about Darwin that just isn't very important, like his birthday, his death day, and the fact that Shrewsbury is in Shropshire. What's important is what he did, and that you can only get by reading some text.

In fact, I think this article has some very good text, none of which, incidentally, was written by me. Let's not distract the reader's attention from it. Cheers, Opus33 03:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I cast my vote for the infobox. It'll probably lose, and I don't really care much, but it does give some helpful information at a glance. Even if it has useless information, it can be expanded with other interesting facts -- although I suppose that could also be distracting. Brutannica 04:20, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I fail see to how anyone wanting to find out about Charles Darwin will be distracted by an infobox - it doesn't interfere with the text or make it any less readable. Even if it does draw the reader's attention upon arrial at the page - most people have an attention span above half a second. ed g2s • talk 17:13, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Don't add votes. If the user doesn't sign themselves, it doesn't count, and is improper to add them. -- Netoholic @ 00:18, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

Don't preach. It's tracking opinions which Noisy and Moriori very clearly expressed on this talk page. This is casual not official. Neither of us is the fount of democracy, eh? BTW You asked me to remove your own probox vote, I did but you waited until I changed the page to put your vote back in, hardly sporting. At the point when I changed the count was 3 probox to 3 agaisnt plus 2 strong probably against Note also that I waited 2 days before moving the box off. Let's wait another two days before putting infobox back if the vote warrants it. Fair? Vincent 02:53, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like infoboxes. For example, a large amount of information for the element Oxygen is provided neatly and compactly. I don't really like the id=toc scheme, and I can't avoid it through choice of skin, so it looks as though I will have to embrace it, as James says. It will probably spread through other usages.

But really, what do infoboxes bring to the party for biographical articles? What more is there to say than time and place of birth and death? And, in general, these are already provided in the first paragraph or two. The current version of the template infobox provides that ... but is never going to be expanded with any factual (i.e. not open to disputation, as quotes are) information that is common to every biography where such an infobox may be used. OK, they fill up the space beside the toc, but a picture does that just as well. For biographies, they just seem redundant. (Copy on infobox talk page.) [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 10:27, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Be imaginative. I've always thought of an infobox as a dump for trivia, so any useless or interesting-but-insignificant info on Darwin, like the birthday coincidence, his health, his favourite colour and food, etc. could wind up there. Or it could list his place of work, his great achievement + date, minor achievements, etc. Basically, the article is for more drawn-out, better explained, and more informative material, while infoboxes have simpler fare. Brutannica

Glad to see the revert war stopped for the moment as we return to voting. Can we agree on a day when the votes get officially counted and we all abide by the result? I suggest midnight Greenwich time on September 23, which is about a week from today. Also, that only Wikisigned ballots should count. Does this sound acceptable? Opus33 14:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Brutannica

To be honest, I doubt that this vote will matter in the long run, since this is just one article. If there is any controvery or dispute as to whether an infobox belongs on Biography pages, I would submit that there should be a more formal discussion and later vote over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. -- Netoholic @ 15:48, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

I agree.. Brutannica 00:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK for above procedure. I think this vote will matter, as an early test of infoboxes used outside their already established usage (Presidents, elements, etc.) where they add value because they standardize presentation and ease understanding the bigger picture (all the presidents, the entire periodic table). I think in a bio article an infobox isn't so useful because 1) choosing on a restricted list of a topics is POV (e.g. quotes) and 2) adding topics eventually makes the biobox hard to manage. (comments copied on infobox talk) Vincent 01:13, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Running tally: sign (three tildes ~) and update the count as appropriate (please keep at bottom of section)

No box: 6 (Vincent, [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]], Moriori 03:42, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC), Opus33, Steinsky, Gzornenplatz)

Keep box: 4 (ed g2s, James F., Brutannica, Netoholic @)

Where the 1854 picture go?

File:Charles Darwin 1854.jpg ? Dunc_Harris|☺ 18:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Darwin's Worms

Adraeus 09:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here's a fascinating article regarding Darwin's Worms by Amy Stewart, Wilson Quarterly.

Abraham Lincoln info in the Charles Darwin article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

A summary of my argument follows.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vincent 09:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

Let me address your points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coincidences in the life of our hero :)

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

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

...

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

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

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

RfC

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

Old:

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

New:

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

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

1. It's irrelevant.

2. It's IRRELEVANT!

3. IT'S IRRELEVANT, DAMMIT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aaarrrggh 12:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Aaarrrggh 10:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote

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

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

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

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

Include the fact in parenthesis in the section on Darwin's childhood

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

-Willmcw 23:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
chocolateboy 11:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Do not include the fact at all

Joe D (t) 22:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Fredrik | talk 22:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
William M. Connolley 22:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Adamsan. 22:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Adraeus 23:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) (This article is about Charles Darwin and not Abraham Lincoln. This fact adds nothing to the article except childish inferences which amount to POV. By the way, I do agree with some of Vincent's points but I think the inferential comparison of Darwin with Lincoln doesn't need to be there in order to produce a factual time marker.)
[[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 09:16, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 10:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Aaarrrggh 10:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) It's an absurd and completely irrelevant fact.
BM 22:43, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Neigel von Teighen 23:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dunc|☺ 23:55, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) ( and a happy chrstmas to Sam Spade)
Robert Pendray 23:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)It's not encyclopaedic nor relevant, so shouldn't be included
[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 00:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 01:53, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
Zero 04:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a majoritocracy!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 22:27, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just to let good Wikipedians know: Sam Spade is a self-identified "anti-atheist" "Christian fundamentalist" known for POV pushing. See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements/Sam_Spade for a list of users opposing him. By the way, since Wikipedia articles under heavy fire require consensus, Wikipedia is a majoritocracy. Sam Spade and his cronies would like nothing more than for Wikipedia to promote POV pushing and deletionism. Adraeus 23:13, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Read Consensus, and Fundamentalist. Misquoting me doesn't help either. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 23:30, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Spade says, "I am militantly anti-atheist. ... I am a fundamentalist theist, with a close, personal relationship to God."

Here's some more Sam Spade quotes:
"For me, 'without theism' translates directly to 'apart from God'. Being apart from God is a decision, it cannot be done accidentally. God is always here; we must choose not to accept him. have you ever wondered why every culture on earth has God and/or gods? The concept is omnipresent, a Jungian symbol, inherent and instinctual to the human animal."

"I also happen to know God is conscious, since I have a personal relationship w him (this is an extra bonus not everybody has, or so I hear). Since God is all, and imminent within all things, all things are alive and conscious to me. Its called Pantheism, Monism, Panentheism, Sanatana Dharma, lots of things, but it is in no way illogical or disprovable. Science is simply one way of reading Gods law."

"As far as 'what’s the point of having a God', that’s a nonsensical question to a believer in an immanent God. We might as soon ask 'why exist?'. God is more than efficient; he is the only basis for reality. His absence leads to a removal of existence. In other words, without him there is nothing."

Adraeus 23:54, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey look, I got my own P.R. volunteer (*yawn*)... Its too late tho Adraeus, the elections over. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 00:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community project. Let's not let the perfect stand in the way of the good. The fact is that this silly factoid of the Darwin/Lincoln coincidental births has achieved its own life, well beyond Wikipedia, by its frequent repetition. If the mention of it goes into a trivia section now we can all go back to making useful edits. Someday, future editors may decide that a trivia section is too trivial and it may quietly disappear. This passes the Google test. Let's move on. -Willmcw 23:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation

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

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

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

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