Talk:March of Progress

Image copyright problem with File:EncinoMan.jpg

The image File:EncinoMan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits explanation

Hello,

There's been a small edit war over some edits I made and have been reverted. I'll explain why I made them here:

1. "March of Progress" should not be bolded in the image caption per WP:MOSBOLD: "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the article title, and often synonyms, in the lead section (first paragraph)." Not in image captions.
2. Saying the silhouette version "is still instantly recognizable" is an unsupported attribution per WP:WEASEL. It is a statement of opinion, and is not sourced.
3. Saying Stephen Jay Gould is the most "eminent" critic is a clear example of WP:PEACOCK. Just stick to the facts.
4. The creationist paragraph I removed because it paraphrases using WP:LABEL terms which were probably not used in the source. "Crude" and "propaganda" should only be put it in the article if you can find the exact quotation.

Thanks. InverseHypercube 18:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced much of the disputed text while avoiding the "objectionable" points cited above. While I think this moves the article towards the mediocre and bland, compared to the original, it seems a reasonable compromise. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the added information about Gould's book was irrelevant to his criticism of it. And again, describing him as "eminent" is puffery that does not belong on Wikipedia, and is specifically advised against in the MOS. I have, however, added a quotation from the book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach about Evolution is Wrong to show the specific criticism made. InverseHypercube 22:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I will concede the point on "eminent" (although few would dispute it)... However, I disagree that the other info about the Gould critique is "irrelevant to his criticism of it". It is relevent to his criticism and provides an interesting personal angle to it. It also provides context to the "meme" represented by the illustration design (political cartoons, uncertain origin of the image). It is pertinent, interesting, well documented... and I think it should stay. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, good. InverseHypercube 16:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Is there a name for the analogous image that is a leggy fish crawling out of the water, transforming into various animals and ending up as a fully formed human [often holding an iphone, basketball, champagne glass]?163.189.217.40 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Not likely. 214.2.208.246 (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1973 version of this painting

I have a copy of the Life Nature Library book "Early Man" which is copyrighted 1965, 1973. This illustration has significant differences from the 1965 version. It has 14 figures, vs 15 for the 1965 version, and the Dryopithecus figure is more erect. Most of the figures are unchanged. Should these facts be discussed in the article? HowardMorland (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, might be interesting to mention it... Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Parody

A popular parody of the silhouette version not mentioned in the article has the spear-hunter visually "back-evolve" into a more and more bent-down human, ending in a person slouching in front of a computer. I wonder where it first appeared. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

“Predecessor”

Should the image from the Mark Twain book really be seen and mentioned as a predecessor of March of Progress? I mean, they are vaguely similar, but apart from this: is there any evidence that Zallinger's illustration references or is inspired by the former (which is, to me, what the term “predecessor” implies)?--89.204.130.35 (talk) 19:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

"unintentionally and wrongly"

I can see why "orthogenesis" is misleading, and how the popular presentation may lead to misunderstandings, but there is no need for this type of sophistry. Don't assume your readers are children or illiterate yokels, they will not thank you for it. Yes, we can report that Gould pontificated about the image, but Gould himself isn't above criticism to say the least, and he isn't speaking in Wikipedia's voice. No, evolution isn't a "march of progess" in terms of day-to-day adaptation to whatever ecological niche presents itself, but it is also hard to argue with a straight face that, say, the cheetah is just as evolved as the flatworm, both being equally noble and majestic beasts, and this certainly isn't the place to make such an argument in a patronising tone in Wikipedia's voice. This page should stick to dryly reporting to whatever it is notable people have said about the image without editorializing. --dab (𒁳) 07:28, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your position, as you have made complex changes and deletions which I do not have time to evaluate. The tone of your statements above is not ideal for a talk page; I don't know who wrote the material you object to, but that is no way to address other editors. On some points you are certainly correct:

Tone should certainly be neutral, and statements should certainly be properly cited. Those requirements can often be met by copy-editing and by finding citations rather than by immediate deletion.

The current lead section is inadequate, not least because it totally fails to address the Criticism, Parodies, and Predecessors sections. The previous lead was however no better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I've edited the commentary for neutrality, and found more. We have Howell himself, Tucker, Gould, Wells, and Switek all commenting on the image and its iconography, with their varying opinions and approaches, which is approaching a reasonable balance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

source for the name "March of Progress"

If this illustration is more "properly called The Road to Homo Sapiens" as sourced in the article, where does the title "March of Progress" come from and why isn't the name of this article The Road to Homo Sapiens? —scarecroe (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Because "March of Progress" is what the image is widely known as, as cited in the article to Stephen Jay Gould (ref 4) and to Brian Switek in Scientific American (ref 8). I think this is sufficient, really, but we can look out some more citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

There's an extensive literature on "March of Progress". I've added 3 citations and a little more text on it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Chiswick, your edits are great for the purpose of showing the term is in currency, but they still don't answer the confusing mystery: when did this image stop going by the name "The Road to Homo Sapiens" and pick up the moniker "(the) march of progress"? The earliest source we have so far is Gould, was it him? I'm investigating Wonderful Life now to see if he refers to anything older. Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I expect that even if Gould was alive he wouldn't know if he'd created the term. Most likely it started informally and as authors like him began to mention it, it became the preferred form. So I'd say it makes little difference which author first mentioned it; we have evidence and we know the approximate time it became current. Beyond that, we'd be into Oxford English Dictionary research work to find the earliest instance, and we are not a dictionary. But if Gould mentions a source of course that'll be worth citing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Having looked through the book (digitally pirated copy of the first edition, I believe), I can confirm that Gould refers to it as the march of progress (never capitalized as a title) three times and as 'the "march of human progress"' once. In his index it appears as '"march of progress" illustrations [...]' three times. There's no indication he knew where it came from or that it had another title. I think Gould didn't know the origin of this 20th century meme and just referred to it by a conventional name someone had once said to him or that he himself picked. To go further out on a limb, I'd guess he originated the new name for it. I think this could be checked using some kind of google books or ngram search, probably.

Other fun facts I have discovered, which I note here so I don't have to rediscover them:

(1) the image wikipedia uses for this lists its source as https://web.archive.org/web/20110817172201/http://madartlab.com/2011/03/14/ai-have-we-made-progress which is clearly using a french copy of the book, so it is actually "sur la voie d'Homo sapiens" (although other english pictures confirm the English title).

(2) Gould definitely talks about the great chain of being in his section on this, much like that other guy currently listed in the article as talking about the great chain of being in relation to this image.

(3) https://www.google.com/books/edition/Keeping_in_Touch_With_Pragma_Dialectics/9OQz544uKeUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=march%20of%20progress opaquely states: 'As the image gained popularity, it acquired the name "March of Progress"'. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)