Talk:Alfred Russel Wallace/Archive 2

Suggestion to change biased wording
I noticed in the "Legacy and historical perception" section of this article that a sentence within it is not neutral. It states, "He was undoubtedly one of the greatest natural history explorers of the 19th century." I think the sentence could be reconstructed in a way that gets the point across that his achievements were in fact significant, yet only presents facts. Something along the lines of "Wallace had many significant achievements and made many discoveries, making him a prominent natural history explorer during his time," which still ties into the following sentence? --Jldgx6 (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Excessive lead
This article contains 6 paragraphs in the lead section. According to WP:LEAD, an article should have no more than 4 well-written paragraphs (especially because this is a featured article). Could someone knowledgable about Wallace combine/remove some paragraphs? Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 sweep
This older FA has a good bit of uncited text, including a couple entire short paragraphs in various sections. Per the current FA critiera, the vast majority of the uncited material will need cited in order to meet the current criteria. If this is not done, a featured article review may be necessary. Hog Farm Talk 16:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Monmouth, Wales
I've been wrongly reverted for saying that Monmouth was in Wales in 1823! gave his reasons as being "At the time, this was unclear, so hidden note should remain." For a period of time England argued that as far as the Law of England is concerned, that the administration of Wales was run from England; from the religious, education and the people of Monmouth, Monmouth has always been in Wales. During Wallace's lifetime, in 1862, George Borrow, wrote: "Monmouthshire is at present considered an English county, though certainly with little reason, for it not only stands on the western side of the Wye, but the names of almost all its parishes are Welsh, and many thousands of its population still speak the Welsh language." The arguments weigh in favour of Monmouthshire having been in Wales at that period. Unclear? No! The main historian in Wales confirmed this, as can be seen on the article on Monmouthshire (historic): "Monmouthshire was no less Welsh in language and sentiment than any other eastern county".

Monmouthshire was an undisputed part of Wales until the late 19th century, when some of the local gentry such as the Dukes of Beaufort moved in from England into Monmouthshire. As the article says: ''Some of these, and others with "social aspirations", considered it essential to emphasise their "Englishness", and there were attempts to refine the notion that.. the county was non-Welsh. The distinction implied in the description "Wales and Monmouthshire" was nurtured by elements of the establishment, and became increasingly accepted on the English side of the border and in central government.'' gives more weight to this small English rabble than to the people of Wales and England. Wallace was born before this divisive, colonial, English claim.

From an overarching aspect (religion, education, the people of Monmouth), Monmouth was in Wales in 1823. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem with your argument is that the administration of Wales (or anywhere, for that matter) is very important when it comes to determining nationality. We usually use legal or administrative nationality, unless, in the UK, in cases where the individual is clearly identified with one or other of the four countries.  We don't usually base it solely on birthplace - for example, we describe Saunders Lewis and David Lloyd George as Welsh even though they were born in England, and we describe John Prescott as British even though he was born in Wales.  Did Wallace clearly self-identify as Welsh?  If he did, it would be good to see the evidence.  If it can be shown, from reliable sources, that Wallace was culturally Welsh, fine, but without that knowledge his legal nationality was British.   You use the Dictionary of Welsh Biography as a source for claiming that he was Welsh, but that point is invalid - the introduction to that site states that it covers "individuals who have made a significant contribution to national life, whether in Wales or more widely" - it does not necessarily claim them as "Welsh".   Your references to an "English rabble" ("elements of the establishment" - that is, the entire legal system) and a "divisive, colonial, English claim" indicate that you may find it challenging to take a neutral point of view on this.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: This was all discussed previously, in 2008 and 2009 (when I argued that he should not be described as English!!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * PPS: And, I've just noticed this section of text: "One result of Wallace's early travels is a modern controversy about his nationality. Since Wallace was born in Monmouthshire, some sources have considered him to be Welsh. However, some historians have questioned this because neither of his parents was Welsh, his family only briefly lived in Monmouthshire, the Welsh people Wallace knew in his childhood considered him to be English, and because Wallace himself consistently referred to himself as English rather than Welsh (even when writing about his time in Wales). One Wallace scholar has stated that the most reasonable interpretation is therefore that he was an Englishman born in Wales. [my emphasis]"
 * As the lead summarises the main text, your claim that he was "Welsh" would be inconsistent with this apparently well-sourced text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Legacy
The Legacy section should acknowledge that, despite his contributions, popular perception only remembers Darwin as the author of the theory of evolution and Wallace has been largely forgotten. I have a book that considers that this may be both for Wallace's more controversial ideas in other fields, and because of the success of Darwin's book about the origin of the species. Cambalachero (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Legacy section explicitly notes "he was treated as a relatively obscure figure in the history of science", although the sourcing could certainly be improved in some areas. CMD (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

FA concerns
In 2021, Hog Farm outlined concerns about this article's adherence to the FA criteria because of unsourced statements. After quickly reviewing this article, I think these concerns remain. I am also concerned about the extensive "Further reading" section (which does not give confidence that the article is comprehensively researched), an "Other contributions" section which is only the text of a poem and no analysis, and a criticism section which, on Wikipedia, is not recommended due to POV concerns. Is anyone willing to fix up this article? Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sorry I didn't see this thread. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced sentences, errors
As of 14:19, 20 September 2022, the first paragraph of Alfred Russel Wallace described the Amazon exploration and return, the second went on:

The second and third sentences clearly relate to the Amazon, thongh they link to Río Negro (Argentina) and Jativa in Spain, so I've deleted them. It may be possible to move the description to the Amazon paragraph, but I don't have access to that source. . . dave souza, talk 09:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)