Talk:Alexander von Humboldt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Founder of biogeography

I don't have a problem with the biogeography statement in principle, but the same would apply to a number of other disciplines as well. I think it should not go into the opening statemet, otherwise all other fields he founded would have to be mentioned as well. It would be better under a separate, new statement like summary of achievements. --Carboxen 07:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"Introduction"

Everything in the so-called introduction, things and places named after him etc., should come at the end, after the actual biography. Any reason this section is where it is now? u p p l a n d 13:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you and moved that so-called introduction to the end of the article. Thanks, Madman 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Misleading information

According to a book I’ve read, the first person to propose that the lands bordering the Atlantic were once joined (South America and Africa in particular), was actually a Dutch map-maker Abraham Orelius in 1596. The book also asserts that the second person to claim this was Sir Fancis Bacon in 1620. Perhaps the statement (“first to propose that the lands bordering the Atlantic were once joined”) is too vague and is thus incorrect. I will not remove it because I am unsure of the specifics; but if anyone else agrees, then reword or remove it. TDBSW 17:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Umm … I’m too impatient, I just reworded it; change it back if you like. Perhaps he was the first form his country to propose this, but I just changed it to “one of the first”. TDBSW 07:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

POV/Citation Issues

Though well written, the article is absolutely filled with value judgements that really have no place in wikipeida. The most glaring one comes at the end of the article:

'After every deduction has been made, he yet stands before us as a colossal figure, not unworthy to take his place beside Goethe as the representative of the scientific side of the culture of his country.'

If someone notable said it, or there's some sort of reputable source conveying a similar sentiment, I think the article would be improved by leaving it. However, if it's just a personal assessment, it (regretably) needs to be removed, along with the other POV statements. I'll do some research on it and be back in a few days hence, either to add proper citation or delete unsourced/unsourcable statements. Anyone with similar (or different) inclinations is welcome to assist. Detruncate 04:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That line sounds like it came from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, which was the starting point for this article. You should feel free to just instantly nuke stuff like that.--ragesoss 04:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1964-DDR-5.jpg

Image:1964-DDR-5.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Alexander von Humboldt Portal: Google Earth/ Wikipedia global

http://de.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kosmos_%28Humboldt%29

"„Ich habe den tollen Einfall, die ganze materielle Welt, alles was wir heute von den Erscheinungen der Himmelsräume und des Erdenlebens, von den Nebelsternen bis zur Geographie der Moose auf den Granitfelsen, wissen, alles in Einem Werke darzustellen, und in einem Werke, das zugleich in lebendiger Sprache anregt und das Gemüth ergötzt. Jede große und wichtige Idee, die irgendwo aufgeglimmt, muß neben den Thatsachen hier verzeichnet sein. Es muß eine Epoche der geistigen Entwickelung der Menschheit (in ihrem Wissen von der Natur) darstellen.“ „Das Ganze ist nicht was man gemeinhin physikalische Erdbeschreibung nennt, es begreift Himmel und Erde, alles Geschaffene.“(Humboldt an Karl August Varnhagen von Ense, Berlin, 24. Oktober 1834. In: Briefe von Alexander von Humboldt an Varnhagen von Ense aus den Jahren 1827 bis 1858. [Hrsg. v. Ludmilla Assing]. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus 1860, S. 20 und 22.)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.11 (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Addition

There is also a private school in Montreal, Canada, named after Humboldt. It's called AVH Schule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.127.194 (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Humboldt or von Humboldt??

Sometimes in the article Alexander is referred to as Humboldt and other times as von Humboldt. We should standardize, but I don't know the rules that apply here. Madman 01:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For all I know, von Humboldt is preferable, because, strictly speaking, as in many other cases with nobility, it is equivalent to from or of Humboldt referring to the family castle (sometimes only imaginary, as it was in the case of von Linné). Taking von out of this combination we not only deny their noble status (which may well fit the egalitarian Zeitgeist of the 21st century) but also make some slight but meaningful difference (just like calling me Alexei St Petersburg instead of Alexei from/of St Petersburg). Calling him consistently by one of his personal names (Alexander) would be, probably, even better, but this will be too bold.

Nobility is largely an ancien regime institution and this cultural distance makes all the tricks less understandable for us. However if we eradicate all the clues, we undermine the very possibility to understand them at all. Alexei Kouprianov 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but it is quite normal to leave out the von when just mentioning the person by surname. (Think of Bismarck, Hindenburg, etc.) Insisting on using the von in such cases will just seem affected. When using given name and surname together, the von should always be included, unless the person him/herself didn't use it, or one is referring to a time before the person was ennobled. u p p l a n d 10:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I might note that both Darwin and Ingersol certainly just referred to him as "Humboldt" so we can safely say that people in the 19th Century referred to him without the "von" so there should be no problem with not using the "von." 68.97.15.166 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Distance of Orinoco journey

The article states that the Orinoco trip "covered 1,725 miles (2,776 km)". I can't find any source for that number. Instead, Humboldt himself seems to have written 2250 km (http://www.humboldt-portal.de/sro.php?redid=11669), and 2250 also appears in the Penguin edition of his personal narrative (see page lxviii at http://books.google.com/books?id=p3sR0nv5BGsC). Does anybody have better sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan Matthiesen (talk • contribs) 09:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of "the bigotry without religion"

Under the subheading, Humboldt Acclaimed, I'm marking for clarification the phrase, "the bigotry without religion", because I can't imagine what this phrase might mean. Is this some archaic usage of these words, or something that got lost in translation? Downstrike (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alexander von Humboldt/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It has a wealth of information and all the bells and whistles except the connection between the text and the references is not well marked, and I think some of the material needs citations. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 19, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Picture of the day

An isothermal map of the world, based on the research of Alexander von Humboldt, a German naturalist whose work laid the foundation for the sciences of physical geography and meteorology, among other things. By delineating "isothermal lines", he simultaneously suggested the idea and devised the means of comparing the climatic conditions of various countries.Map: William C. Woodbridge; Restoration: Jujutacular and Lise Broer

Fame

It should be mentioned in the article that in his time, he was said to be the most famous man in Europe after Napoleon Bonaparte. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The title Freiherr

Actually Alexander (and Wilhelm) von Humboldt did not carry the title Freiherr. They used this name for themselves but the family got the title from the emperor Wilhelm I. not before 1875. Before 1806 the title had to come from the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and there is no record of this. It is also not reasonable that a Habsburgian emperor (at that time) may have given the title to a Prussian. -- Christian Jaeh (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

von Humboldt Married or Not?

This article both claims that von Humboldt was twice married and had two sons (see the first paragraph under the Early Life and Education heading) and that he was never married (see the 3rd paragraph under the heading Personal Life). Clearly, at least one of these claims is incorrect. Roewyn (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The reference in the first paragraph in Early Life is about Alexander's father. My understanding is that Alexander was never married. The paragraph in Early Life that concerns his father and mother is confusing, and it needs to be made clear that the first mention of "Humboldt" in the next paragraph is about Alexander. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I made several changes, which I hope clarifies things. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

von Humboldt is not married it is stated on many site that his is in fact NOT married — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:345F:4DF0:841A:C178:FFFB:22E0 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No, not married. You edited a paragraph about his father. I reverted your edit. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Humboldt|p003c1c2}}.

   OK, do i get extra cookie credit for moving the section heading from talk:Humboldt? (Sure hope the program is not about his father, 'coz then i think his father prolly gets my cookies.) Ooh, cool! Same template goes on the page, and probably (what's the fancy word for development word for "unfolding", not exfoliates, not not extrapolates), uh, oh, hell eviscerates, differently in that environment! Mebbe same template deliver coookies!) (How about extra cookie-credit for putting up with "it" counterintuitively referring to neither the "the appropriate talk page" nor the episode, but probably to the apparently unmentionable template that probably goes on the article page.... I'm gonna find my own f'ing cookies and go to bed with them.)
--Jerzy•t 12:15 & :48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

   In the end, i edited only the talk pages, and am going on my way. Looks to me like i arrived too late for cookies, probably would have done something redundant by editing the article, and might have made a mess as well.
Jerzy•t 12:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Short footnotes broken

Sometime between 28 February 2017 and 26 June 2017, an editor broke most or all of the short footnotes. Click, for example, on "Wulf 2015" in note 19, and you will see that it does not link to anything. These links were working in February. Someone might want to restore the previous reference formatting or set up new links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alexander von Humboldt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310235811/http://www.inveas.org.ve/noticias.asp?id=20 to http://www.inveas.org.ve/noticias.asp?id=20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Category "LGBT Christian"? - Innacurate

I wonder what was this category doing in the article.

On the one hand, the article does not have any factual proof, quote, or direct historical statement, to afirm that Humbolt was indeed homosexual. In the own words of the author of Colonialism and Homosexuality, Robert F. Aldrich, whether Humboldt was homosexual or not, "a definite answer is impossible." They are only speculations, and a pair of unproven spoken accounts are not enoough for a serious article, I believe. I think there is not sufficient evidence to affirm that Humboldt was gay, so I remove the category. Only with the evidence available in this article, he would be better classified among the category of the "suspected of".

On the other hand, the question of whether he was a Christian, I've just researched and finished the section of his religion, showing what I found. In view of the evidence, I would say that what he wrote shows his respect for Christianity and other religions. We might speculate and say he might have simpathized with Liberal Christianity/Unitarianism/Deism, but I couldn't find any place in which he stated the belief in Christ as Savior or Messiah, the basic tennet of all Christians. So there is neither sufficient evidence to affirm that Humboldt was a Christian. If there is further evidence, I would love to know it. But only with the evidence available in this article, he would be better classified among the category of theists. --Goose friend (talk) 06:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course you're right. But he was homosexual. Anyway not heterosexual. Frimoussou (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

any proof other than hersay?18:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.192.147.102 (talk)

Air

Fun fact. Just sharing.
"...a Berlin paper relates how AvH once took advantage of the exemption from duty (taxes) of the covering of articles free from duty, formerly if not now the rile in France. In the year 1805, he and Guy Lussac were in Partis engaged in their experiments on the composition of air. The two scientists found themselves in need of a large number of glass tubes. This article was exceedingly dear in France at the time, and the rate of impost upon imported glass tubes was something alarming. Humblodt sent an order to Germany for the needed articles, and gave directions that the manufacturer should seal up the tubes at both ends and put a label upon each tube with the words "Deutche Luft" (German air). The air of Germany was an article upon which there was no duty, and the tubes were passed by the customs officers without any demand, and arrived free of duty in the hands of the two experimenters"
Scientific American, 11-Feb-1882, pp 85, https://books.google.com/books?id=zoE9AQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=carbonic%20oxide&f=false
SloppyTots (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)