Talk:Carolus Linnaeus
From Academic Kids
Great to have images. However is the image really in the public domain.
[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/ihmfact.html Fact Sheet Images from the History of Medicine (IHM)] says
The Images from the History of Medicine (IHM) database is a catalog of the prints and photographs collection of the National Library of Medicine (NLM). The purpose of the database is to assist users in finding illustrative material for private study, scholarship, and research. The NLM does not own the copyright to the images in the database, nor do we charge access or permission fees for their use. We do request, however, that published images include the credit line "Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine."
Since the NLM does not own the copyright to the images, it is the responsibility of anyone using the database, or ordering reproductions based on information in it, to ensure that the use of this material is in compliance with the U. S. Copyright law (Title 17, United States Code).
If the image in the article is in fact PD we need a more precise reference.
-- Di Stroppo
I looked at the "Copyright and privacy notice" page, where it says:
Copyright Status: Most information at this site is in the public domain. Unless otherwise stated, these documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific, educational or personal purposes. However, you may encounter documents or portions of documents contributed by private companies or organizations. Other parties may retain all rights to publish or reproduce these documents. Commercial use of the documents on this site may be protected under U.S. and foreign copyright laws.
If you list the images of someone, it can say "you need permission from xyz" or something. I didn't use these. I think that's good enough? --Magnus Manske
- " The group "mammalia" are named for their breasts because he wanted to encourage women to breast-feed their infants. "
Didn't I see this on Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense? What's the scoop? - Montréalais
Source for my edit: Lucy's Legacy (http://www.hup.harvard.edu/reviews/JOLLUC_R.html) by Allison Jolly, page 70. Cyan 02:29, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Could someone please put a redirect from Linné and von Linné here? I had trouble finding Linnaeus, wasn't expecting the latin name for a Swedish guy.
You can do so yourself. Simply create the appropriate red links (as I have done above), then place the text "#redirect [[Carolus Linnaeus]]" in the edit box and save. -- Cyan 00:05, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Didn't know that, thanks. I guess I should do Carl von Linné too. Ok, that one was there already.
| Contents |
The Real Name of Carolus Linnaeus
As I was researching for my Anthropology class I noticed that you have this famous man as born Carolus Linnaeus, and later changing his name to Carl von Linne. There was some controversy over the real name of this man, so I looked it up. On May 23, 1707, Nils Ingemarsson Linnaeus and wife gave birth to a son and named him Carl Linnaeus. I was sure that it was going to be von Linne...a perfectly Swedish sounding name...but the family name was Linnaeus. And his first given name was originally Carl. Just thought I'd let you all know!!
Krista Hobbs
- As Linnaeus father entered the seminary at Lund University, to become a priest he needed a surname in order to register at the university. Nils, who was the son of Ingemar, carried the patronym Ingermarsson, but that was not considered a proper surname nor befitting a man of the cloth. The established practice cases like this was to take the name of the place of birth, often a family farm or village, rewriting it to latin form creating a new surname. As parish priests in Sweden, after reformation, typically were recruited out of peasantry their families and decendants would carry latinized surnames. As the surnames was latinized the same practice was also frequently, but not consistently, applied to personal names; where Nils would become Nicolaus and Carl became Carolus.
- When Carl Linnaeus was enobled however his name was rewritten to the Germanized style common among the aristocracy and he became "Carl von Linné". The root for all this was the linden tree that once had named the family farm "Linnagården", literally "The Linden Farm". -- Mic 18:39, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about mucking up the name thing; I somehow completely failed to see this discussion here and was under the mistaken impression that Linné was the original form, Latinized to Linnaeus—like Georg Bauer wrote as Georgius Agricola. I hope the way I left it is clear. —Tkinias 17:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Addendum: I added a brief discussion of the surname to the end of the biography section to avoid anyone else making my mistake. —Tkinias 17:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Removed Comment
I removed the comment below. This is a famous quotation from another Swedish poet, Erik Axel Karlfeldt, about the fictional character Fridolin. Of course, Tegnér may have quoted Karlfeldt when writing about Linnaeus, but it seems more likely that this is a misunderstanding.
- Linnaeus was said to be a man of great social skills. Esaias Tegnér said about him that "he talked to peasants in the words of peasants and to the scholars he talked in Latin".
Bvalltu 10:13, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just a notion: One of my lectors who is one of Sweden's most famous experts on Linnaeus claims that Fara's book is highly unreliable and that it contains lots of misunderstandings. --81.225.24.134 03:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"The last strikes us as somewhat odd, but the theory of evolution was still a long time away— and indeed, the Lutheran Linnaeus would have been horrified by it."
Should there be a clarification of "Lutheran" here? In modern times in the Nordic countries, the Lutheran faith is perceived as being quite open and liberal. However, in the US I believe Lutheran can mean several more conservative things, depending on which particular Lutheran church the reader has been in contact with. In addition to this, the Nordic Lutheran churches at the time were probably quite different from the ones we have now.
I don't have the necessary sources to determine this, so someone else will have to look into this. Another option would be to remove the quoted part entirely, since it is a bit speculative. --130.232.120.145 23:46, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it's speculative. How do we know CL would have been "horrified" by Darwin's theory? Unless there is some evidence he reacted to early evelutionary ideas, this should be removed. Also, seeing minerals as part of a Kingdom of classification is not odd if "Kingdom" is seen as a separate realm, as he evidently did.
Questions
Someone should write what creatures did Linnaeus classify. Did he classify bacteria? How did he classify them?
Concept of races
Not everyone will go to the page about races, so it should be explicitely stated in this article that the concept of races has been completely overthrown. The word skewed refers only to Linnaeus's understanding of races. --Eleassar777 23:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I assume your motivation is to fight against racism, which is a very worthy cause, and you have my full support for this cause.
However, I think your edit is not helpful for this cause, and it contradicts Wikipedia policy for the following reasons:
- This is an article about Carolus Linnaeus, not about general concepts of race. Race only should be discussed here with regard to Linnaeus's understanding of races.
- The general discussion about race, and about the validity of this concept, is already covered in the appropriate article race.
- The article race does not support your point of view "that the concept of races has been completely overthrown".
- That statement is therefore a personal point of view, which should not appear in a Wikipedia article. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". [1] (http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008096.html)
Please note that I am not arguing for the opposite of your statement. All I am saying is that this article should be written such that the controversy remains on the appropriate place. For the purposes of Wikipedia, no point of view is better than a, however laudable, personal point of view. This is in compliance with NPOV policy, which states:
- The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state [...] that any particular view at all is correct.
- Those who harbor racism, sexism, etc., will not be convinced to change their views based on a biased article, which only puts them on the defensive; on the other hand, if we make a concerted effort to apply our non-bias policy consistently, we might give those with morally repugnant beliefs insight that will change those views.
Please, let’s not start a Reversion war. From Edit war:
- "Reversion wars" between two competing individuals are against Wikipedia's spirit, reflect badly on both participants.
As a compromise, I would agree if you wrote “controversial” instead, even though I still feel that this carries a POV discussion on the wrong page.
I, too, am strongly for equal rights and equal opportunities and I believe the fight has to go on. In fact, my belief is so firm that it does not depend on biologic definitions. My conviction will not change, regardless of what differences science may find. I believe that those who close their eyes to reality always will fail in the end. We need to keep our eyes open, and not act with kneejerk reflexes when we see certain trigger words.
Sebastian 01:25, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)
Can someone provide numbers on how many animals/plants etc Linnaeus himself classified? Phaust 07:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
