Talk:On the Origin of Species/Archive 6

Infobox ref
Don't know if the infobox requires a ref, I've changed it to the standard inline cite to Darwin 1859 p. iii rather than Facsimile of the 1st edition (1859) which seems to be a more informal version. If we keep an inline citation here, Freeman 1977 might be more informative as we already have a picture of the title page. . . dave souza, talk 17:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right, that site is far more informative. Whenever possible cite a reliable source; I actually meant to put it up for the publication date of the first edition. Magafuzula (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, Freeman gives the definitive statement on that – with that in mind, I've added a cite to the publication date, and as a second thought have moved the title page cite to the title page image caption. Not terribly sure about these edits, other views welcome. . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But the image for the infobox should be the book cover. Don't know why, since indeed the title page is more informative, or a frontispiece (if present) is more attractive.Magafuzula (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that must be a standard for more modern books where book covers show the title, author etc.. Many articles on old books show the title page, as this article does. Don't think we have an image of the cover, but if we did it would look like this which is completely uninformative. . . dave souza, talk 14:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiberius Cornelis Winkler
The article on Tiberius Cornelis Winkler mentions that he translated the Origin of Species into Dutch in 1860 - four years earlier than the first Dutch edition mentioned here. Not being an expert on Darwin and his contemporaries, I'll leave it to others to assess the significance of this claim - but as it is verified by the sources I've added to the article on Winkler, I'll also add it here. Bahudhara (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks righteous, thanks. . dave souza, talk 11:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Variation and heredity
As the second paragraph in this section seemed to be more to do with the responses to the book than the section of the book itself, I've changed it using Costa and an article by Dawkins as sources. The paragraph was referenced to Bowler (1989), which I don't have available, but a similar point is made in Bowler (2003) which I've cited for the point that blending inheritance would not be an issue in a population showing a range of small variations, such as differences in height, which would still be subject to natural selection. It also makes the point that Jenkins was thinking in terms of saltation rather than small variations, but the existing discussion of Jenkins seemed adequate without this level of detail. . dave souza, talk 17:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Influence on Japan
(free article, alternative link) provides a fascinating study of the introduction of Darwin's ideas to Japan in 1877, and the conplex interaction of these concepts with Japanese traditions and modernisation. Since the first translation came 15 years later, it doesn't fit directly into this article, but worth a look. . . dave souza, talk 12:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Scientific literature?
Is labeling the book as "scientific literature" accurate? Darwin was not a scientist to begin with. Maiorem (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're evidently misinformed about Darwin. . . dave souza, talk 07:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I urge you then to take a look at Darwin's credentials. He is a naturalist, not a scientist. What education has Darwin ever received to be a scientist? Maiorem (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks but opinions from editors are not suitable for use here. If you have a reliable source saying Darwin was not a scientist (LOL!), please present it. Otherwise, the issue should not be discussed further; see WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG. Johnuniq (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you invoke the education argument for Darwin, then you must invoke it for everyone else. What higher education did Michael Faraday receive? None. And yet he became one of the most productive physical scientists in history. How many college credits did Milton Humason accrue? None. Even so, he became a working scientist and was instrumental in collecting red shift measurements which led to modern cosmology. Clyde Tombaugh eventually did get a university degree, but he did the Planet X survey and discovered Pluto first. Formal education can be useful; but it's what people -do- which determines what they are.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 03:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And please realise that any source has to be at least equivalent to this impeccable source which notes that "Darwin, deeply studied in the sciences of his time, yet living somewhat independently from his colleagues, was able to think in new ways. ....... Darwin, as an unquestionably respectable authority in elite science, publicly threw his weight on the side of evolution". . . dave souza, talk 16:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In which case I would direct you to Charles Darwin's education. Such claims as "Darwin, deeply studied in the sciences of his time" cannot be taken at face value. What scientific education did Darwin receive, if any? This is not an opinion, but an observation regarding the education of Charles Darwin and how people have incorrectly labeled him as a scientist despite him having never learned science. Maiorem (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, essentially your argument is that Wikipedia, an encyclopedia based on reliable sources, should not take the very large number of reliable sources that refer to Darwin as a scientist at face value because they have got it wrong. Good luck with that.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So here's the question: what in Darwin's education qualified him to be a scientist? Maiorem (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Plenty, and he continued to improve his qualifications after leaving university. Here's the question, Maiorem, have you a reliable source verifying these assertions you're making? . . dave souza, talk 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am noting the lack of any mention of his scientific education by reliable sources. All those sources can do is to assert that he is a scientist, and most reliable sources refer to him as a naturalist rather than a scientist. You mention "plenty", but can you provide even one example? Maiorem (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that all undergraduate degrees at Cambridge are Bachelor of Arts, regardless of the field of study. The fact that he graduated with a B.A. rather than a B.Sc. can't be taken as a lack of Science education.184.66.110.161 (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the original question about labeling the book as scientific literature, the answer is that the content of the book and the methodology described therein determine whether it is scientific literature, not necessarily any university credentials of the author. In Darwin's time it was possible to have scientific training and practice science without having a PhD (in fact, the PhD credential didn't even exist in England until after Darwin's death). ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, Maiorem, you seem to be unaware that natural history is part of science, and naturalists are scientists. . dave souza, talk 21:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Darwin's sacred cause
Enjoyed the article. One minor comment: in the section on Inception of Darwin's theory it might be appropriate to make some mention of Desmond and Moore's recent work. These authors propose that Darwin's profound opposition to slavery, his pro-abolitionist views and his linked belief in 'common origins' of man led to the conception that there could be a common origin of all species. Desmond and Moore plausibly suggest that this controversial aspect was one factor in Darwin's tardiness in publishing. Adh (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Desmond and Moore are excellent at discussing the social background of the times, but both in this book and in their earlier Darwin they tend to be outliers among historians, arguing a case that isn't altogether accepted. We discuss various views about Darwin's tardiness in publishing in the Time taken to publish section, van Wyhe's research rather contradicts the "fear factor" which Desmond and Moore suggest as the cause of delay. Similarly, D&M are very informative about the anti-slavery movement and the development of racism in Britain, much less widespread than in the US. However we've got to be cautious about the extent to which this formed a basis for Darwin's views on common origins of all species, and as much as possible compare their detailed arguments to other historical accounts. It's certainly a lively book, but a lot of info to assimilate or summarise. . dave souza, talk 16:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Political Influence
New addition lacking sources: "The work of Darwin has been used in the political arena to support racism and the superior race, colonialism, or the right of colonial powers to control less developed countries, etc."

This may be a common creationist claim, but it's questionable at best, and needs reliable sourcing before it goes in the article. It's also about Darwin rather than specifically about OTOoS. . . dave souza, talk 21:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It also seemed to arrive as something of an uncontrolled landing into the article. Some attention to "…flow seamlessly with the present text. Wikipedia articles should not end up being a series of disjointed comments…" would also be needed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Some comment on the influence the book had on political and/or economic debates might be appropriate but it would have to come from a reliable source that provided balance and appropriate context. Also, to appear in this article the source would have to refer to affects of Origin specifically not to Darwin's work in general. Otherwise the place for it would be in Charles Darwin not here. Actually now that I look there is a pretty good discussion of this already in that aricle. See the "Evolutionary social movements" section. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

IF this is a common claim needs to be here.
Of course that needs to be developed, but to remove it means that there is nothing to develop !!!!

It looks more the intenton of being "political coorect" and refuse to show some vievs ..... time to wondering why the article about the book lacks any reference to his political influence. If nothing is said it means that the article is severely biased

Milton (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Verification needed, and we don't give undue weight to minority or fringe views. If the views are significant to coverage of the book, then reliable sources will have covered them with specific reference to the book: please present the sources and your proposals for text. . dave souza, talk 04:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually this is already touched on in the reception section of this article. A slight expansion of what is there would probably cover it without attaching undue weight. I have a couple of sources, Bowler and Larson, that could be used for this, and I will take a stab. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I was bold and took my stab. Let the arrows fly :) Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Have tried reading a few sources, there are aspects of this that seem a bit misleading: Darwin obviously didn't comment on humans in OtOOS, so it relates to his other writings. However there was immediate response from others, notably with common descent being cited to argue against the racist ideas of Agassiz and others (supported by the emerging Confederate side as the American civil war developed) that races were separate species, having been created or originated separately. See Ethnological Society of London for subsequent developments. Desmond and Moore go into great detail in Darwin's Sacred Cause, and touch on it in Darwin. We should also be cautious that Darwin did (in other writings) see natural selection as applying to human societies, but his view was opposed to racism while at the same time resigned to the reality of colonial societies having the advantage in warfare over native inhabitants: he regarded the Maoris as superior in being better adapted to the climate and place, but noted reports of them being brutally killed by settlers. . . dave souza, talk 18:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added a sentence on Darwin's own views to the text in hopes of addressing your concerns. I think what we have now is fairly balanced given the fact that we don't have space in this article for a whole bunch of nuance on these topics, which could, and have filled many books. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll try to see if I can put together a suggestion focussed more directly on the response to the book, but do appreciate that it has to be concise. . 19:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Malthus
Malthus' work: "An Essay on the Principle of Population" was said to give "statistical proof". I changed this to "theory". The Wikipedia page on this book by Malthus says: "This theory suggested that growing population rates would contribute to a rising supply of labour that would inevitably lower wages. In essence, Malthus feared that continued population growth would lend itself to poverty." And the Wikipedia page on Thomas Robert Malthus says: "Malthus has become widely known for his theories about population and its increase or decrease in response to various factors."

On neither page does it refer to "statistical" anything, and on both pages it refers to his writings as "theory". So shouldn't "theory" be used on this Origin of Species page also? Earlysda (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The current wording is "In late September 1838, he started reading Thomas Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population with its statistical argument that human populations, if unrestrained, breed beyond their means and struggle to survive."


 * This is cited to van Wyhe, who quotes Browne describing Darwin as "'seeking information on human population statistics.' (Browne 1995, p. 385) Malthus argued that human population growth, unless somehow checked, would necessarily outstrip food production. Population growth was geometrical." and "The focus of this argument inspired Darwin."
 * A second cite goes to Larson, who on p. 68 writes "All species, including humans, reproduce at unsustainably high rates, Malthus asserted", quoting Malthus about this "law of nature". Larson calls it a "principle".
 * So far, we've got support for the issue being statistical, and for describing it as an argument. Browne pp. 386–7 goes over it in more detail, describing "Malthus's argument" and noting how "he calculated" presumed rates of population increase.
 * D&M pp. 264–5 describe the essay as a "polemic" welcomed by free traders in the 1830s, "But it was Malthus's statistics that struck Darwin with a vengeance in his primed state. Malthus calculated that, with the brakes off, mankind could double in a mere 25 years. But it did not double .... A struggle for resources slowed growth".
 * No support there for "theory". Perhaps we can rephrase this to link to geometric growth (a redirect to Exponential growth, a synonym for Malthusian growth model which is less explanatory) and put more emphasis on the struggle for resources. . . dave souza, talk 08:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quammen calls it "analysis". I agree with Earlysda that "statistical proof" was inappropriate. I realize that we need to be careful about interpreting primary sources, but when I realized a possible edit war was brewing last night I went back and read Malthus's essay. It is cleary not a "proof" in the way anyone familiar with mathematics would use the term, nor is it really an effort to propose what we would call a scientific theory. What it is (not surprising for an essay) is a polemic argument that uses some statistical concepts and evidence to support its conclusions. So "statistical argument" was what I came up with. I think that is well supported by the sources Dave found. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the Wikipedia page for "An Essay on the Principle of Population" there is a footnote for "Online chapter MALTHUS AND THE EVOLUTIONISTS: THE COMMON CONTEXT OF BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL THEORY from Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture by Professor Robert M. Young (1985, 1988, 1994). Cambridge University Press". In that chapter it says: "According to John Burrow's Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory, Spencer, like Darwin and Wallace, drew his mechanism of evolution from Malthus' population theory."  "In the 1844 Essay, he (Charles Darwin writes: It is the doctrine of Malthus applied in most cases with ten-fold force."


 * If what Charles Darwin described Malthus' work is to be used, that is fine. If we should use what the Wikipedia pages themselves on this subject say (supported by many references), that is fine.  But to come up with original wording for this is against Wikipedia policies, isn't it? Earlysda (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not following you. Dave cited several reliable secondary sources in his comments that justified "statistical argument". I made an argument from a primary source, which is admittedly less persuasive (but still more persuasive than what other Wikipedia articles happen to say), but it is always nice when you have agreement between secondary sources and a straightforward reading of a primary source. Do you have a specific reason for liking "theory" or disliking "statistical argument" other than what other Wikipedia articles say? Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My point was not addressed by this reply. Earlysda (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your point is incorrect: Wikipedia policies require us to find our own wording which accurately shows the views published by experts in high quality sources on the topic. It's not a question of "original wording", your problem seems to be that you're proposing original research unsupported by modern scholarship on the topic, and trying to give primacy to other Wikpedia articles which are of course not reliable sources. . . dave souza, talk 20:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Darwin's own word describing Malthus' work is "doctrine", and sources directly from the Wikipedia page on Malthus call his work "theory" multiple times. Yet somehow the phrase "statistical argument" which has been coined it seems on this Origin of Species Wikipedia page is not seen as original research?  In addition to dissing other Wikipedia authors (who have done a very good job giving the facts about Malthus' theory), there is a disconnect with the English language going on here. Earlysda (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have checked multiple online sources. The terminology used is all over the place. UC Berkely says "Malthus's observation that in nature plants and animals produce far more offspring than can survive". Would you prefer that? Another refers to "Malthus's Law of Population Growth" would you like that one? Yet another site talks about the "central theme" of Malthus's work. As Dave said, the issue is not the exact word choice, but whether or not the meaning of the words accurately describes the topic and is consistent with the interpretation of expert secondary sources. "statistical argument" is a perfectly good concise description of Malthus's essay, and it is not contradicted by any source I am familiar with. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusion on translating
I am (partially) translating the article to Slovak. I do not understand (complex or compound) sentence from Nature and structure of Darwin's argument: "Later chapters provide evidence that evolution has occurred, supporting the idea of branching, adaptive evolution without directly proving that selection is the mechanism." ( And I am lost in 3rd part adaptive evolution without... - Which words does this part bind to? :-) --Ruwolf (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Do later chapters provide supporting the idea of branching?
 * 2) Does evidence (that evolution has occurred) support the idea of branching?
 * 3) Does the idea of branching support evidence (that evolution has occurred)?
 * Yes, but note that "the idea of branching, adaptive evolution" is all one noun phrase. The comma separates two members of a list of adjectives. It could be replaced by 'and'. You might have thought that 'branching' was a noun.
 * Yes
 * That is not what this sentence says
 * It might clarify things to put a 'but' before 'without'. William Avery (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your explanation. --Ruwolf (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I struggle with this kind of thing in German. William Avery (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw this as I passed by and don't know if the point has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere. But I would point out that the "origin of species" in the title is precisely this question of "branching", or speciation. A key question of the time was whether new species are created. (Alternately, are we stuck with only the ones Noah brought?) The first two chapters of Origin point out that change does happen ("Darwin's Law").  Darwin's key point was that accumulation of small changes over long periods of time could lead to differentiation of a population into separate species.  Also: he wasn't proving "that evolution has occurred" (a rather broad concept), but providing an explanation (theory) of how speciation (an aspect of evolution) occurs, along with many observations in support of that theory. As the sentence you refer to isn't entirely clear on this I would suggest you need not — indeed, should not! — translate it it too precisely.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

What about the Finches?
When I was taught evolution in 1972, in a high school in Sydney, Australia, we used the standard blue Harry Messel textbook. It was so long ago I no longer remember the name of the book, only that it was the Messel Science textbook. But in any case, it showed the different finches of the Galapagos. A different species on every island; and no two species on the same island. One in particular stands out, a finch that uses a tool - a cactus spine - to pry out insects. He (Messel) certainly gave the impression that these finches were "important" in Darwin's formulation of the theory.

This is what we were taught. And of course this book was used all over NSW. I suspect that that makes it a credible reference, yes??? So I wonder, why are the finches not mentioned here? 121.218.224.177 (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It's very briefly mentioned at On the Origin of Species. There is a whole article at Darwin's finches. Johnuniq (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

John, thanx for your quick reply. IMHO the mention is nowhere near enough. As I understand it, the finches were at least as important as the mockingbirds. If only I had that only Messel book to quote. 124.187.174.113 (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest in this topic, while it's likely that you're right about Messel, scholarship on Darwin has developed considerably since 1972. For a description of the complex issues of the finches, it's worth reading Frank J. Sulloway's 1982 paper on "Darwin and His Finches: The Evolution of a Legend". As he says on p. 5, "Given the fame of this episode in Darwin’s life, there has been a surprising degree of misunderstanding and misinformation regarding these three questions. In fact, over the years Darwin’s finches have become the focus for a considerable legend in the history of science, one that ranks alongside other famous stories that celebrate the great triumphs of modem science."
 * Sulloway accurately notes on p. 12 that the first [and only] expression of doubt about species fixity in Darwin's notes during the Beagle voyage refers to the mockinbirds (and Falklands Foxes), and on pp. 20–23 Sulloway describes how in 1837 Darwin learnt from experts about the fossils he'd collected, the finches and, "More important still for Darwin’s evolutionary thinking", the mockingbirds.
 * Leading Darwin to recollect a year later "In July [1837] opened first note Book on "transmutation of Species". — Had been greatly struck from about month of previous March on character of S. American fossils — & species on Galapagos Archipelago. — These facts origin (especially latter) of all my views." In his autobiography Darwin reaffirmed this in more detail, adding "the manner in which closely allied animals replace one another in proceeding southwards over the Continent", which probably refers primarily to Rheas.
 * So, the outline coverage in this article about the book is reasonable, but we could consider adding more detail. . .  dave souza, talk 11:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Quotation marks
Hey guys, wouldn't it make paragraphs easier to read if the quotes are surrounded by quotation marks?

WHEN on board HMS Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers.

I'm not going to do it, unless someone tells me I can. Dunkleosteus77  (push to talk)  15:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Citations in Lede
There are very few references in the introductory paragraphs, to the extent that large swathes of the topic are covered without any citations. Four out of the six citations in this section are purely bibliographic details about the first edition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.69.11 (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing in Reception section
Call me pedantic, but the sentence that reads "...evolutionism was triumphant" needs some editing. I think it's just a matter of clarification - was "evolutionism" triumphant over "Darwinism" as a term; was it "triumphant" over competing issues in zoological science; or in gaining popularity against other works on evolutionary biology? As it stands, this sentence makes the increased popularity of Darwin's writing appear singularly final, as if the field has either stagnated or is entirely unopposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.69.11 (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Page protected
Guys: A slow edit war is still an edit war, and is still disruptive. I applaud the discussion going on here, but the back-and-forthing in the article needs to stop. Therefore, I have protected the article for two weeks. Note that any participants with administrator rights are expected to refrain from editing an article that's been protected due to a content dispute. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of favoured races: sources
There's a common misunderstanding that "races" is used in the modern common usage of "human races", is a perfectly good reference for this point. It's also supported by  As detailed in Difficulties for the theory that section makes a reference  to "the races of man", and there are two other instances where that phrase is used, but there are multiple instances where "race" or "races" are used in the sense of varieties, and those three isolated instances should not be given undue weight. Stan, repeated removal of a good source is edit warring, and is becoming disruptive: it you want to dispute these sources, WP:RSN is the appropriate venue. . dave souza, talk 22:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Dave, your latest source, TalkOrigins, is straight up lying mistaken (ironically, in their response to the lies of Answers In Genesis). They state: “Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races.”  This claim that Darwin never used the term race to refer to human races is so utterly false that it doesn't deserve more attention, except to say that it is contradicted by your other source, Hodgson, who whines that Darwin’s use of race is “highly regrettable” (page 17).


 * 2. The disputed claim you posted is that Darwin didn’t use “the term "races" … with the connotation of human races” which you claim is supported by Hodgson. There is only one paragraph on page 17 about OTOOS, which is reproduced, minus the obvious WP:BULLSHIT; here's Hodgson:
 * Question: Where does Hodgson say here that the term “race” doesn’t have “the connotation of human races” on page 17? Answer: He doesn’t; it’s your own synthesis.
 * Question: Where does Hodgson say here that the term “race” doesn’t have “the connotation of human races” on page 17? Answer: He doesn’t; it’s your own synthesis.


 * 3. You make the argument (here and on the CD talk page) that because the number of times that Darwin explicitly refers to human races is such a “tiny minority” and is “far outnumbered by the instances where "race" is used in the sense of "variety"”, then somehow the references to human races weren’t really such references at all. There are two problems here.  First, it simply doesn’t matter whether it is 3 times or 33 times, Darwin does explicitly discuss human races multiple times in OTOOS.  But the bigger problem for your argument: your premise that Darwin categorically excludes humans when discussing varieties doesn’t hold any water!  From OTOOS, pp.423-424 here is Darwin himself:


 * 4. Dave, your logic here is on par with Young Earth Creationists, who irrationally insist in the inerrant accuracy of the Book of Genesis, while knowing full well it is not a reliable source for geological and biological history. Even after I pointed out that you yourself couldn’t make heads or tails of Janet Browne’s convoluted mess on page 60, you still kept on singing her praises without reservation.  Hodgson either didn't check the index of OTOOS (if he had, he would have found a reference to human races: "Man, origin of races of, 199") or he knew and simply dishonestly claimed that Darwin didn't refer to human races.  Deep down, we all know Hodgson isn’t that ignorant or stupid, and simply doesn't care about the truth, but either way he clearly isn't reliable here.  Yet you ignore these contradictions, paw the ground like a bull, and threaten to edit war anyone who dares to question your sources.  Amazing!  --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Stan, you're being rather shouty and accusations of lying show your failure to comply with WP:AGF. The index of OtOOS merely points to the #Difficulties for the theory section and the suggestion about sexual selection which we've already included in the article. However, taking into account the points you raise, I've reworded the section to be clear that there are a few exceptions to the rule that CD avoided discussing humanity in the book, in accordance with his stated intention to avoid the whole topic. D&M do confirm that "races of man" was a hot topic in discussions at the time, I've linked to U.S. slavery in the 1850s as an indication of the controversial context. dave souza, talk 12:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. When I started editing Wikipedia on Christmas Eve, 6 months ago, the CD page claimed that Darwin didn't perceive any racial inferiority and TDOM page claimed that polygenism = human races are different species and monogenism = humans are all one species. I knew that attempting to correct these inaccuracies would generate a lot of noise from the race-is-just-a-myth crowd.  I wasn’t quite sure how I would stack up in the upcoming shouting matches, Dave, so I very much appreciate your compliment here on this point.
 * 2. My reluctance to assume good faith here is probably less insulting than what you’re suggesting. Contrary to your claim about the index of OTOOS, the entry on Man does more than just point to the sexual selection passage, it is an explicit reference to human races itself.  So, you’re suggesting that Hodgson was too stupid to use an index and doesn’t have any friends who can, and that is probably the less charitable of the two options here.  Isaak’s claim at TalkOrigin is even more absurd.  It would not be good faith to make a post like he did without researching into whether or not Darwin had used the term race to apply to human races, so you’re suggesting that he tried but failed to determine something so simple.
 * 3. At the end of the day though, for us as Wikipedia editors, it doesn’t really matter whether these authors are ignorant, stupid, and/or lying; the point is that the passages are critically inaccurate and simply not a reliable source (WP:RS). The more times you keep citing them here, Dave, the more you look like a YECist.  Now don’t get me wrong: many YECists are wonderful people, but I would oppose a citation to the Book of Genesis to support a claim on the Age of the Earth every bit as much as I oppose your sources here.
 * 4. Desmond and Moore’s claim that Darwin only came up with his theory of evolution because of how much he hated slavery is more silly than anything any YECist has ever said; and some YECists say very stupid things indeed.  D&M don’t provide any evidence here; they just point out that Darwin opposed slavery and cruelty to other races and then baldly assert that this is the only thing that could have caused him to come up with theory of evolution.  Their thesis is contrary to everything Darwin wrote in TDOM and makes no sense at a practical level—there were lots of Biblical creationists opposing slavery, you don’t need to believe in evolution to oppose slavery.  The bottom line is that Darwin came to understand biological evolution because he wanted the truth, not for some political cause that he independently supported. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 18:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Once again a wall of text with mini-rants about who-knows-what. Editors who are not single-purpose accounts see too much of this to want to take the time to determine if there is any substance in such a comment. Please stop—do not mention editors (including yourself). If there is a proposal regarding text in the article, briefly explain that. Otherwise, find another website. Also, consensus is required and slow-motion edit warring is still edit warring and is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Stan, these are good secondary sources and your inability to understand what they're saying on this topic doesn't mean you can just delete them to favour your own original research. 1. The articles have been amended to take on the valid point, now supported by secondary sources, that there are some implicit references in OTOoS to humans and human races, though not explicit references to human origins as such. Regarding your removal from the TDOM page of the point that polygenism = human races are different species and monogenism = humans are all one species", this was increasingly the case in the disputes over slavery from the 1840s to the 1870s, so will have to be clarified there. 2. Your original research merely points to the "light will be thrown"  point about races or varieties of various animals including humans, hardly an explicit discussion. 3. ToA is accepted as a pretty good source, and is in agreement with other secondary sources. 4. You seem to be misreading D&M 2009 – they discuss in detail how polygenism as used to support slavery came from evolutionists (Knox) and non-YECs (Agassiz), while monogenists included conventional Christian anti-evolutionists as well as Darwin. D&M's thesis that Darwin's prime motive was opposition to slavery is controversial, but their scholarship is of a very high standard and shouldn't be disregarded. Indeed, they provide the best support for some of the claims you've been making. Your addition of "in his discussion on the classification of varieties he suggests that "the Hottentot" might have descended from "the Negro" " is original research, misrepresents the source which says "If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group," [emphasis added] and is offtopic to discussion of the meaning of "races" in the book. For these reasons, I've undone your edit. . . dave souza, talk 07:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Supplementary point: Stan, you "knew that attempting to correct these inaccuracies would generate a lot of noise from the race-is-just-a-myth crowd". That looks like you're rejecting mainstream science on the topic. A relevant blog from a topic area expert; The Scientific, Political, Social, and Pedagogical Context for the claim that “Race does not exist.” – Greg Laden's Blog . . . dave souza, talk 09:56, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Dave, I’m not quite sure how Greg Laden’s views are relevant to the issue at hand. In reporting what Darwin wrote, it simply doesn’t matter whether you and Laden agree with his views on race or not.  This is about the content of a book.  It’s true that he didn’t refer to human races very often in OTOOS (as you correctly put in the article) but it wasn’t never and so it is important to give readers an accurate sense of the extent that he did, especially given the tremendous confuse on the topic in the past.  Your claim that Darwin wasn't suggesting anything at all about the relationship between the Negro and the Hottentot is a bit ludicrous, but whatever.  I cited Costa, who explains why he saw them as distinct races and would “speculate as to their relationship”.
 * 2. I’m a bit confused by “ToA” in paragraph 3. (I’m also confused by your paragraph numbering.)  I presume it mean TalkOrigins, in which case your claim that it is “a pretty good source” is simply not the case in this instance.  TalkOrigins might be a good source of information generally, but the cited passage claims Darwin didn’t use the term race to refer to human races, which is not only false, but also the opposite of the point made by the passage in the article that cites it.
 * 3. You claim that “these are good secondary sources” and that the problem is only my “inability to understand what they're saying on this topic”. You need to stop pretending that that the Emperor has any clothes on.  The problem here is not my inability to read plain English, Dave, but rather, your Emperor is stark naked.  Accurate sourcing is an important and fundamental component of Wikipedia, so please stop citing these particular passages. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

On one hand we have reliable secondary sources. On the other we have a Wikipedia editor who insist the "sources are lying". We go with the sources. Not really much to discuss here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The source, TalkOrigins, states: “Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.” It is used to source the claim: “There are very few references to human races”.  ‎Volunteer Marek, please explain how this is valid citation.  I agree with the article that there are not many references to human races in OTOOS, but the TalkOrigins passage simply doesn't say this, so even if it were accurate (which it’s not), it would still not be a proper source for this specific claim. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet you are also removing the Hodgson source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And "There are very few references to human races" is a reasonable paraphrase of what TalkOrigins says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Volunteer Marek, do you agree that the TalkOrigins passage states that Darwin did not use the term "race" to refer to human races? --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * TalkOrigins, as you quote'em, states “Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all.” 01:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC) [comment by Volunteer Marek}


 * That’s right. As you correctly say, TalkOrigins claims that Darwin didn’t use the term race to refer to human races.  Yet we know he did, as the OTOOS article correctly states.  Thus, this TalkOrigins passage is inaccurate and doesn’t meet the criteria required under WP:RS for this particular citation.  In a similar fashion, Hodgson on p.17 claims: “But the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all.”  This is simply and completely false, thus failing WP:RS also. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As discussed above, TalkOrigins covers the few uses of "faces of man", and the usage of "race" to refer to "varieties". Stan keeps trying to add the p. 424 paragraph which doesn't use the word "race" at all, but does question "If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro" when discussing "the classification of varieties". Costa explains "varieties" in that paragraph as equating to the modern usage of "race", it's not Darwin's usage. Hodgson is a good source backing up the point that "races" is used interchangeably with "varieties", and our paragraph goes on to cover the three exceptional uses of "races of man" while avoiding giving these exceptions undue weight. By my reckoning there are 8 references to race horses, and one to "the Goodwood Races", but we clearly shouldn't get into discussion in the article of that usage, or give any weight to the two adverts in "Mr. Murray's General List of Works" for Erskine's Journal of a Cruise among the Islands of the Western Pacific, including the Fejees, and others inhabited by the Polynesian Negro Races and Grey's Polynesian Mythology, and Ancient Traditional History of the New Zealand Race. They show that the term was in use at that time, and affirm that Darwin generally avoided that usage. Thus, I've undone Stan's revert. . . dave souza, talk 07:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Dave, once again you provided the final proof of the inappropriateness of these sources, just as you did with Janet Browne's The Power of Place.
 * 2. In this edit, according to you, Hodgson says that OTOOS used the term "races" to mean "varieties" and did not have “the connotation of human races”. In your following edit, according to you, TalkOrigins and Hodgson both agree on this point.  In this post you claim that both sources make the point that “There's a common misunderstanding that "races" is used in the modern common usage of "human races"”.  So according to you, these sources maintain that OTOOS does not use race in the modern usage of human race.
 * 3. Yet you now state that “the usage of "race" [refers] to "varieties"” and maintain that “"varieties" in [the p. 424] paragraph [equates] to the modern usage of "race"”. So now you acknowledge that contrary to your own understanding of Hodgson and TalkOrigins, OTOOS did use both race and variety in the modern usage of human race.  This reality is reinforced by Darwin’s repeated use of the term race for both Negroes and Hottentots in TDOM (p.217, p.218, p.334 vol.2, etc).
 * 4. Dave, if someone as smart and knowledgeable about Darwin as you are can’t make heads or tails of the convoluted Hodgson and TalkOrigins passages, what chance do us ordinary minions have of correctly understanding their amazing shining brilliance?? No chance at all!!  So, unfortunately these amazing passages cannot be cited here.  In hind sight, I guess you should have looked at WP:RS which requires sources to have “a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy”.
 * 5. With regard to your removal of my post on Darwin's speculation on the relationship between the Negro and the Hottentot, your edit summary claims my post is original research, which is patently untrue. I cited both OTOOS, a primary source, and James Costa, a secondary source, and both sources make this point abundantly clear, so I would very much appreciate if you refrained from such false accusations in the future.  Thanks.  --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On the last point, that's covered above. Costa discusses a paragraph which does not use the word "races": he explains that "varieties" in that paragraph equates to the modern usage of "race"; if anything, it shows that Darwin used the word varieties when referring to human groups. Darwin uses the compound term "races of man" just three times, and refers to horse races nine times, There are about 80 uses of "race" in the book, including 50 of "races", and even after excluding the couple of adverts and index entries, most of these uses refer to "race" in the sense of "variety". This is given weight by multiple published secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 09:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The disruption will have to be escalated for administrator attention if you are not able to discuss issues without pointy commentary regarding other editors. What chance do you think there is that any uninvolved editors would want to read the above? Everyone must focus on content—if wondering about a change to content, ask a plain question. Johnuniq (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Johnuniq, let’s look at what uninvolved editors would find here. When the WP:OWNER posted the claim to TDOM page that “polygenism … posited that races were separate species”, I was “wondering about [that] change to content”, especially since Bowler didn't say that.  I took your advice and “ask[ed] a plain question” about whether a person believing that the races were separately created and all one species would be a mongenist or a polygenist.  Knowing that such a person would be a polygenist, the WP:OWNER simply refused to answer (after all, WP:OWNERSHIP should come with privileges).  After I pressed for an answer, he replied that this was the “wrong place” to ask “a plain question” about “a change to content” and in retaliation, deleted nearly half of the On the Races of Man subsection, without justification or explanation, and replaced it with different material to establish his WP:OWNERSHIP of the article.  This is at odds with Wikipedia’s policy on collaborative editing, where editors are expected to work with existing content, make changes in a step by step fashion, and to explain their changes along the way in order to facilitate a conversation about what should be included and what should be excluded.  The moral of the story here is that those living in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones (see WP:BOOMERANG).
 * 2. Dave, you keep insisting that “Costa … explains that "varieties" in that paragraph equates to the modern usage of "race";” when what Costa actually said on this point is: "In Darwin’s day  these features led naturalists to identify the Khoikhoi as a distinct “race”".  Everyone here can see that you are simply embarrassed for having claimed that Darwin never used the term variety to refer to human race without realizing that Darwin had made the suggestion that “the Hottentot” might have descended from “the Negro”, and now you are angry and bitter that I’m calling you out.  If you could only stop with your WP:FRINGE claim that Darwin didn’t view “the Hottentot” and “the Negro” as races, that would be awesome.  Thanks. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To repeat, this section isn't about Costa's use of "race" in inverted commas, or about "other naturalists", it's about Darwin's use of the word race and a section where he discusses "varieties" is clearly offtopic. You don't seem to follow the relevant period use of polygenism, your equally offtopic "plain question" was a hypothetical with no relevance to the book, and your editing is getting increasingly disruptive. Please desist. . dave souza, talk 21:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Dave, the only thing I’m disrupting here is your WP:OWNERSHIP of the article. I am impressed by your commitment to the Darwin Hagiography LobbyTM, although your openness and honesty leave something to be desired (just like Soapy Sam).  When reverting my edit, your your summary stated: “restore sources, remove offtopic original research”.  I’ll discuss each point in more detail.
 * 2. Sources : As I’ve describe above, your use of these two sources is clearly in violation of WP:RS, especially the source that says exactly the opposite of the passage that cites it.  Your continued deliberate use of them here, knowing they are  unreliable and have misled you, is nothing short of WP:VANDALISM.
 * 3. The burning irony here is the comment on your user page: “What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse." It isn't.” Well, actually, if you hadn’t relied on charlatans here, you wouldn’t have claimed that OTOOS never used the term varieties “with the connotation of human races”.
 * 4. Original Research : This accusation is simply a bare faced lie; the post properly cites two very reliable sources.  Your insinuation that Costa distinguished Darwin from "other naturalists" is simply not true.  Costa described the features by which all naturalists in general were led “to speculate as to [the] relationship” between the Hottentot/Khoikhoi and the Negro, and Costa explicitly linked this to Darwin’s work in his next sentence: "This is the context for the idea of the Hottentot “descend[ing] from the Negro.”"  And also, anyone with more than 10 working brain cells will understand from a simple and straight-forward reading of OTOOS that this is exactly what Darwin was doing.  So again: the post is properly sourced and not original research.
 * 5. Topic : Here are 3 simple reasons that the post is bang on topic: 1) Contrary to your claims above, the section actually does discuss Darwin’s use of the term variety; 2) The section also points out that the book doesn’t often refer “to human races” and points out where it does, to which this post is extremely relevant; and 3) This post will help dispel the myth that OTOOS never used the term varieties with the connotation of human races.
 * 6. Polygenism on TDOM page : If my plain question was really “offtopic … with no relevance to the book” as you claim, you would have simply answered the question and then explained why it lacked relevance rather than pretending to answer while blathering on about something else.  The reason you refused to answer was precisely because the correct answer contradicted your post; thus my “plain question” was extremely relevant to the accuracy of the article.  Furthermore, the content section of TDOM article is not the place for a broad discussion on the polygenist movement at the time; that’s what the background section is for.
 * 7. Dave, you need to think carefully about who is really the disruptive editor here. I know that I am a little blunt at times, and many editors here would rather not talk about race, but nevertheless, Darwin wrote what he did and it should be properly reported, warts and all. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

1. Johnuniq, you reverted my post saying: “none of the steps at WP:DR involve ignoring consensus or berating other editors; try WP:RSN to question the reliability of a source”. Your claim that I am “ignoring consensus” is completely false because there is no consensus to ignore. The Darwin Hagiography LobbyTM, (Ref: Logicus, diff or thread) has not engaged in (nor attempted) the steps needed to achieve consensus but simply relies on WP:OWNERSHIP.

2. From the WP:CONSENSUS nutshell statement: “Consensus … is marked by  addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies.”emphasis added From the section, "In talk pages": “Editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material, or who stonewall discussions , may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions.”emphasis added From WP:DR, the section "Discuss with the other party": “ Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia.” emphasis added

3. I have raised many legitimate concerns which you never make any attempt to address. Among your many complaints, you criticize me for citing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as if the LobbyTM is entitled to make its own rules. Your favourite stonewall tactic is WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I asked a “plain question” as you suggested and was told that questions to correct inaccuracies were “offtopic”; you resonded with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I demonstrated that an editor is as soapy as Samuel Wilberforce = (WP:IDHT). I point out that Costa discusses race “In Darwin’s day” rather than the falsely claimed “modern usage” = (WP:IDHT). When WP:BULLSHIT claims were made that Darwin didn’t think “the Negro” or “the Hottentot” were races = (WP:IDHT). Costa doesn’t use the word “other” on p.424 or distinguish Darwin from other naturalists in any way = (WP:IDHT). TalkOrigins says exactly the opposite of the passage that cites it, = (WP:IDHT).

4. What the Darwin Hagiography LobbyTM has here is not consensus. There is only one person on the LobbyTM who makes decision about content and edits the article; this is Multiple-editor ownership:

You often do the tag team, attacking me when I ask the WP:OWNER a question and letting him respond when I put a question to you. In this post you proudly proclaim that you don’t care if I am right and “everyone else is wrong”, you will continue to support the LobbyTM.

5. Johnuniq, if you want to take TalkOrigins to WP:RSN, be my guest. Go ahead and ask them if a source that says that Darwin didn’t refer to human races can be used as a citation to the post that OTOOS did refer to human races. Until then, you need to stop drinking the WP:KOOLAID. Your continued restoration of such a flawed source is a deliberate act which undermines the integrity of Wikipedia. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Stan, you still seem to be complaining about other editors and about words that aren't in the article: please focus on proposing improvements to the article, not on deleting decent quality sources or reintroducing your original research. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Dave, you want me to “focus on proposing improvements to the article”. Thank you for the invitation.  My proposal to improve the article is for you to stop saying things that aren’t true and to acknowledge when you have said something that isn’t true.  That would make things so much better here.
 * 2. Please stop your WP:BULLSHIT that Darwin didn’t think “the Negro” or “the Hottentot” were races. Please acknowledge that Costa was discussing all naturalists in general on p.424 and did not distinguish Darwin from “other naturalists” and also that he never specified that his discussion of race was only about “modern usage”.  Please stop your lying claim of original research about a post that is properly sourced.  In this post location you claim that “TalkOrigins covers the few uses of "faces of man"”; please acknowledge that the TalkOrigins passage denies that Darwin used the term “races of man” and does not mention “faces of man”.
 * 3. Dave, what do you think of my awesome proposal? Wouldn’t it be a huge improvement for the article?  Thanks for your consideration. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Once again, Stan, instead of proposing an improvement, you're complaining about another user. See WP:TPYES. particularly "Comment on content, not on the contributor".
 * 2. Stan, I think bullshit will rebound on you, rudeness is no substitute for polite reasoned discussion. Darwin's thoughts were private, and we need a reliable secondary source for any comment on them. Darwin's paragraph makes no use of the word race, he says "let us glance at the classification of varieties", and goes on to an example; "If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group". Costa's note explains that "Hottentot" referred to Khoikhoi peoples, who had certain features, and that in "Darwin's day these features led naturalists to identify the Khoikhoi as a distinct 'race' and to speculate...". That certainly doesn't say that Darwin did that, and the most that could be made of the paragraph concerned is that in OtOOS Darwin used the words "variety" and "group" to refer to what naturalists of the day identified as a "race". Confirming that he avoided the word, though as discussed earlier he did make three uses of the compound term "races of man". The TalkOrigins Archive article doesn't deny that Darwin used the term “races of man”, so it's unclear why you claim it does. My reference above to “faces of man” was a typing error, thanks for drawing my attention to it.
 * 3. Stan, I think your "awesome proposal" is timewasting repetition of your earlier assertions, and is rather disruptive, but to get consensus on this wording it would be good to have comments from other editors. Regards, dave souza, talk 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Most people won't want to search through the walls of snark to determine whether there is a proposal regarding content, so there may not be many comments from others. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Dave, it’s certainly true that “rudeness is no substitute for polite reasoned discussion”, as you say, but your selective engagement in our discussions is a far cry from “polite reasoned discussion”. This includes the way you pretend and refuse to answer questions you find awkward (see above, also my comment at CD Talk).  Also, if you really were trying for a “polite reasoned discussion” then you would have went back to your posts here and here to strike out the claim (using  ) that Costa was talking about “the modern usage of "race"” after I pointed out that Costa explicitly referred to “Darwin’s day”(see WP:REDACT).  (See also: Location)
 * 2. I know very well the talk page rule you mention, but you need to understand that it is Wikipedia policy to WP:IGNORE a rule that “prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia”. These talk pages are here to improve the accuracy of the article and the integrity of the encyclopedia, and pushing you to actually address legitimate concerns, as required under WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DR, is absolutely critical for these important goals.
 * 3. On Costa . Dave, you say that “we need a reliable secondary source for any comment on [Darwin’s private thoughts]”, but I am not advocating the addition of any such comments. All the added post says is “in his discussion on classifying varieties he speculated on the relationship between "the Hottentot" and "the Negro".”  This is exactly what Darwin did in OTOOS, as confirmed by Costa.  There is no assertion being added to the article that Darwin viewed them as races and therefore no original research.
 * 4. The fact, as you acknowledged, that the naturalists of the day thought that the Khoikhoi or Hottentot were a distinct race from the Negro, coupled with the fact that Darwin referred to both Negroes and Hottentots as races in TDOMsee para.3 (diff or location) for examples, explain and justify the location of the post. Even if your fringe theory is correct that Darwin was an outlier among naturalists in 1859 in thinking that neither the Negro nor the Hottentot was a race and that he only brought his thinking in line with other naturalists between 1859 and 1871, even if this would be true, there is still nothing wrong with article because it doesn’t identify either as being a race, nor does it say that Darwin did; it only states that Darwin speculated about them when discussing varieties.  Again, that’s not original research.
 * 5. If you genuinely feel that the word “speculated” is somehow not justified here, we could always say that Darwin “commented on a possible relationship between "the Hottentot" and "the Negro".”
 * 6. On TalkOrigins . If you bracket the comment about varieties, the passage states: “Race, as used by Darwin [does not refer] to human races.” Darwin used the compound term “races of man” to refer to human races, so TalkOrigins is saying that Darwin didn’t use race in the term “races of man”.  It cannot be true that Darwin didn’t use the term race to refer to human races yet used the term “races of man” thus TalkOrigins is denying that Darwin used the term “races of man”.


 * 7. Johnuniq, you don’t have to “search through walls of snark” to see what I’m trying to add, you only have to look at your own edit history: here and here. It’s not looking for a needle in a haystack as your edit summary implies; you are simply ignoring everything I say under WP:ICANTHEARYOU.
 * 8. The real reason you won’t comment on my proposal is because you know that WP:COMMONSENSE tells us that Darwin thought “the Negro” and “the Hottentot” were races and that “speculate” is a good word to describe what Darwin was doing when he floated the idea that one race might have descended from the other, but this is not what the Hagiography LobbyTM wants to hear. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Stan, once again you've thrown up a wall of text with offtopic digressions: I'll point out that your "commonsense" is clearly original research, and discuss specific topics in new sections below. Please be concise and focussed on the topic, and stop complaining about other editors. . dave souza, talk 13:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * From WP:COMMONSENSE: “Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution.” and “Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers.” and “[A]s a fundamental principle, [common sense] is above any policy.” --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone with commonsense will realise that you're quoting from a section of the Wikipedia:Essay on What "Ignore all rules" means, which says at the top "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." You need at the very least to follow the spirit of policies and get consensus that your suggestions are actually good contributions. . . . dave souza, talk 22:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Dave, when is the last time you got consensus on actual content rather than reflexive support? You should get consensus before removing highly relevant, properly sourced material or restoring sources that contradict the passages that cite them. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of "race"
The subsection On the Origin of Species deals with the point that Darwin used the term "races" interchangeably with "varieties", with the meaning of varieties within a species rather than human races. In three instances he refers to races of man, which can reasonably be read as "varieties of mankind". In modern usage, the primary use of "race" when discussing groups refers to humans: thefreedictionary has "1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them., 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the Celtic race., 3. A genealogical line; a lineage., 4. Humans considered as a group., 5. Biology; a. A usually geographically isolated population of organisms that differs from other populations of the same species in certain heritable traits: an island race of birds.; b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals." Thus Darwin's general usage comes fifth. Similarly Merriam-Webster "Definition of race for Students" refers 1. to "groups that human beings can be divided into based on shared distinctive physical traits", 2. to groups sharing "culture or history ", or 3. "a major group of living things ", but their "Medical Definition of race" has 1a: "an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also :  a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group"; 1b:  "breed". OxfordDictionaries provides a similar hierarchy; then cautions: "Usage  In recent years, the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, it is now often replaced by other words which are less emotionally charged, such as people(s) or community." Hence the need for clarification. In Darwin's context, "race" was used freely in the biological/medical sense, including "races of humans" with the meaning of "variety of humans". Thus, Edward Blyth in 1855 – "We should distinguish the varieties of animals into normal and abnormal; the former exemplified by the European races of cattle, sheep, &c, which retain the normal conformation of other and wild animals, or present aberrations of merely trivial import, such as might even characterize a wild species. The races of mankind fall under this division .... Have you seen Knox’s curious volume on the races of mankind? ... I think that the designation breed should be restricted to those artificial races which have been intentionally produced by the admixture of normal varieties ...". Darwin strongly disputed Knox's views, a context that should not be obscured by the modern tendency to take the word "race" on its own as referring to humans. "Races of cattle" looks odd nowadays, so the usage of "race" needs to be explained in the article. . . dave souza, talk 13:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the view I've held for the last 40 years or so, in large part because the point was covered and explained thus when we were introduced to Darwin's work in school biology classes. From an editorial point of view I should say that this view most definitely needs to be be covered in the article, because the reader deserves to be aware that a significant number of people (with science degrees and so on) will consider the idea that it was meant to apply to human races, either in the late-nineteenth-century or the modern sense, to be a vulgar error. I am not aware of mainstream educated opinion having changed. William Avery (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Dave, nobody who understands biology would think there is anything odd with the term “races of cattle”, this is WP:OR.
 * 2. Your claim that Darwin restricted his use of the term race to the 5th definition of thefreedictionary is contradicted by your acknowledgement that “In Darwin's context, "race" … [included] "races of humans"”. This is reinforced by the fact that their 1st definition states “Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification” which stands in contrast to Darwin who obviously did recognize race as a biologically valid classification, as highlighted by your quote from OxfordDictionaries on its 19th century usage.  So, it’s not clear what exactly needs clarifying.
 * 3. Darwin’s specific comments about “"varieties of mankind"” are very much on topic here because, as you say, “Darwin used the term "races" … with the meaning of varieties”, so we need to demonstrate what that means.
 * 4. William, I’m not quite sure what you want added to the article, but anything posted needs to be verified by a reliable source.  This section describes and demonstrates how Darwin used the terms race and varieties when he wrote OTOOS.  Are you opposed to this? --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Stan, you seem to be arguing that modern readers should have no difficulty with Darwin's 1859 usage: as OED points out, "In recent years', the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic". [bold added] – 1859 isn't recent. We don't expect our general readers to "understand biology", and as three cited sources point out, the word "races" is commonly misunderstood. Also, you write of "Darwin who obviously did recognize race as a biologically valid classification", not so obvious when you look at TDoM where he questions the validity of "the so-called races of man", as quoted in this article. The section clarifies the usage of "races" in the title and elsewhere in the article, it's offtopic to introduce original research into other words he used for groups. . . dave souza, talk 22:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Dave, no, I’m not arguing that modern readers should or shouldn’t have difficulties with Darwin’s terminology; not sure why you say I am. In fact, it simply doesn’t matter if modern readers are offended by Darwin’s usage because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.
 * 2. Darwin mentioned “the so-called races of man” in deference to naturalists who thought humans were separate species and not for the reasons you claim. (Race can be taken to mean varieties within a species.)  As you know, he ultimately concluded that human races were not separate species.
 * “So again it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the most appropriate.” TDOM, 1871, Vol.1 p.235
 * “he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more appropriately called sub-species.” TDOM, 1871, Vol.2 p.388
 * 3. As you say, not all readers understand biology. Nor do they all understand Darwin’s use of varieties, which is why it’s so important to show this too. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As we currently do, with the statement that "Darwin used the term "races" interchangeably with "varieties", with the meaning of varieties within a species." Glad to have your agreement on this point. . dave souza, talk 17:10, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Dave, it warms my heart that you agree with me that it’s so important to show Darwin’s use of varieties and how he commented on a possible relationship between "the Hottentot" and "the Negro" in his discussion on classifying varieties. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources on usage of "race"
Restarting the discussion from above, which has been derailed with screeds of text and other topics, Stan doesn't like two specific sources and keeps deleting them because they go against his original research. On 21 June and 23 June Stan has been pointed to WP:RSN as the appropriate venue to dispute the reliability of sources, but instead has produces spurious accusations of "lies". To clarify discussion on these specific sources, please comment on each below the relevant bullet point, or take the sources to RSN if you think the whole source should be removed. Please keep comments concise and on-topic to avoid walls of text, and avoid accusations of "lying" or offtopic assertions about "the Hagiography LobbyTM". . . dave souza, talk 13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Geoffrey Hodgson, page 17

 * states "The full title of Darwin’s path-breaking book is On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). Some have seen its reference to ‘favoured races’ as evidence of racism. But the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all. Throughout the work, ‘races’ refers to ‘varieties’, and the terms are used interchangeably." Since Darwin uses the words "races of man" twice in examples, and once with an implicit reference to the formation of races of humans, "at all" is arguably exaggerated, but this wasn't cited for that point which is fully covered later in the section: it's a good reference for the point that throughout the work, ‘races’ refers to ‘varieties’.  .  . . dave souza, talk 13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Sure, Dave, and the Book of Genesis is only “exaggerating” when it claims that the Earth and all living creatures were created in only 6 days. Therefore, we can still use Genesis as a WP:RS for other points it makes.
 * 2. Hodgson didn’t “exaggerate” anything. His claim that OTOOS doesn’t explicitly refer to human races is simply false.  Getting such a central point on Darwin’s use of the term race wrong demonstrates that is not a reliable source for this specific topic, especially given that the sentence that you want to cite is the very next sentence to the bullshit one.  Citing it in the face of such a glaring contradiction would undermine reader’s confidence in Wikipedia. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The Book of Genesis is a primary source for what it says, and can be used as such where relevant, which isn't here. Since the few references to "races of man" are minor examples when discussing another topic, or implicit rather than explicit points, Hodgson's in line with other good sources in not giving them weight. You seem to be dealing in absolutes based on giving huge weight to your original research; the point Hodgson makes about ‘races’ referring to ‘varieties’ remains good. . . dave souza, talk 08:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Hey, I know, Answers In Genesis is a secondary source, and if we ignore the places that can be conclusively proven to be “exaggeration”, it will be an amazing source for posting all kinds of claims.
 * 2. The "few references to “races of man”" might or might not be minor, but they certainly are examples of explicit references to human races, thus clearly contradicting this source. Hodgson is in line with TalkOrigins passage “CA005.2” in not giving any weight to this reality that you consider inconvenient (thus failing WP:RS).
 * 3. The point about varieties is adequately made by NSCE; we don’t need this hack piece. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed this citation because I believe Hodgson’s claim that “the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all” is inaccurate. My edit was reverted and I was BLOCKED by Bishonen who said that the other editors disagreed with me. Hodgson’s claim was accurate and I needed to get consensus before removing this. So, that is what now I want to get and in furtherance of this effort, Dave, please tell me: Do you think that Darwin referred explicitly to human races in OTOOS or not? Thanks --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Stan, Hodgson is right that ‘favoured races’ refers to varieties of organisms, and the term "races" is used throughout the book to refer to varieties of whatever organisms he's discussing. In a couple of cases Darwin refers to "races of man", meaning varieties of humans. Whether that equates to the modern concept of human races is questionable, but a digression. So, get consensus from other editors before making any changes. . . dave souza, talk 17:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. I’ve dealt with enough YECists to know that sometimes you gotta stand up and call out bullshit when things get too absurd. When MVBW said that “races of man” meant “Race (biology)” (here and here), you confirmed reality by saying that they “clearly refer to human races” yet now say this very claim “is questionable”. I am happy to work for a consensus with good-faith editors but have less patience with claims that $2+2=5$.
 * 2. Dave, you wrote that “races of man” has the meaning of “varieties of human”. So then they don’t have the meaning of “races of human”? That’s what you are trying to say here? Do I understand you correctly? --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 02:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The above comment would be much more effective (and compatible with focus on content) if there were no mention of editors or other issues ("YECists" and "call out bullshit" have no relevance here). Apparently the issue concerns the comment Darwin refers to "races of man", meaning varieties of humans. First, why does it matter what that means? What article content would be affected by the response? Second, the comment has a clear meaning—what is the point of the question? If there is some doubt about the comment (and if the doubt is relevant to this talk page per WP:NOTFORUM), it would be better to briefly explain the doubt. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Jimmy Wales wants false and misleading information aggressively removed from Wikipedia (instruction that you seem to think is a joke). Hodgson’s citation claims that OTOOS never refers to human races, when in fact Dave himself said that comments in OTOOS “clearly refer to human races” which is why I am aggressively trying to have it removed. John, do you support or oppose the aggressive removal of false and misleading information? --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * If you could confirm whether my understanding of your 3 November post above is correct or not rather than hiding behind the smoke screen launched by your partisan WP:TAGTEAM defender, that would be an amazing act of cooperation in the collaborative editing spirit that Jimmy Wales is hoping we adopt. Does “races of man” meaning “varieties of human” indicate that they don’t mean “races of human”? Is that what you are trying to say? I'm just trying to build consensus here. Thanks --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

1. My question above is very simple, I think your silence is disgraceful. Wikipedia is built on the principle that anyone can edit. Differences of opinion are supposed to be discussed openly and honestly on the talk pages, not met with smoke screens and stonewalling. 2. Back in 2008 you posted the unsourced and unverified claim that Darwin hadn’t referred to human races. When I objected, much to my surprise, you found two sources that did actually verify this claim. When I demonstrated that the claim itself was bullshit, you removed the wording from the article, but still want to keep the citations to the passages making the claim. The rules on Wikipedia are clear that you have the burden to demonstrate the claim. If you refuse to answer my 4 November post above, I have every right to remove them.

3. Important Diffs. As mentioned, eight years ago, you posted that Darwin had not used the terms race or variety with the connotation of human races, synthesized from the fact that Darwin had discussed races of the cabbage. The argument here relies on the unstated premise that humans cannot have races if cabbages have races; apparently races are in short supply. After I deleted it, you found a couple of sources that did actually verify your post. First you cited Hodgson’s line: “the Origin of Species does not refer explicitly to human races at all” and then you cited TalkOrigins passage that Darwin hadn’t used the term race to refer to human races. When I pointed out that Darwin’s reference to “the Negro” and “the Hottentot” very definitely did “carry the connotation of human races” you changed course on 27 June, posting that Darwin had referred to human races in OTOOS and in this edit, removing the false wording from the article itself but keeping the citations and links to the passages making this false claim. You then edit warred to maintain them. 4. Note that the TalkOrigins citation had to be moved because the original cited passage was deleted so you moved it to cite the line: “There are very few references to human races”. The only problem here is that TalkOrigins actually says there are no references to human races with the term race, which is why you had originally said that it was “not being cited for the few references to "races of man"”. Thus the passage did not verify the claim that cited it.

5. Dave, even though your claim that Darwin hadn’t referred to human races became untenable to post directly in the article (pointing out that Darwin  clearly  referred to human races completely contradicted this claim), you still want to provide links to literature that push this same bullshit propaganda. In my experience, this is exactly how YECists operate: when you point out that what they are saying is factually incorrect, you’ll probably still be told to check out Answers in Genesis. If you do not answer my 4 November question, I will go ahead with the removal of this false and misleading information. Aggressively! --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Stan, your aggression is noted, but neither myself nor Johnuniq have agreed with you. You've still not got the required consensus from other editors for your proposed edits. . . dave souza, talk 16:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

TalkOrigins, CA005.2

 * says "Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all." This confirms the point made in above that in Darwin's context "race" was as likely to refer to "races of cattle" as "races of man", and the vast majority of uses of the word in the book refer to other organisms, not humans. Stan's response that TalkOrigins "is straight up lying" is obviously spurious, his assertion that the TalkOrigins wording is a "claim that Darwin never used the term race to refer to human races" is clearly a misreading of what they wrote. Naturalists of the time were perfectly at ease with referring to human "races" as varieties, as discussed in . . . dave souza, talk 13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Dave, you’re right that I shouldn’t have used the L word and have redacted it.
 * 2. But the passage doesn’t say what you are saying here: this is simply your own synthesis.  The passage doesn’t mention “races of cattle”.  It’s well known that that race, like variety, applies to both human and non-human populations, so saying race refers to variety doesn’t say anything about the ration of human to non-human usage.
 * 3. You introduced this TalkOrigins passage because it contrasts varieties with human races; that Darwin didn’t use the term varieties “with the connotation of human races”. But now that I pointed out that Darwin actually did use the term varieties “with the connotation of human races”, you have changed your interpretation of the passage and now claim it says that “the vast majority of uses of the word in the book refer to other organisms, not humans”.  We know from reading OTOOS that this is true, but, the passage certainly never says that OTOOS did refer to human race some, and, like Hodgson, actually says that there weren’t explicit references to human races in OTOOS.  Thus, the passage does not say the point that it is cited for.
 * 4. This is exactly what happened with another source, Janet Browne’s Power of Place p.60. You correctly stated that Browne claimed that OTOOS only alluded to human origins one time, yet after I demonstrated that there were multiple such allusions, rather than acknowledge that Browne wasn’t the best source for this point, you changed your tune on what Browne said and kept on insisting that the source supported the modified text.(see comment: diff or location)  In the same fashion, your initial understanding that the TalkOrigins passage says that Darwin didn’t use varieties to refer to human races is the correct interpretation.  Thus it is not an appropriate source here. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Stan, why are you misrepresenting what I wrote even when you've linked to it? . . dave souza, talk 22:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * What am I misrepresenting, Dave? Nothing, because if I was, you would have explained what and how.  The simple fact is that the TalkOrigins passage does not verify that “the vast majority of uses of the word in the book refer to other organisms, not humans”.  The passage actually says that Darwin didn’t use the term race to refer to human races, when in fact Darwin definitely did use that term to refer to human races. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Above, you claimed I 'introduced this TalkOrigins passage because it contrasts varieties with human races; that Darwin didn’t use the term varieties “with the connotation of human races”, contradicting my edit summary add further source on common misunderstanding. The common misunderstanding discussed in Claim CA005.2 is that "The subtitle of Darwin's Origin of Species refers to "the preservation of favoured races," showing the racist nature of Darwin's ideas." and the response is that "Race, as used by Darwin, refers to varieties, not to human races. It simply points out that some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of Species hardly refers to humans at all." So, that's what "race" means in the title, and it isn't a source for usage elsewhere in the book; it does however correctly note that there are few references to humans elsewhere in the book. Trust that clears things up for you. . dave souza, talk 16:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Yes, this clarifies what I have been saying for a long time: that you are shooting out of both ends with your arguments. In your 17 July post, you claim that TalkOrigins CA005.2 “confirms the point … that in Darwin's context "race" was as likely to refer to "races of cattle" as "races of man", and the vast majority of uses of the word in the book  refer to other organisms, not humans”, yet in your 7 August post you claim that the very same passage describes “what "race" means in the title, and it isn't a source for usage elsewhere in the book”.
 * 2. But, the simple fact is, it doesn’t say either. There is a suggestion that it only applies to the title, but this is not stated!  We know that the vast majority of uses of the term race in OTOOS refers to non-human populations, but not from this passage!  As I’ve been repeatedly saying, the passage makes a general statement that Darwin didn’t use the term race to refer to human races and surrounds it with all these insinuations and ambiguities for an apologetic to argue that it actually means something else when challenged.
 * 3. This is Janet Browne’s strategy as well: shoot 5 different directions at once to cover ever eventuality. When you thought that OTOOS only alluded one single time to human origins, you claimed Browne supported that position, and when I demonstrated (with secondary sources) that there were actually multiple such allusions, you claimed that Browne actually said that.  The lesson here is that any passage that simultaneously supports diametrically opposing positions doesn’t verify (WP:V) either position.
 * 4. Bottom line: no way in hell CA005.2 qualifies as a reliable source (WP:RS) here. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Relationship between "the Hottentot" and "the Negro"
The subsection On the Origin of Species deals with the point that Darwin used the term "races" interchangeably with "varieties", repeated attempts have been made to add the words "and in his discussion on classifying varieties he speculated on the relationship between "the Hottentot" and "the Negro", sourced to and OtOOS p. 424, Quote: "If it could be proved that the Hottentot had descended from the Negro, I think he would be classed under the Negro group, however much he might differ in colour and other important characters from negroes." That's from a section on varieties, and makes no mention of the word "race" so it's offtopic. "Speculated on" is original research: Darwin, as Browne says, is using a human example to illustrate his point that classification follows descent. Both terms are deprecated nowadays due to concerns over racism, so simply highlighting them out of context is misleading for modern readers. As it happens, Darwin didn't agree with the contemporary racist views of these people: Desmond & Moore 2009 discuss the point in relation to his early description of the Hottentots as "the ill treated aboriginals of the country" and the guide he hired as a companion, who "spoke English very well and was most tidily drest" – see also this. dave souza, talk 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Costa's note on the paragraph starts by explaining the name "Hottentot" and noting that "it is considered offensive today", so good reason not to show it out of context. He describes Khoikhoi features, and says "In Darwin’s day these features led naturalists to identify the Khoikhoi as a distinct 'race' and to speculate on their relationship to the more widespread Bantu ethno-linguistic group, which white Europeans collectively referred to as 'negro'. This is the context for the idea of the Hottentot 'descend[ing] from the Negro'." Nothing there about Darwin speculating, it's context that naturalists of the day (and earlier) speculated about the issue. While Costa is a secondary source for interpreting Darwin's paragraph, he does that for most paragraphs in the book and on his own doesn't indicate that is sufficiently significant to add as a topic to the article, let alone intrude it into the section on the usage of race which it doesn't cover. . . dave souza, talk 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

In conclusion, there's clearly no consensus for deletion of the or for inclusion of this oftopic wording about Hottentots, so I've undone his reversion and ask him to get talk page agreement on changes before reverting again. . dave souza, talk 13:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Dave, your argument that Darwin’s use of varieties for human races is offtopic because it doesn’t mention the word "race" is invalid precisely because you claim that race means variety, so to understand what race means, we have to understand what variety meant to Darwin, and a demonstration of his usage is the best way for that.
 * 2. Your argument that “using a human example to illustrate his point that classification follows descent” means that Darwin wasn’t speculating about the relationship between the races used in the example also doesn’t hold any water; Darwin’s statement that if descent could be established “I think he would be classed under the Negro group” is clearly both.
 * 3. OTOOS is used as a primary source many times in this article and Wikipedia allows careful use of primary sources, so there is no problem with citing Darwin’s passage to summarize what he is saying. The fact that Darwin was speculating where to class “the Hottentot” is reinforced by Costa describing that naturalists of the day were spreculating on this exact relationship.  Costa didn’t explicitly specify that Darwin was included among these naturalists because it is self-evident when reading both passages together.  Thus, it's properly sources and there is no WP:OR!
 * 4. Your repeated claims that this takes things out of context are simply not true; it’s merely reporting what’s in the book. If the term “speculate” was the actual problem for you, you could have taken up my suggestion in para.5 to use the word “commented” and say that “in his discussion on classifying varieties Darwin commented on a possible relationship between "the Hottentot" and "the Negro".”
 * 5. The real reason you don’t want this posted is evidenced by your comments that “Both terms are deprecated nowadays due to concerns over racism” and that using the term “Hottentot” is considered offensive today. But the simple fact is, Darwin used these terms in his great book and Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED.  Putting the terms in quotations, as I did, adequately demonstrates your concerns.  There is nothing being taken out of context here. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1 Here Darwin doesn't make "use of varieties for human races", he uses the word "group" in discussing what others had called "races", in a paragraph discussing classification of varieties.
 * 2 CD is discussing classification, not speculating about races.
 * 3 Careful use of primary sources is ok, secondary sources are needed when a point is contested. Your original research is in synthesising points to make a new claim, that CD was "speculating" that this has sufficient significance to be mentioned in the article.
 * 4 Still undue weight to an insignificant point, as above, and "because it is self-evident when reading both passages together" is clearly WP:SYN.
 * 5 Yes, these are loaded terms nowadays, and have to be shown in well sourced context to avoid smearing Darwin. the fact that he used these terms merely shows that these were standard scientific terms at the time. So no significance to the article. . dave souza, talk 08:24, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. What evidence do you have for your claim that “Darwin doesn’t make use of varieties for human races” when he uses “the Negro” and “the Hottentot” as a human example for the classification of varieties? Common sense contradicts your assertion.
 * 2. This argument is a false dichotomy; Darwin was speculating on possible human relationships while discussing classification. But given your animosity to this reality, we can mention, as I suggested in para 4 of my previous post, that Darwin commented on this possible relationship.
 * 3a. Even though I am no longer pushing to post that Darwin was speculating, I do want to point out that you quoted my para 3 (which you dragged to para 4) out of context. Wikipedia requires verification and that would be provided for by citing p.424 of OTOOS.  There are many many citations on this wiki page to OTOOS, so if my post would be original research, we would need to do a lot of pruning of other primary source citations.  The Costa citation is for clarification and context and thus does not violate WP:SYN.
 * 3b. Your claim that the editorial discretion “that this has sufficient significance to be mentioned in the article” is original research is false. From Editorial Discretion: “It is not original research to make judgement calls on what content to include or not include, how to frame an issue or claim, or what claims and subjects are suitable for Wikipedia.”  Most of your posts include editorial discretion, so by your own criteria, most of that would be original research.
 * 4. As already mentioned, we can cover Darwin’s human example of classifying varieties by stating that he commented on a potential relationship between “the Hottentot” and “the Negro”. Also mentioned:  Editorial Discretion is not Original Research.  Your claim that this point is insignificant is contradicted by your assertion that Darwin referred to varieties when using the term race.
 * 5. It is in para 5 that you give your real reason for your fierce opposition to my post. You somehow think that showing the actual terms that Darwin used will somehow be a smear on him, but this couldn’t be farther from the truth.  These were standard scientific terms of his day; they can and should be reported in a matter-of-fact way (WP:NOTCENSORED). --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem again to be arguing for your original research on the basis that wikipedia isn't censored. That doesn't work, you need an explicit secondary source to give any WP:WEIGHT in the article to terminology which, as Costa states, "is considered offensive today" and is likely to mislead the modern reader. Darwin doesn't call these groups "races" or "varieties", so you're really stretching when trying to relate it to the explanation of wording in the title. . dave souza, talk 17:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. Please stop pretending that the section is only an “explanation of wording in the title”. It explicitly discusses Darwin’s use of race and variety “[h]ere and  elsewhere in the book”,  and includes his comment that sexual selection could illuminate the origin of the differences between human races.  So, yeah, that’s more than just the title and my post is entirely on topic here!
 * 2. The claim that “you need an explicit secondary source to give any WP:WEIGHT in the article” is complete and total bullshit. Wikipedia does not restrict citations to secondary sources, so please stop pretending it does.  This article has dozens of citations to OTOOS without “an explicit secondary source”.  Do I need to remove them all to prove the WP:POINT that Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources???
 * 3. You completely ignored my request to back up your claim that “Darwin doesn’t make use of varieties for human races” when he commented on “the Negro” and “the Hottentot”. Where is your “explicit secondary source” for that?   You know very well that this claim has no basis in reality and neither does the claim that “CD is … not speculating about races”.  It is your WP:BULLSHIT that will “mislead the modern reader”, not an accurate reporting that he commented on “the Negro” and “the Hottentot” in his discussion on classifying varieties.
 * 4. Your attempts to remove terminology that was standard scientific terms of the day simply because they might be offensive to some readers today is against policy. “Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so” (WP:CENSORED).  The simple fact is, these are Darwin’s words.  Dave, I’m asking you to please respect the policy of this great encyclopedia. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Stan, please don't be WP:POINTy: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited, but that's what you seem to be proposing. WP:PSTS policy requires us to base articles on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Your unusual and unjustifiable reading of CD's writings is synthesis misusing a primary source, and gives no justification for your proposed edit. Your repetition of points is unconvincing, and not a good way to get support from other editors. . . dave souza, talk 11:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 1. What I had wanted (and still want but will WP:LETGO as indicated in this 04:36, 12 August edit summary) is for notable parts of Darwin’s works to be properly reported (WP:COMPREHENSIVE). Given the misconception that Darwin didn’t use the term variety to refer to human races (for instance: here, here, and here), the sentence in OTOOS that speculates on the relationship between human races as an example of classifying varieties is obviously notable and not POINTy at all.


 * 2. With that said, it is clear that the editors here are not quite ready for this much Darwin. Getting substantive comments from more than one editor here is like getting blood from a WP:TURNIP, so it’s time to let this one go, and focus on other issues, such as blatant violations of WP:RS.
 * 3. One reason given, not once but twice, to censor Darwin’s *offensive* language was to claim that James Costa equated Darwin’s use of ‘varieties’ with “the modern understanding of ‘race’”. But, here is what Costa actually wrote about the sentence in OTOOS (page 424) which speculated on the relationship between “the Hottentot” and “the Negro”:


 * 4. Given that Costa explicitly states that his comments refer to “Darwin’s Day”, I asked for those claims to be redacted, but was informed that he didn’t “see any problems with the wording”, although no justification or explanation has been provided for such a glaring contradictory. Not only was Costa’s comment not about modern times, he never even mentions the term “variety” or “varieties”. While one might wonder who exactly is making the argument that ‘variety’ equals “the modern understanding of ‘race’”, one thing is clear: it sure as hell wasn’t Costa saying this.
 * 5. Wikipedia is not censored so future editors will have to discuss how to report Darwin’s speculation on the relationship between human races, but for now, this horse is dead. --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Stan, your horse is completely dead, so stop misrepresenting sources. . dave souza, talk 13:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of "race" according to Sober and D&M
1. This talk page section is titled “Meaning of favoured races: sources” which includes a subsection with the (wishfully-named) title “Reliable sources on the usage of "race".” Based on discussions there showing the sources to be not exactly reliable, I removed the citations to Hodgson and TalkOrigins. They provide more misinformation that helpful information.

2. The section also discusses an alleged “common misunderstanding” about the “Meaning of favoured races”. In the subsection “Meaning of "race"” definitions are provided from thefreedictionary along with unverified claim (see WP:NOR) that Darwin excluded a number of them from his usage, including in particular,
 * “2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the Celtic race.”

No justification was given for this baseless claim that Darwin’s meaning of race was more narrow than modern times, and indeed Darwin does refer to the Celts as a race in his second most famous book, TDOM (Ed.2 p.138), demonstrating this analysis to be inaccurate. This is further contradicted by authors such as Elliot Sober, Adrian Desmond, and James Moore who make the point that, not only does the term race have a very broad meaning throughout OTOOS, but also in the subtitle, Darwin does not exclude humans, as these passages demonstrate:

3. There is a paragraph in the article describing Darwin’s use of the term race, in the subtitle “and elsewhere in the book”. Consequently, I made this edit to incorporate what these sources are saying on this point. I also removed the line about the controversies over slavery and imperialism, as even Desmond and Moore don’t think that was why Darwin didn’t elaborate on humans: “But the full explanation of human racial origins was omitted because Darwin lacked the overwhelming evidence to convince a skeptical world.” (2009, p.310). --Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * !. There's clearly no consensus for your repeated attempts to remove these sources: they're valid, and I've restored them. . dave souza, talk 13:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 2. The intention wasn't to narrow the meaning of "races", but to show that in Darwin's book it has a broader meaning, including and mostly using the biological definition which includes varieties or breeds. Sober covers that point, but his is a brief reference in discussion of more modern ideas, not a detailed critique focussed on the book OtOOS. While Darwin saw European nations out-competing other kingdoms and tribes, he didn't cover that in this book. D&M's point that "Murray didn’t care for ‘Natural Selection’ in the title" is covered, but that's worth reorganising and expanding. Their speculation about "Everybody knew about race" is a contentious part of their controversial thesis that OtOOS was motivated mainly by CD's opposition to slavery; I've introduced it, but have concerns that it may be no better than their claim that Darwin's "delay" in publication was due to fear. . . dave souza, talk 13:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3. I've restored the previous sources, and made edits to more fully reflect the points made by Sober and D&M09. This is work in progress, part of a series of edits to improve coverage, to follow. . dave souza, talk 13:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake News citations
There is a proposal to have this article listed as a feature article, which is a fabulous idea… except that it means that we can’t cite passages claiming 2+2=5. How can we remove them? ---Stan Giesbrecht (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)