Disputatio:Carolus Darwin

E Vicipaedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

To my knowledge Darwin did not himself leave any writings in Latin, but I think it is safe to give him the Latin name Carolus Darwin.

  • The classicist Charles Darwin Adams (1856-1938) used the form Carolus Darwin Adams.
  • Generally for persons in the modern period, the prefered method of creating a Latin name is to Latinize the given name(s), but leave the family name unaltered and indeclinable.
    • For more on this see here
    • See also here.

--Iustinus 00:06 oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Redirects[fontem recensere]

People searching for Darwin, Australia, are going to be unhappy to have been shunted off to this page. IacobusAmor 18:05, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

People searching for Darwin, Australia, don't search at the Latin wiki, Hendricus 18:27, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
Of course they do. If, when using Vicipaedia, they don't know the Latin word for the city of Darwin, they type in what they do know: "Darwin." For another example, suppose you want to look up Vicipaedia's article on the maillot jaune, but you don't know what the Latin term for it is: you type "maillot jaune" in the box and hit "Ire" or "Quaerere." IacobusAmor 18:38, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)
What am i searching here ?? , ~~
Darwin must certainly be a discretiva page, not a redirect. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 20:56, 16 Novembris 2007 (UTC)

Creationwiki[fontem recensere]

Um, why do we have a link to creationwiki? Isn't that site a bit...partisan? Nooj 11:25, 18 Ianuarii 2009 (UTC)

True. But their Darwin article, focusing as it does on his Christian beliefs, is perhaps not without its uses? Andrew Dalby (disputatio)
The article isn't as bad as I'd expected, but it subtly expresses its point of view by ignoring Darwin's later & more considered views of Christianity and continuing to call evolution (merely) a theory, rather than the fact that it is, and the blurb about the video implies that the speaker defends the proposition that the earth isn't more than 6000 years old. Either there should be a caveat (or some sort of discussion of creationism, putting it in context), or that nexus should be cut. IacobusAmor 14:09, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
I would very strongly oppose cutting links because we think the site is partisan. Many, many sites are partisan, and no other sites precisely share Wikipedia's NPOV rule. Wikipedia doesn't guarantee that other sources of information are neutral; it offers references to sources because they were sources, and it offers other references and external links because they have useful and relevant information. Our page is on Darwin's life and work; the reason for removing this link, if anyone wants to, should be that it wasn't used as a source for the article (and indeed I don't imagine it was) and that it offers no useful added information on Darwin's life and work.
As to giving a caveat, well, we are subject to the NPOV rule, so we would have to make sure the caveat is neutral! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:13, 20 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
Presumably if we simply said that the article was written from a creationist POV, that would be NPOV. --Iustinus 16:47, 20 Februarii 2009 (UTC)
Puto hunc nexum esse aptiorem in commentario de Creationismo. + Habemus categoriam pro scientia stulta? fere Categoria:Scientia obsoleta? Etiam est theoria phlogistonis (principii ignis) et theoria humorum (causarum morborum). IacobusAmor 18:51, 20 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

Fontes[fontem recensere]

Still looking for possible Latin sources. I've listed some below, feel free to add more. --Iustinus 08:07, 19 Februarii 2009 (UTC)

  • "Carolus Darwin": 1866, Societatis Botanica Edinburgensis, "Diploma"[1]
  • "Carolum Darwin": 1877, Sandys, Oratio ab Oratore Publico habita Cantabrigiae die XVII° Novembris A. S. MDCCCLXXVII[2]
  • 1889, I. Gemeiner, "Doctrina H. Spencer de Evolutione Rerum" in Congrès scientifique international des catholiques 1[3]
  • 1890, Ioannis Iosephi Urráburu Institutiones Philosophicae[4]
  • "Darwinii" :1912, The celebration of the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Royal Society of London[5]
  • "Carolum Darwin": 2005, Iulianae Beer oratio inter Encaenia Oxoniensia habita[6]
I have copied these to s:Scriptor:Charles Darwin and added {{Vicifons}} to the Wikipedia page. We can transcribe these public domain sources on Wikisource. John Vandenberg 23:34, 9 Decembris 2009 (UTC)

Latin surname[fontem recensere]

Greetings. I've noticed this surname in the article: Darvinius. Do anybody know if his surname is called like that in Latin? -- Donatello (disputatio) 16:19, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC).

Yes. It's strange the page has been inconsistent all this time, but there is at least one source for Darvinius: "Darvinius"&source=bl&ots=w-b4kjgTDS&sig=CmsThvwUSUhiEeRr_5WfyJUNWHM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GKZmUsqKKLGk0AXr_oGYBg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBDge#v=onepage&q=%22Darvinius%22&f=false item 939 on this page. So we could make our page consistent and move it. Do you want to do that?
We should notice, however, that some sources in Latin call him Carolus Darwin. Among the six sources cited above, the "Diploma" (no. 1) shows this: I don't know what the other five are supposed to show. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 16:56, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. :) Darvinius is Latin anyway, so maybe we fullfill his name and also for the sake of Latin? So I think Carolus Robertus Darvinius is quite okey. On the other hand, I think that the Latin culture of to Latinisize names or to give the Latin equivalent for names of another languages is preventing your free will to be called however you would like to be called. But the Latin Wikipedia has its rules, so is it important what you say concerning the sources of his surname?
Also, I guess the article should be Carolus Darvinius/Darwin because I guess he's only called "Charles Darwin". In the article the whole name is mentioned anyway. Donatello (disputatio) 19:03, 22 Octobris 2013 (UTC).
Donatello never followed this up: nor did I! It's now necessary to create a category, so we have to decide. Although there is one source for "Darvinius" and several biological names supply the genitive "Darwinii", even better sources -- those published in Darwin's lifetime recording public honours paid to him in Latin -- call him "Carolus Darwin". See the first two sources cited by Iustinus above. Iustinus forgot to say what evidence his sources provide, and some of them are not available to internet users in Europe, so I have left it there and chosen Carolus Darwin. Anyone who has even better evidence, please quote it and move if necessary! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:36, 1 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
I checked, and all of the sources Iustinus provded have various declensions of "Carolus Darwin", with the surname unmodified. Lesgles (disputatio) 04:04, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Nomen est Carolus Darwinius annis 1893, 1895, 1899, et 1909. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:37, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)

Et Carolus Darvinius in hoc blog (2007) et in "Latinitas Recens (Speculum)". IacobusAmor (disputatio) 04:44, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to both. I can only see one of Iacobus's four citations (not his fault but a quirk of Google in Europe). My impression is (a) that people are more likely to employ Darwinius when using an oblique case and/or omitting his first name, and (b) that "Carolus Darwin" was the form most used in his lifetime. But the evidence for "Darwinius" is definitely strong enough to add it as alternative lemma, so I'll do that. "Darvinius" has much weaker support and can stay here in the disputatio. OK? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:56, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)
Fine with me. ¶ Using the unmarked Darwin for the nominative but then tacking endings on for the other cases has the same "feel" as what Latin already seems to do with quite a few third-declension nouns, e.g., consul, cor, lac, mel, sol. IacobusAmor (disputatio) 13:24, 5 Novembris 2015 (UTC)