Talk:Charles Darwin#Evolution is a fact and a theory

Nothing else on this page references utilitarianism and I've never heard of Darwin being one. Does anyone have any knowledge on this? Cleebadee (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:It's possible that it was confused with Unitarianism. Cleebadee (talk) 16:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::I have deleted it as unreferenced. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:::I note the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article on [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/origin-descent/ "Darwin: From the Origin of Species to the Descent of Man"]] has a discussion of Darwin and Utilitarianism (which concludes that he wasn't one). Erp (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Charles Darwin by Julia Margaret Cameron, c. 1868.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for February 12, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-02-12. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for that! Good work, . dave souza, talk 23:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Though the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Darwin&diff=prev&oldid=1282555424 edit] which "changed portrait to a more recognizable one" was clearly in good faith, the previous portrait was chosen after careful consideration, and I've restored it. As noted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin, "There was a lot of discussion earlier resulting in the decision that the image from around the time of publication of The Origin is preferable to the iconic image of Darwin's beard which he grew seven years after publication" [10:16, 17 December 2006] . . . dave souza, talk 23:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that reference 179 and the short sentence along with it should be removed from the article because it contrasts with the views of Darwin written later in the article. Additionally, the source itself uses the quote from the book out of context and seems to weaponize the quote. The source article makes good points of course, but the short paragraph which it mentions Darwin provides little to no context with the excerpted quote. And the author seems too merely have selected it for its seemingly racist language. The word used by the author of the article, 'degraded' means a series of successive stages, which means that Darwin was likely hypothesizing about how the multitudes of human races came to be. There are of course other issues with the use of this source such as how Darwin may have used the term Savage's to refer to indigenous people. But Darwin does not call all indigenous people savages only certain tribes. It is also worth noting that the citation within the source article does not provide the page number for which the quote, "the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages" was found. I am aware that Darwin's Racism has been thoroughly discussed in Archived Talk pages, but either way the source has multiple issues that prevent it from being reliable enough to include in the Article. I Apologize If this has been Discussed Previously as there is a good chance I missed any previous discussions on this due to the length of the archived Discussions. Neonblaze1 (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:You haven't actually provided a good reason why the material should be removed, rather than potentially given the additional context you've characterized it as lacking presently. Remsense ‥ 论 04:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::The full quote (New Edition, Appleton & Co, New York, 1897, p. 66) is "Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest gradations. Therefore it is possible that they might pass and be developed into each other." This is an argument that the differences may be social rather than genetic, the opposite to the impression given by ref 179. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Quite. Do you think it's ideal to alter the passage to reflect that, as opposed to removing it? Remsense ‥ 论 08:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I would remove it. The issue is discussed extensively elsewhere in the article, and altering the passage would be original research. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was being a bit vague, but I meant there might be some other secondary source dealing with this material. If not, then of course we agree. Remsense ‥ 论 11:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The issue is discussed in detail in note vi. There is no point in briefly duplicating one part of the discussion in cite 179. A citation is in any case the place for citations, not notes. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Agreed. Remsense ‥ 论 12:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)