Historic Encyclopedias on Darwinism
Korean Minjok Leadership Academy
Table of Contents
October 19th 2009
October 19th 2009 . go to CSY's Log
(a) Catholic Encyclopedia is a name; therefore both words have to be capitalized. Systematically check all references
in your paper for this type of mistake.
(b) Encyclopaedia Britannica is spelled with ae instead of e; check and correct. Systematically throughout your paper
(c) chapter 3.1 This part, however, is supplemented by the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, published in 1911,
ends with a comma.
(d) ˇ¦Those have found little favour who brought to the debate only formal criticisms or amplifications of the Darwinian arguments,
or re-marshallings of the Darwinian facts, however ably conducted. The time has not yet come for the attempt to synthesize the results
of the many different and often apparently antagonistic groups of workers. The great work that is going on is the simplification of the
facts to be explained by grouping them under empirical laws; and the most general statement relating to these that can yet be made is
that no single one of these laws has as yet shown signs of taking rank as a vera causa comparable with the Darwinian principle of natural selectionˇ¦
Encyclopedia Britannica: Evolution (1911 edition) (9)
(9) Encyclopedia Britannica: Evolution (1911 edition)
Either eliminate the endnote or eliminate text reference to the Britannica after the quote, just leave the (9).
apply a solution systematically through your paper.
(a) divide your bibliography in primary and secondary sources
(b) you have separate chapter titles for every encyclopedia, except for the Catholic Encyclopedia. Don't you like it ?
(c) why this order of dealing with the encyclopedias ?
(a) The intention of this paper is to find out whether Darwinism was, without any particular biases, objectively written in 19th century
encyclopedias including Encyclopedia Britannica (1911 edition), Catholic encyclopedia (1907-1914 edition), Meyers Konversationslexicon
(1902-1909 edition), Nordisk Familijebok (1876-1899 edition) and Enciclopedia Moderna Illustrata (1905 edition).
No attempt to explain why you selected these encyclopedias; Jewish Encyclopedia not listed
(b) Your conclusion you could have written without having looked into these encyclopedias.
There is no attempt to compare the coverage of the individual encyclopedias.
Look at http://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1011/g2/jisoo2.html (a paper written by a sophomore) to see what you can do when
comparing encyclopedia articles.
(c) In your email you ask if it would make sense to include Korean or Japanese encyclopedias in your research. I rather think,
try get a hold of the 9th and 8th editions of the Britannica (Korean university libraries ?); see when Darwinism and Evolution
coverage begins in the Britannica.
(d) bibliography : Enciclopedia Moderna Illustrata, 1905 edition
Dottor Francesco Vallardi, Piccolo Lexicon Vallardi, 1905
article(s) not specified
For EVERY encyclopedia please give information on the specific article.
Overall : fix the many 'cosmetic' corrections; if you have the opportunity, hunt for Britannica 8th, 9th editions;
completely reorganize the conclusion.