Talk:The Origin of Species: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Ro Thorpe (→Title) |
imported>Anthony.Sebastian (→Title: respond Ro and John) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Everyone calls this 'The Origin...' and the article says the original full title also omits 'On'. So why the artificial title 'On the...'? I tried moving it, but it was immediately moved back. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC) - during the writing of which, it was moved back... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | Everyone calls this 'The Origin...' and the article says the original full title also omits 'On'. So why the artificial title 'On the...'? I tried moving it, but it was immediately moved back. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC) - during the writing of which, it was moved back... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
:The first five editions were titled ''On the Origin of Species...''. The sixth and final edition omitted it. The first edition is often regarded as making the most powerful case, so I wonder if the title of this article should include the 'On'. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
::The sixth edition has been most frequently republished, hence the common, but not invariable, use of "The Origin...". If this article is to be about the book, it should include a discussion of the differences among the six editions, since that would be relevant to 'the book', which had revised editions. The changes Darwin made after the first edition are quite remarkable. | |||
::Personally, I would title the article "On the origin of species", as that title was the bombshell, and the one he used for five of six editions. Because "The Origin..." is more declarative, it is interesting to speculate that Darwin's level of confidence and sense of authority motivated him to drop the "On". The current title could remain as a redirect to the retitled article. Thus "The Origin of Species" and "Origin of Species" could redirect to "On the Origin of Species". —[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 05:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:08, 5 December 2010
Title
Everyone calls this 'The Origin...' and the article says the original full title also omits 'On'. So why the artificial title 'On the...'? I tried moving it, but it was immediately moved back. Ro Thorpe 18:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC) - during the writing of which, it was moved back... Ro Thorpe 18:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- The first five editions were titled On the Origin of Species.... The sixth and final edition omitted it. The first edition is often regarded as making the most powerful case, so I wonder if the title of this article should include the 'On'. John Stephenson 05:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- The sixth edition has been most frequently republished, hence the common, but not invariable, use of "The Origin...". If this article is to be about the book, it should include a discussion of the differences among the six editions, since that would be relevant to 'the book', which had revised editions. The changes Darwin made after the first edition are quite remarkable.
- Personally, I would title the article "On the origin of species", as that title was the bombshell, and the one he used for five of six editions. Because "The Origin..." is more declarative, it is interesting to speculate that Darwin's level of confidence and sense of authority motivated him to drop the "On". The current title could remain as a redirect to the retitled article. Thus "The Origin of Species" and "Origin of Species" could redirect to "On the Origin of Species". —Anthony.Sebastian 05:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)