User talk:Blankslatestudios

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Blankslatestudios, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers, and some key policies and guidelines:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

..dave souza, talk 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, judging by your user name and your recent edit to Charles Darwin's views on religion there may be a case here of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and adverts for DVDs are a problem which is discussed in more detail in Wikipedia:Spam. However, as that guidance suggests, if the analysis in the film could be used to improve the article, relevant points could be added to the appropriate section of the article and the film cited as a reliable source – because of the possible conflict of interest it would be best to discuss the idea on the article talk page first, and as Darwin's writings are available online it would be appropriate to cite them directly in addition to the analysis in the film of their implications. Hope that helps, .. dave souza, talk 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Review and Synopsis, a couple of questions come up: in Spring, "embarks on the HMS Beagle voyage full of faith in God and the Bible" seems a bit of an exaggeration, as he'd had concerns in Wales about how strong his faith was, and by that time saw problems with the Old Testament accounts of the rainbow and the tower of Babel, according to his autobiography. In Summer saying he was now a deist goes rather against him later saying he deserves to be called a theist - though this may be due to modern interpretation of the words. Where does "unhappy consequences of publishing a theory that rejects a literal understanding of Genesis; so, considerate of family and religious friends, he has decided to publish only posthumously" come from? His clerical friends dismissed a literal understanding of the Genesis age of the Earth, though they firmly rejected evolution. Having written his essay to be published if he died prematurely, he discussed it with those friends and my understanding is that his delay was due to determination to build a solid case rather than concerns about their feelings. Fall seems to show Annie's death well out of sequence, and Ernst Haeckel's Darwinismus was apparently opposed to natural selection, being based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics we'd now call Lamarckism. Is there any evidence for Emma Darwin making "pleas for him to reconsider his position"? Perhaps these are misunderstandings in the synopsis, or I've picked up things wrongly from the usual sources and would welcome correction. .. dave souza, talk 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)