Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 14

Neutrality

 * ''Old discussion reopened, see Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 11 for context and subsequent discussions

First of all, I am an evolutionist myself, so let it be clear that there's no bias on my part. However, several aspects about the article are an obvious violation of the neutrality expected from an encyclopedia. The phrase "the fact that evolution occurs," for example, is meant purely as a childish challenge towards non-evolutionists, and nothing else. It does not contribute to the quality of the article, offers no information, and will merely serve to increase the schism. The only thing that will be achieved by this is to exasperate non-evolutionists, so that they might not even read further and remain in ignorance about the evolutionary point of view. Many of the people who visit this article may themselves be creationists in doubt of their opinion, and just as they might come to greater open-mindedness, they are put off by the equally biassed opinion of the evolutionists who wrote the article. Whether the theory of evolution is true or not does not matter: as long as we are dealing with theories which are not universally accepted, we should be speaking in terms of these. As long as there are several beliefs, we should, as an encyclopedia, represent each belief. As long as there are people who do not believe a certain theory, we should encourage them to be open to all points of view. This is not a way of "hiding things": removing this does not retract anything from the information offered by the article. On the contrary, by avoiding to take sides, people will be more likely to accept the information we offer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypernovic (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Evolution is validated by strong evidence, hence fact. Surely people dont need to confirm "some people speculate on the theory that the sky might be above us"...it is obvious, supported by heavy evidence, and in all eyes but the staunch religious minded, mainstream. I for one dont feel the need to state the fact that water is a liquid without having to word it correctly in order to please a minority group who belive that water is a metal.
 * No theory, fact or other, can ever be belived 100%...there will always be those who oppose it. Some people beove the world is flat, some that there is no universe other than earth. If the neutrality balance is changed to suit the stubborn few, then we unbalance it as we are no longer neutral but in bias for the few. It isn't taking sides, but stating the obvious. DarkMithras 31/3/2010


 * "[I}t is obvious" is probably the sort of thing taken issue with here. It is not "obvious" in some objective sense.  If it were, there would be no controversy.  While I agree with you that we can't wait for 100% universal acceptance because no such thing exists, the point is that we cannot treat biological evolution as a truism as long as there is a large and vocal body of people who don't see it that way.  It would be foolish to give a platform to every point of view because every point of view isn't legitimate simply by virtue of its existence.  Scientific consensus is the most reliable point of view when dealing with this scientific topic.  However, this is a question of tone, not content.  The tone reflected in the claim that biological evolution is as plainly obvious to everyone as the liquid, non-metallic (not mutually exclusive properties, mind) nature of water or the relative position of the sky to the Earth (both things that are obvious from simple and basic visual and tactile observation, as opposed to the intensive study of millenia-long trends unobservable to the naked eye) is the sort of provocative arrogance that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. Prolefeedprocessor (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether it's obvious or not, we can make necessary assumptions here and leave the debate to the appropriate detailed pages. Also note that "the fact that evolution occurs" no longer appears in the article, the lead has been carefully rephrased after considerable discussion. . dave souza, talk 09:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of extending this unproductive discussion I will reinforce Dave's point by stating that the core problem with your argument is "If it were, there would be no controversy". Wikipedia policies like WP:UNDUE require articles to reflect the the opinion of experts in the relevant fields, not the opinions of the genral public. As long as the consensus of the vast majority of working biologists and historians of science (as reflected in the contents of articles published in peer reviewed journals) is that "Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature." then it is acceptable to state that fact in an article regardless of what kind of debate might be occuring in non-scientific circles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You can add to this statements like:"He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species." - The issue would be with "compelling evidence". As a matter of fact there was no "compelling evidence" for evolution in that book and no honest biologist would say so. While many statements in his book are certainly factual statements, evolution as way of originating new species is only the interpretation of Charles Darwin for what he observed. So I suggest at least the adjective compeling should be removed or the whole sentence be rephrased --41.15.40.25 (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is at variance with the clear statement of the two expert published sources showing that Darwin's contemporaries found it compelling evidence that evolution occurred. This accurately summarises the impact of Darwin's publications, in a concise way suitable for the lead. How species originated took rather longer to resolve, as the article shows. . . dave souza, talk 20:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I too am an evolutionist, but I find the construction "the fact that evolution occurs" to be the locution of an amateur, and one with an axe to grind at that. It is not a good style to adopt, and out of keeping with the rest of the page, which is of a high standard. I agree fully that evolution is as much a "fact" as the theory of atoms, but there is no need to lead with the chin, and the result has a shrill militancy to it, which is not the encylopedic way. Let us leave that kind of writing to Conservapedia. I looked for the phrase to revise or delete it, and was happy to see that someone had already done that. Good work, and let us never allow our understandable irritation with fundamentalists to lead to text with an unpleasant undertaste of didacticism, here or in any other page devoted to related matters. Myles325a (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

heavy ip vandalism
Seems like this article should be semi protected. de Bivort 18:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We're evidently trying out pending changes, which means that the vandalism has no visible effect for non-logged-in users. Don't know whether this is a good idea or not. . dave souza, talk 18:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The pending changes test has ended on a lot of articles I monitor. I wonder why not here. de Bivort 19:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The pending changes test is over, but the application of pending change review to affected articles was not lifted automatically when the test concluded. I have now asked for the article to be semi-protected again.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Amatulic has restored semi-protection, many thanks to Amatulic and everyone for reviewing this. Hope the vandals don't now stray onto less well watched articles, not very sure myself where to strike the best balance between protection and welcoming newbies, but semi certainly makes life quieter on this article. . . dave souza, talk 17:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Darwin inbreeding study
There is a new paper published in Bioscience regarding inbreeding depression in the Darwin/Wedgwood dynasty... This new information should be commented in the Darwin input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.81.43 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * NB this was pasted over content, I reverted the edit then copied the added text to a new section Je b us 9 8 9  ✰ 12:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no doubt when this becomes available it can be used as a source for improving the Darwin–Wedgwood family article, and may have some relevance to Charles Darwin's health. . . dave souza, talk 13:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at that study and the conclusions are rather limited when you actually read them, as opposed to the media's version. 贾宝玉 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at the study but I find it very unlikely that inbreeding had anything to do with Charles' health (having one set of grandparents being third cousins is hardly inbreeding and probably wouldn't have even been noticed except that they both had the same family name). His children might be a different matter and that of some of their cousins (I wonder how the study handled the children of Fanny Macintosh who did marry her first cousin but was also known to be having an affair with a non-blood relation [though a relation several times over by marriage])--Erp (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The study's most widely cited conclusions concerned Darwin's children. They might be relevant on the page about the Darwin-Wedgwood clan, but be careful to use the actual journal article as the source. 贾宝玉 (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I’m Francisco C. Ceballos, one of the authors of “Was the Darwin/Wedgwood Dynasty Adversely Affected by Consanguinity?” Our paper confirms Darwin´s fear; the Darwin/Wedgwood dynasty clearly showed Inbreeding depression in survival of their offspring. According to our findings and based on the scientific bibliography over inbreeding effects, we can claim that Charles and Emma family suffered from inbreeding depression too. In my opinion this information should be added to “Darwin´s Children” chapter. For further information or if you want a copy of our paper please contact me at: Francisco.ceballos@usc.es —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.81.43 (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This paper is about the Darwin/Wedgwood dynasty broadly, so I suggest adding it to Darwin-Wedgwood family. (Those unfamiliar may see here for a good summary.) It could perhaps be added here too but most of the sources here seem to be high-level secondary or tertiary sources and so I'm leaning toward waiting until it is cited in one of those. —贾宝玉 (user • talk • contribs) 14:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It´s Francisco again. For a good summary I suggest here or here. Science Daily and The New York Times are rigorous sources. I agree that this new light over the Darwin/Wedgwood pedigree has to be first added to the corresponding wiki-entry. However it should be addressed in “Darwin´s Children” too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.81.43 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Darwin is right
i think that darwin is right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.172.193 (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was right about many things, though he did get some wrong. I think we've covered that reasonably well in the article. . dave souza, talk 20:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? 贾宝玉 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC) (kidding)
 * Well, we mention his greatest blunder and his unsuccessful hypothesis, both briefly noted in this very concise overview. Who can be sure? . . dave souza, talk 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

have did he died wasx he sick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.4.102 (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Full gory details here and in the next section, diagnosed as Angina pectoris. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Influenced?
Why isn't Richard Dawkins listed under the influenced section? He's only the biggest name in all of modern evolutionary biology. --96.253.50.139 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One suspects that even RD wouldn't say that, but I make no claim to expertise in evaluating biologists. More to the point, Template:Infobox scientist – "influenced List names of any notable people who were significantly influenced by the scientist. The intention is to only list those that were influenced by physical contact with the scientist. Only list those who are notable enough to warrant a wiki article." RD is rather young to have had physical contact with CD. . . dave souza, talk 20:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I would probably say directly and significantly influenced such as students or colleagues. Given that much of Darwin's immediate influence was by letter writing not physical interaction, I wouldn't make physical contact a key point.  One cannot include RD because then one would have to include every single modern evolutionary biologist with a wikipedia page.   --Erp (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

perhaps another important influenced evolutionist could be Florentino Ameghino []. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francois serra (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He might, but there's no evidence there that he met or corresponded much with Darwin, and the influence is less notable than, for example, on Romanes. Thanks for the info, dave souza, talk 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

David Hume
Hume's philosophical ideas were exceptional for pre-evolution thought. He was easily one of Darwin's greatest influences. On the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page for Hume it states: "Charles Darwin counted Hume as a central influence, as did “Darwin's bulldog,” Thomas Henry Huxley. The diverse directions in which these writers took what they gleaned from reading Hume reflect not only the richness of their sources but also the wide range of his empiricism." I don't understand why David Hume and William Paley are not listed as influencing Darwin. This page is deprived of important information by leaving that out! It doesn't even mention Hume once. It's also one thing not to mention Rousseau on Darwin's page, but leaving Hume's name out is just blasphemy! --Caute AF (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of people influence a well-read person such as Darwin, and it is quite reasonable to list only those who specifically influenced Darwin's scientific achievements. However, the main point is that the documentation for Infobox scientist includes: Do not insert those influences that were not in person (e.g. via study of works or books) as this is more tenuous and there are generally too many for each scientist. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is crap. I'm telling you, it leads to the loss of available knowledge to people who look at the pages of scientists rather than philosophers, since the pages of philosophers on wikipedia list a reasonable amount of influence, which many people find helpful. --Caute AF (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] ::I also don't think Hume should be in; the case with Huxley is different: he wrote a book on Hume, and was interested in philosophy. Personally, I would not have listed Herschel, but would have considered Malthus, Paley, Lamark and Erasmus D. (all from their published works). I am pretty sure Malthus should be in the list. The evidence is good that CD and Wallace both read and remembered the Essay on the Principle of Population. Hmm... I seem to be suggesting only people he didn't meet face to face. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Googling shows that many people say Hume significantly influenced Darwin, but I wonder how justified those statements are. Here are three interesting sites: Stanford (mentioned above), Rough Guide, History of Ideas. The Stanford page includes "Charles Darwin counted Hume as a central influence" but it does not seem to justify that statement (although I have only very quickly skimmed it). Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Having had a look at the Rough Guide info, it seems fair to say that Hume strongly influenced Paley, who in turn had a significant influence on Darwin, and Darwin read Hume when considering responses to Paley. Both were unavailable for any direct discussion with Darwin. . . dave souza, talk 10:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Humboldt and Herschel
In Darwin's own words, "During my last year at Cambridge I read with care and profound interest Humboldt's Personal Narrative. This work and Sir J. Herschel's Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy stirred up in me a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science. No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much as these two." As the article notes, Darwin met Herschel at the Cape of Good Hope, Freeman says "CD also dined with him in London." Darwin had contact with Humboldt through correspondence; in 1839 a letter of praise stirred in Darwin the reply with thanks "That the author of those passages in the Personal Narrative, which I have read over and over again, & have copied out, that they might ever be present in my mind, should have so honoured me, is a gratification of a kind, which can but seldom happen to anyone." . . dave souza, talk 10:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Adding to that, Freeman notes Humboldt as: "German naturalist and traveller. CD once met, when CD was resident in London, at Murchison's house." . . dave souza, talk 10:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC) undefined

"Darwin and Homeopathy "
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/nep168 "Darwin grew to appreciate water cure, but remained skeptical of homeopathy, even though his own experiments on insectivore plants using what can be described as homeopathic doses of ammonia salts surprised and shocked him with their significant biological effect. Darwin even expressed concern that he should publish these results. Two of Darwin's sons were as incredulous as he was, but their observations confirmed the results of his experiments. Darwin was also known to have read a book on evolution written by a homeopathic physician that Darwin described as similar to his own but ‘goes much deeper.’

Is that useful?--BeatriceX (talk) 05:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is one reference in a rather obscure small journal that mostly deals in pseudoscience, which homeopathy is. I'm not sure that this material is appropriate for his page, unless more references can be established that establish that this was a rather large part of his life or beliefs or he published papers on it or something beyond what mostly looks like speculation to try to bolster a pseudoscience then I don't think we need to even address it. —  raeky t  06:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Is this an obscure small journal ? http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/nep168. 2. Isn't interesting for the readers to see what Darwin was thinking of all the above? Homeopathy hydrotherapy and why he found amazing the results of the experiment with drosera?  He had his sons replicate his study for many years. Is not that notable - even without connection to homeopathy? --BeatriceX (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * 120K+ bytes means any additions must be well justified. The abstract does not list sources, so anything in our page would need page references to reliable sources, especially "goes much deeper". This abstract is not by itself reliable enough. He was certainly treated by Gully. Probably best to consider it for Charles Darwin's health. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/7/1/33 this is the entire article with references. Darwin experiments about drosera should have a place since he had his sons replicate them and he was so astonished by the results. --BeatriceX (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I cannot find a letter to Gray of August 20, 1862 in the Darwin Correspondence Project. His letter of 21 August does not contain the passage quoted. Probably there is a simple explanation of this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The quotation does not come from a letter to Gray, but is sourced from the introduction to the letters of 1862 in Francis Darwin's The life and letters of Charles Darwin (see p. 383). The introduction starts by referring to a letter to Gray dated August 21st (which is possibly where the confusion arises), but it is clear from the source that the comment about the German homeopath is part of Francis's commentary about "an example of the odd letters he received" - i.e. it is a note about the contents of a letter Darwin had received.  This becomes even more obvious in the original source of the comment, a postscript to a letter to Joseph Hooker dated 16 January 1862: "P.S. The letter with curious address forwarded by Mrs Hooker was from a German Homœopathic Doctor—an ardent admirer of the Origin—had himself published nearly the same sort of book, but goes much deeper—explains the origin of plants & animals on the principles of Homœopathy or by the Law of Spirality— Book fell dead in Germany— Therefore would I translate it & publish it in England &c &c?!"  This is clearly an account of a letter received, and of an unreasonable request by the homeopath, rather than of a book Darwin had read.  There is no indication here that Darwin had read the book in question, or that he viewed the communication from this unnamed "German Homœopathic Doctor" as anything more than an "odd letter". Brunton (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that Darwin's experiments with Drosera had anything to do with homoeopathy. Homoeopathy itself, or the principle of "like cures like", is not mentioned; the solutions used were not prepared by serial dilution with succussion, which appears to be essential in the preparation of dilute homoeopathic remedies; the experiments established that the effect became smaller and more difficult to observe as concentration decreased, arriving at a point at which no effect was observed, thus contradicting the so-called "law of infinitesimals".  See Insectivorous Plants pp. 136-173.  Brunton (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The most important argument against high dilutions is that they have no biological effect on living organisms. Ullman says that Darwin dilutions are equivalent to 6x homeopathic dilutions which seems to be accurate. 6x dilutions are prescribed frequently in homeopathy. It shows that 6x dilutions (not shaken though ) might have an effect to a living organism something that impressed Darwin and had his sons replicate the experiment. All these do not prove homeopathy of course but they might say something about high dilutions which is part of the whole homeopathy debate. So I find it interesting for readers  who want to know about Darwin's adventures and fascinations in science. Isn't it?--BeatriceX (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This really doesn't warrant specific inclusion in this article, because it is not that important a finding. 6X is not a particularly high dilution in homoeopathic terms, and it is uncontroversial that some substances can have effects in dilutions of around 1 part per million.  But I fear that we're going off-topic as far as an article about Darwin is concerned.  Brunton (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, take it to a homeopathy related article if you must. It doesn't belong here. Medical science was in a very different state in Darwin's time, and to isolate one particular piece of casual research out of many he no doubt performed is inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that accurate information  on experiments which fascinated Darwin and his sons for so many years  on a such controversial topic like high dilutions  have a place in a encyclopedia article. I don't know why it is not appropriate to  inform readers about these facts.  --BeatriceX (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with why we have an article on Darwin. His possible interest in homeopathy is not what he is notable for. HiLo48 (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read his actual experiments? It's linked further up in this topic. What evidence do you have besides this one article in the insignificant journal to backup the assertion that this "fascinated Darwin and his sons for so many years"? —  raeky t  05:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The most important argument against high dilutions is that they have no biological effect on living organisms. Ullman says that Darwin dilutions are equivalent to 6x homeopathic dilutions which seems to be accurate. 6x dilutions are prescribed frequently in homeopathy." A 6X dilution will still have appreciable amounts of the starting material present - it is just a 1 in a million dilution.  The suggestion that some substances at this sort of dilution can have an effect on biological systems is entirely uncontroversial.  The dilutions that cause homoeopathy to be considered ridiculous are those of 24X/12C and beyond, which have none of the starting material present (although, of course, it has not been demonstrated to work even at lower dilutions).  Darwin found that far more concentrated solutions (i.e. only slightly more dilute than the solutions that Ullman mentions) had no effect on Drosera.  There is no support for homoeopathy here.  Brunton (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Darwin experiment on High Dilutions (Homeopathy thread continued)

 * I posted it above:

'''The reader will best realize this degree of dilution by remembering that 5,000 ounces would more than fill a thirty-one gallon cask [barrel]; and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added; only half a drachm, or thirty minims, of the solution being poured over a leaf. Yet this amount sufficed to cause the inflection of almost every tentacle, and often the blade of the leaf. ... My results were for a long time incredible, even to myself, and I anxiously sought for every source of error. ... The observations were repeated during several years. Two of my sons, who were as incredulous as myself, compared several lots of leaves simultaneously immersed in the weaker solutions and in water, and declared that there could be no doubt about the difference in their appearance. ... In fact every time that we perceive an odor, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves (p. 170)''' Darwin C. Insectivorous Plants ( 1875;) 173:. New York: D. Appleton & Co. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/insectivorous/insect_fm.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatriceX (talk • contribs) 05:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't mention homeopathy, Reminds me of an experiment often done by early years high school science students, using potassium permanganate solution. Nothing remarkable there at all. And it's mainstream science, not homeopathy. HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I m not talking about Homeopathy at this point. (Ullman made this connection -it seems valid in terms of numbers )I m talking about the experiment itself. You don't have to mention homeopathy to report it. --BeatriceX (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC):::
 * Did Darwin mention homeopathy? If not, just forget it. Any connection is tenuous. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to read what I wrote above . "I m not talking about Homeopathy at this point. (Ullman made this connection -it seems valid in terms of numbers )I m talking about the experiment itself. You don't have to mention homeopathy to report it".--BeatriceX (talk) 06:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Googling for "reader will best realize this degree of dilution" shows that there is a campaign to misuse Darwin to lend credibility to the concept of homeopathy (I suppose that's fair, since Darwin has been misused for lots of other things). If anyone can be bothered reading it (I didn't), here is what the Quackometer says about the issue.
 * Re the question asked here ("Is that useful?"): No. Darwin spent nearly his entire life investigating lots of issues, and apparently one of them involved the effect of a very dilute solution of a substance. That is not homeopathy. Per WP:DUE, there is no need to add the opinion of one person re what Darwin was doing (many reputable sources have written about Darwin; use what they have said, if anything). Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you keep responding to something I don't suggest. I said ( 3rd time I have to write it )  "I m not talking about Homeopathy at this point. (Ullman made this connection -it seems valid in terms of numbers  )I m talking about the experiment itself. You don't have to mention homeopathy to report it"  Darwin's fascination about these dilutions for several years does not have a place in an encyclopedia article on his work? That seems strange to me. Can you give me some reasons ?--BeatriceX (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But you WERE talking about homeopathy, until that was demonstrated to be a silly thing to even attempt to link Darwin with, and now you have stuck in a new section heading AFTER THE FACT, as if you never were. You are playing a tricky game here. Please take your little obsession elsewhere. Apart from yourself there's a pretty strong consensus here that your proposed content doesn't fit. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So, here's the big and important question, who, besides you, says that Ullman's article about Darwin's fascination with dilutions is significant to Darwin?
 * Please give me a citation to an article in a significant journal, better yet, a couple of journals and a book, that shows that Ullman connecting Darwin to dilutions/homeopathy, whichever you want, is significant to Darwin and should be mentioned in an article or biography about Darwin. I don't have to mention Ullman to report Darwin. And, this is an encyclopedia, so I can't really mention Ullman's article and decide its significance, someone else, in the literature, has to do that. As Johnuniq points out, Darwin did a lot of things. You want an article about everything he did? Write an Encyclopedia of Darwin. You want an article about Darwin and homeopathy? This seems to be the case. Write a blog about it. "Many reputable sources have written about Darwin." How many of these have written about his homeopathy? Please give some citations. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly try to be kind and don't be so emotional. You don't seem to be reading what I wrote. You know in dialogues, this is important.
 * There's nothing to be emotional about, but, your attempting to move away from the questions asked does not change the questions. Is there anyone besides you and Ullman, as promoters of homeopathy, who consider this to be relevant to Darwin? If not, please do not continue posting this on article talk pages. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I started a new thread because even if I wrote 3 times the same thing which you did not bother to read: - even if I find Ullman's article which is published in a reliable source- interesting,  my suggestion was to include this  piece of information about his experiments with high dilutions without mentioning homeopathy. The main reason is his fascination. about these experiments which lasted several years. I asked from people to justify their objections and you are telling me to leave the article and go to write a blog? Is this an appropriate response? Secondly "big and important question, who, besides you, says that Ullman's article about Darwin's fascination with dilutions is significant to Darwin?" Even if the question is kind of silly the answer is : Darwin himself -read above. Please.--BeatriceX (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's your first post, titled, by you, "Darwin and Homeopathy."
 * Revision as of 22:05, 24 December 2010 (edit) (undo)
 * BeatriceX (talk | contribs)
 * (→Humboldt and Herschel: Darwin and Homeopathy)
 * So, your intentions are clear: to tie Darwin to homeopathy.
 * We don't have to justify any objections. You have to find a reliable source that says Ullman's article is authoritative, reliable, and significant to Darwin. Otherwise, your fascination and a single article are your original research. Your original research can be published in journals or books that publish original research, or in your blog, or in many other places. But, it doesn't belong on wikipedia.
 * No original research Please read. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're also a single-purpose account that seems to not be acting like a genuine new user of wikipedia, new users rarely bring stuff up like this on talk pages. Possibly a sock puppet? You've been given what is required to meet WP:DUE and there is significant consensus against adding this to the article without overwhelming reliable sources. So either produce those sources or stop wasting our time. —  raeky  t  08:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How many times I have to say that I don't suggest any link to homeopathy to Darwin based on his experiments on high dilutions?. Give me a number and I will repeat the my sentence. I mentioned it in the beginning  because Ullmans' s article (published in a reliable source and I gave darwin's book). above. Darwin;s own book is not a reliable source ?You changed the name of the thread I started to make clear that I don't link any homeopathy terms with this suggestion. You have crossed the line here. Please do not put words in my mouth. Any other person here with to help? I just want to make clear why such a fascinating topic for him cannot be considered for inclusion. It is written in his own book which I gave before. --BeatriceX (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You started by clearly promoting homeopathy, and we all see it. Still.
 * We're not publishing Darwin's book. We're not promoting homeopathy. We're not promoting Ullman. This is just an encyclopedia. As I advised you on your talk page, and consider this another warning, you are not the first person to think they could come to wikipedia and promote a fringe theory in a mainstream article. Darwin is the target of creationists, flat-earthers, homeopaths, pseudoscientists by the baker's dozen. It's a well guarded page. You are disrupting it and wikipedia with your continued promotion of this Ullman article.
 * The article you want to include is a commentary. It's speculation. That's all. Speculation can go in blogs. It can go in journal commentaries. But it's not a source of facts. Until someone besides you becomes interested in Ullmans' theory and writes about its significance to Darwin, your disruption of wikipedia will not move the theory to article space.
 * Hypotheses, Conjectures, Comments: Evidence-based CAM will publish in the section Hypotheses-Conjectures-Comments papers proposing hypotheses that are interesting but still lack certain evidence. The paper can be purely speculative, but authors are requested to thoroughly discuss existing data related to the hypothesis and also to propose a methodology (experimental, epidemiological or statistical) as to how the hypothesis can be tested.
 * Again, see WP:NOR. We don't allow original research, and Ullman's speculation only becomes worthy of reporting in his article when another researcher says it is and publishes that research. --Kleopatra (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You must be talking to the wrong person or you don't really read what I m writing. I have asked and I m asking not you ( you do not want the read the question) Is this information taken from a Darwin's own book or not? Is this book a reliable source?  --BeatriceX (talk) 09:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Here this one : ''The reader will best realize this degree of dilution by remembering that 5,000 ounces would more than fill a thirty-one gallon cask [barrel]; and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added; only half a drachm, or thirty minims, of the solution being poured over a leaf. Yet this amount sufficed to cause the inflection of almost every tentacle, and often the blade of the leaf. ... My results were for a long time incredible, even to myself, and I anxiously sought for every source of error. ... The observations were repeated during several years. Two of my sons, who were as incredulous as myself, compared several lots of leaves simultaneously immersed in the weaker solutions and in water, and declared that there could be no doubt about the difference in their appearance. ... In fact every time that we perceive an odor, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves'' (p. 170) Darwin C. Insectivorous Plants ( 1875;) 173:. New York: D. Appleton & Co. http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin3/insectivorous/insect_fm.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatriceX (talk • contribs) 09:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have been reading your words. You are posting also on the Homeopathy talk page, under the section "Talk:Homeopathy ‎ (→High Dilutions and Darwin's experiments)," claiming that the information you want to add to the homeopathy article isn't about homeopathy also. You added the section above about "Darwin and Homeopathy," but changed your mind here, although not credibly, because meanwhile, you are promoting the exact same theory on the homeopathy article talk page. I don't think its our reading of your words that is at issue.
 * Here's something else for you to read: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." It's from Talk page guidelines. This isn't your personal talk space. It's an article talk page. If you want to choose who you ask, if you want to choose what you write without guidelines, if you want to promote your personal views on Darwin and homeopathy, there are plenty of places in cyberspace to do so. Please stop considering wikipedia one of them. Thank you. --Kleopatra (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kleopatra Shot info (talk) 10:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No promotion of personal views. You keep speculating in a non elegant way. You seem upset. If you are talking to me and not to someone you think I am,  the only thing I have been asking for some time now and instead of giving an answer i get warnings and orders to leave wikipeida is this:  Is the above fragment from a reliable source  ( Darwing's own book ) ? And doesn't say about his fascination and long time experimentation on the effect of a highly diluted material on an plant? Why this is not notable since Darwin spent so many years time and energy on this according to his own book? You don't have to include it in the article - just try to give some rational answer as why it should not. ( For 12th time or more no homeopathy reference is suggested) The reason I brought it up in homeopathy is because there is no separate article on high dilutions or something similar.--BeatriceX (talk) 10:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

All, it's clear that this is clearly in violation of TALK. Can I recommend that it is archieved as it's clear the SPA is not interested in seeking any consensus for inclusion. Shot info (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating false statements and personal attacks. You did not even read the previous post. --BeatriceX (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did - and I also note that this isn't the first time that you have made this claim and also accused other editors about not reading your earlier posts. I have.  I have commented.  And I find your claims (like several other editors) poor.  Just because you don't listen is your problem.  However feel free not to improve your behavour.  Shot info (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, please archive both sections. It is clear that BeatriceX is not reading anything and will only continue to use this talk page to attempt to make her point.
 * We've eliminated her original research and Ullman's speculative commentary. She refuses to read the guidelines on Original Research and continues to think that her thinking this passage is fascinating makes it noteworthy. She's been warned enough about disruptive editing. She needs to take time to read WP:NOR, WP:Disruptive editing, Identifying reliable sources, Signs of disruptive editing, Tendentious editing, Here to build an encyclopedia, Single-purpose account, and Consensus. --Kleopatra (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cleopatra you seem very anxious to delete my contributions. I guess you could it as you said this page is well guarded - I thought censorship cannot be applied in editors contributions but I m wrong I guess. .You never told me whether Darwin book is a reliable source. Maybe it isn't. Furthermore, if you find Darwin own words in describing the experiment with drosera so disturbing you may request from the libraries of the world to get rid of the book or to ban it. (just kidding)Best.  --BeatriceX (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically Darwin's book in Darwin's article is a WP:PRIMARY source and probably not acceptable (which I believe has been stated earlier). But forging on - please present what you recommend the article should be altered to.  Shot info (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that all of his books used in article as references are used in violation of wikepedia. editing policy?--BeatriceX (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that you didn't bother to even click on that link I provided you so you can see what the editing rules are here? Please take the time to review the fundamentals.  Shot info (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait. Maybe I m wrong. This book is indexed in the references of the article. Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1st ed.). London: John Murray. ISBN 1435393864. Retrieved 2008-10-24. It should n't since it is a  primary source?--BeatriceX (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if you're "wrong" or "right". Until you actually put up a proposed edit - there is very little value to this discussion other than encouraging your to read the rules that we edit by.  Shot info (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issue is redundant - this single point from one of Darwin's books is simply not significant enough in the context of Darwin's life to merit discussion in this article. It isn't a particularly important finding - it is entirely uncontroversial that small amounts of certain substances can have effects on biological systems.  The only people who find this particular point significant seem to be those who claim it supports homoeopathy, which it doesn't even mention.  Brunton (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's see what she proposes. Personally I think it's going to be a WEIGHT issue - but I'm reserving judgement to see what is actually proposed.  But to be brutally honest, I doubt that BeatriceX will put anything up.  Shot info (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * he sourcing issue is not redundant: I gave this reference in the beginning and people started to ask me to leave from wikipedia.
 * According to him, the experiment was fascinating and important. Is not that clear? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatriceX (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be more significant if you found some work of Darwin's that he didn't find fascinating and important. That was why he did stuff.  Brunton (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He did not spent much time on Homeopathy or clairvoyance. Did he?--BeatriceX (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, he does not seem to have worked on either of these at all, so discussion of them would not appear relevant to his research, or to this article. Brunton (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ( We agreed in that in the beginning- I think )--BeatriceX (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Brunton (talk) 12:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant in the beginning of this thread. You should be happy you reached a consensus,( off topic- I still have my own opinion on Homeopathy and I wrote that thinking that oxford journals are a reliable source - but many people think they are not or they are not worth mentioning.)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatriceX (talk • contribs) 12:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've posted at AN/I. It's time to take this discussion elsewhere. About User:BeatriceX at AN/I. --Kleopatra (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We're talking about dilutions of the order of 1 part in 1 million here. In Darwin's day, it would have indeed been surprising that biologically active substances would be effective in such low concentrations, but today it's no big news at all - I regularly put pills containing mere milligrams of drugs into my 100kg body. If we can find some reliable references that show this experiment of Darwin's is notable, then maybe a word or two on the topic should be included, but only in an entirely controversial manner - it has absolutely nothing to do with homeopathy as far as I can see. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you talking to Cleopatra because I said about 20 times so far that I m not suggesting any homeopathy links based on the fact that editors consider oxford journals unreliable. Maybe they are.  Is  there any rule that only controversial topics should be included in the article ? Tha fact that it was fascinating for him so many years does not count?--BeatriceX (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking to anyone specifically, I'm just giving my assessment of the whole issue. And no, I didn't mean to suggest that only non-controversial topics should be included - I just mean that Darwin's "low-dilution" thing *is* non-controversial. To include it, we'd need some sources to show that it was notable - just being "fascinating" to the man at the time is not sufficient notability, I don't think. Best regards, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I've just re-read the two threads, and I'd like to address a couple of points raised which might not be clear...
 * It's not the case that people are claiming that "Oxford journals" are in general unreliable - just that the Ullman paper is speculative, and so cannot be used to establish a link between Darwin and homeopathy. (I know, 20 times and all that, but the mooted link to homeopathy is at the core of all this - the paper is called "The Curious Case of Charles Darwin and Homeopathy", and it does make unsupportable claims that Darwin was using homeopathic doses).
 * Can Darwin's own works be referenced, given they are primary sources? At WP:PRIMARY it says "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." So yes, primary sources can be used in addition to secondary sources, but in order to add something based on a primary source we would also need secondary sourcing of its notability and to support any interpretation - for example, Origin of species is a primary source, but the is an enormous amount of secondary sourcing attesting to its notability and expanding on what it all means.
 * -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship, British?
Why is it on Wikipedia that people who are English, have British labels everywhere, but for the Welsh or Scottish, "british" is something semi-sinister? Shouldn't his nationality be English and his citizenship be British? Otherwise whats the point of having two labels both saying British in the infobox? 86.130.142.135 (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's just because a lot of Welsh and Scottish have a problem with being labelled as British, while not many English people do. So people care enough to change the Welsh and Scottish articles. I've certainly met people who emphasise that they're "English not British", but they seem to be the exception, and they're not a vert potent force here on Wikipedia. I don't know if anyone would object to labelling Darwin as English here, but I have no problem with it. garik (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While not a great fan of infobox details, and "citizenship" is a bit odd as he would have been a British subject according to the old wording, the links are quite useful, and the option of English identity is covered in the opening sentence which describes him as "an English naturalist". Note how that links to English people. The infobox Residence is correctly given as England, reinforcing that point. "Citizenship British" links to British Citizenship which redirects to British nationality law, covering that aspect though possibly History of British nationality law would be more appropriate. There isn't an article for English Citizenship, and the history article shows that merging with "British Citizenship" after 1707 when English subjects became British subjects. "Nationality British" links to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is actually useful context as it's not the same as the modern UK. So, different links for different contexts. . . dave souza, talk 12:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * On Scottish articles there is no "citizenship" in the infobox, some have "nationality", but it always says Scottish. This blatent hypocrisy is rife across Wikipedia. His nationality should either say English, or don't put one there.86.130.142.135 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is England a nation? I thought the nation was the United Kingdom. HiLo48 (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 'Nationality' has different meanings. The strictly legal definition, e.g. used in issuing passports, means that I am 'British'. But nationality is also a matter of emotion and self-definition in a country like the UK which is composed of historically distinct nations. In this sense, I have a choice of whether to call myself 'English' or 'British'. When I feel annoyed about the fact that Scotland has its own parliament while England does not, I call myself 'English'; when a person of Scottish origin wins an Olympic medal, I call myself 'British'... On Wikipedia we should not assign people nationality in the second sense differently from their legal nationality unless it is clear from reliable sources that they consistently described themselves in this way. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Both England and the UK are described as nations (and countries). The UK is the sovereign state and an unitary state. England is a home nation and a constituent country. I say put both nationalities because there is no one correct answer due to "the absence of a formal British constitution and the long and complex history of the formation of the United Kingdom". See Countries of the United Kingdom Grim2</b><b style="color:#FF0000">3</b> ★ 15:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Is England a nation?" Is Scotland a nation? James Watt, Robert Burns have scottish as their nationality

Got a source? For example, Darwin sailed on the Beagle as a British subject on a British ship, not an English ship. Projecting modern sensitivities on this is very dubious, the links as they exist look reasonably informative and the current setup allows for the various possibilities but there's no clear source I'm aware of that shows Darwin's own preferences in this matter. Any citations will be interesting. . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that Scottish persons do not have British in their infobox, but you expect it to be here twice is utterly ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.43 (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be more in line with other articles, like James Watt and Robert Burns, his nationality should say English and citizenship should say United Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.43 (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish we could discuss this without mention of other, non-English folk. The decision here should stand on its own merits, and not be part of a war on a broader topic. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Darwin would have described himself as English, and a British subject. Today the form is slightly different: 'British citizen' is the adjectival form of 'Citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. The wording on bio-infoboxes of nationality and citizenship was bound to cause confusion. We say (that is, on WP) "Nationality is membership of a nation or sovereign state". That is as clear as mud. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right in claiming that "Darwin would have described himself as English, and a British subject." But you must also know that you cannot use that claim unless you have a decent source for it, especially given the debate here. Do you have any quality reference to back up your claim? HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Charles Darwin's Life
On December 1831 Charles Darwin was twenty-two years old and was standing on the Beagle’s deck. Charles was the Beagle’s only naturalist. The Beagle was almost ready to sail toward the Galapagos Islands. The ship was scheduled to take two years but actually took five years to ever see England again. On September 1835, almost four years after starting, the beagle landed on the Galapagos Islands. At first Darwin was really disappointed in the lack of plants and animal species. It only took a while for the magic of the Galapagos Islands to take effect. Soon the explorers found many types of plants and animals. Once “Darwin gently brushed a hawk off a branch with the butt of his rifle and the bird did not bother to fly away” (King, 6). He saw so many kinds of plants and animals that he filled up many books with drawings and recordings of different species. He also collected many specimens of insects, plants and animals, which were carted up and put on the ship. He started to wonder how the plants and animals ended up on these islands. Darwin started to question the Bibles story. Charles Darwin was born February 12, 1809. He was born to Susannah Wedgewood Darwin and Dr. Robert Darwin. Charles had three sisters Marianne, Caroline and Susan. When Darwin was eight his mother died. Darwin could not remember his mother very well. No one in his family ever talked about her. This may have contributed to the fact that Darwin could not remember his mother. The next year Darwin started school. His father sent him to a school called Shrewsbury Grammar School. It was here that Darwin boarded. He did not particularly care for it and used to run home during supper before the school was locked for the evening. During his time there Darwin was struggling with almost all subjects; although he did like geometry. He enjoyed collecting minerals and reading plays and poems. He also enjoyed watching birds and insects taking notes on the things that he saw. His father saw that Shrewsbury was not working out for Darwin. Then he decided to send Darwin to Scotland’s Edinburgh University, to study medicine like himself. In the autumn of 1825 Darwin headed to Scotland. He was very excited to start school. Darwin had to watch many surgeries. During that time there was no anesthesia, so patients were wide awake when the surgery took place. This practice made Darwin very sick to his stomach. He had to leave the room when the screams from a boy undergoing surgery made him sick. Darwin decided to not continue a career in medicine. Darwin was not interested in the study of medicine. Instead he took many natural history courses. He also learned taxidermy* from a neighbor. Darwin joined a science club called The Plinian Society. He made friends with Robert Grant, his teacher. They took many long walks together. They talked about science during their walks, and Grant took a very strong liking to Darwin. Darwin tried to tell his father that he was not interested in the medial field. Instead he went to Ireland and London to visit his brother Ras. He also went to see his cousins the Wedgewood’s. Darwin talked to Emma Wedgewood a lot over the course of his visit. Darwin and Emma became good friends. Dr. Robert Darwin, who paid the bills noticed, that Darwin was not taking anymore classes in the medical field. Dr. Darwin told Darwin to go to the Church of England to become a minister. So Darwin started his application to the Christ College. To take the test to get in Darwin had to be fluent in Greek and Latin. So his father hired a personal tutor to teach him. After weeks of grueling studying he finally knew enough to pass the test. Not soon after entering the Christ Collage Darwin joined the “sporting set”, a group of young wealthy men that would go hunting and riding rather than study. He also became the favorite of the class taught John Stevens Henslow. Darwin loved to explore the land outside the School and found on occasion an unrecorded beetle or two on campus. In 1831 Darwin graduated from the Christ Collage and decided to go to the Canary Islands.

When Darwin arrived back home it was August 29 1831. A letter addressed from Henslow was given to him on his arrival. The letter explained that Darwin was wanted aboard the Beagle as a naturalist. The beagle was a ship that was planning to go to the Galapagos Islands in two years. At first Dr.Darwin said no and said that if he wanted to go he would need a recommendation from a very educated person. Darwin wrote back saying that he was sorry but he could not come. A very disappointed Darwin went to visit his cousins again. The Wedgwood’s thought that it was crazy that Darwin’s father had said no to this once and a lifetime opportunity. One of the Wedgewood’s wrote to his father a list of reasons why Darwin should go. Dr. Darwin never wrote back so they decide to go to Darwin’s house to talk to his father. After hearing what the Wedgewood’s said Darwin’s father finally agreed, saying that the Wedgewood’ s were very educated so Darwin was allowed to go. Darwin very excitedly wrote back again to Henslow and said he could come. Fitz Roy the captain of the Beagle said that he did not need Darwin anymore and was going to be replaced by Mr. Chester. Darwin was devastated. Henslow convinced Darwin to go and meet with Fitz Roy in London and talk to him about coming aboard the Beagle. Charles went and as he was happy to find out Mr. Chester was unable to make it. Therefore Charles would be needed.

Darwin very much liked Captain Fitz Roy. He noticed that Roy was brave, determined, and devoted to his work. Darwin sent a letter to his sister saying he needed more clothes for his journey. Darwin was surprised by the ship It was only ninety feet long, barely enough to hold the seventy-four men and all of the supplies. Darwin was going to be sharing a cabin with one other man and had his own hammock. The hammock was so small that the only way to make room for his feet was by moving some drawers out of cabinets. On December 27, 1831 the Beagle set sail on the Atlantic Ocean. Darwin became very sick on the Beagle and became so weak that he could not leave hammock. The ship planned to stop on the Canary Islands, but found out there was a cholera epidemic on the island and they would have to wait a seven day quarantine before they could enter the islands. Darwin was very disappointed because he really wanted to go. So the Beagle moved on to the Cape Verde Islands off the coast of Africa. During this stop the voyage changed for Darwin. He saw his first rainforest and was very happy for the first time since the trip began. The Beagle then sailed towards Brazil. After the equator was crossed the seas were much calmer and Darwin started to feel much better. Soon Darwin was able to stay on land for months at a time. He started to become very eager to collect everything on land and in the sea. He collected insects, birds, animals, fossils, sea creatures, shells, bones and anything else he could get his hands on. He filled many books with notes and images of everything that he collected. These were Darwin’s glory days; this was what he had wanted to be doing for so long. Darwin was surrounded by men dresses in uniform suits on the Beagle. Darwin wore a topcoat with tails, a waistcoat, a high-collared shirt and a tie. Many men aboard the Beagle were unusually impressed with Darwin’s gentlemanly appearance. The crew became very fond of Darwin and his high quality clothing. They referred to him as “our flycatcher” and were impressed by his immense energy, fearlessness, and kindness (37, King). The Beagle landed in Argentina for a little while. During that time was one of the greatest times during the trip for Darwin. The land there was much flatter and drier than Brazil. Darwin joined the gauchos, a group of hard-riding cowboys, and rode along the plain sleeping on the ground and eating wild meat and ostrich eggs. Darwin even taught one crewmember, named Syms Covington, to help collect specimens. Syms helped Darwin put crates packed with specimens on the ship when they encountered a ship headed toward England. These crates were sent to Henslow. Henslow showed these findings to scientific gatherings. Darwin was becoming a well-known scientist back home, though he didn’t know it. Darwin’s greatest discoveries were undiscovered fossils, the giant sloth, elephant like creature, and a prehistoric form of a horse. Many people did not even know what fossils were during that time. People had just started to discover the first dinosaur bones. The first dinosaur bone discovered was in 1822 and Darwin discovered his dinosaur bones in 1832, only 10 years later. The next stop on the Beagles voyage was an Island inhabited by many native fugitives. Captain Fitz Roy tried to get them to change into the European ways. Darwin did not agree with this and told Fitz Roy that he should not try to change them. They then left the Island and continued on into the Pacific. On September 15, 1835 the Beagle stopped on the Galapagos Islands. The Islands were not very green and had sparse life. The ground was covered in black volcanic rock. The animals there had no natural enemies and so had no fear of other creatures, including humans. The scientists were very surprised to see penguins swimming in the warm tropical water. Darwin continued to ask himself why the animals on the Islands were different than those on the Mainland. “The Bible had said that GOD had created all animals at the same time” (Keynes,20). Darwin started to wonder how different species got on the Islands. During his rush to collect specimens Darwin forgot to label which of the Islands each specimen came from. The return to England was uneventful. There was only one stop on the way back to England. He was now twenty-six years old and was a changed man. He was now a very skilled scientist. He was constantly trying to find a way to describe the Galapagos Islands. Upon coming home he discovered that he was already a well-known scientist, thanks to Henslow. Darwin soon started thinking about settling down and marrying. He proposed to Emma Wedgwood. Together they had their first son named William; they later had eight more kids. Darwin published his book based on the Beagles Journey. Darwin was anxious to find out how well his book was selling; he was very happy to later find out that it was selling marvelously. Another writing project was something that Darwin never told anyone. It was about transmutation of species. Darwin could not stop taking notes on this subject and wrote many letters to animal keepers, gardeners, and zookeepers. He knew that they would breed certain animals and plants to obtain certain quality’s, like strength, color, and size. He wanted answers but was afraid to show and ask the public because what he discovered goes against the bibles story. This would mean the Bible’s book of Genesis was a myth. Darwin knew that people were not ready to hear this. Darwin continued to work on this theory and at the same time was working on a study on coral reefs. Even through all his work he spent hours playing with William and his second child Annie. Darwin was thrilled to be a father. They Darwin family soon bought a new house twenty miles outside London to accommodate their fast growing family. It was called to Down House. During the next fourteen at the Down House Darwin and Emma had eight more children; three girls and five boys. Darwin’s life at the Down House was a good experience. He often took walks along the Sandwalk, a path that he had built on the grounds of the Down House. He loved to play with his children. “To all of us he was the most delightful play-fellow.” Said a daughter of Darwin’s (68, King). Darwin started to get very ill and suffered from a variety of disabling symptoms; even though he had a healthy lifestyle and loving family. In 1842 Darwin’s first book on geology, about coral reefs, was published. He had many other geology books on the way. Two volumes on volcanic islands and South America. And another five book series on zoology was completed in 1843. Still his Voyage of the Beagle was very popular. He was filling out page after page on his discoveries. Especially during this time Darwin’s health broke down. He would be suddenly struck with severe headaches and vomiting. Sometimes he would experience pains around the heart, stomach cramps, trembling, skin rashes, and weakness. The episodes varied from days to a few hours. Fewer people visited and fewer vacations took place. Darwin avoided people that would exhaust him and did not venture around outside very often. “The man who had been such a vigorous adventurer had become an invalid, suffering from a chronic ailment that no one seemed to be able to diagnose.”(King, 72). There is no clear evidence of what was going on inside Darwin’s body during this time. Some psychiatrists say that the illness was psychosomatic, meaning that Darwin was experiencing physical problems because of psychological factors, such as stress, anxiety, and repressed grief. Others also believe that it was psychosomatic but they think it was because that all the years that Darwin was unable to grieve over the death of his mother; so his repressed pain came out as physical illness. Some of Darwin’s symptoms came about during his time on the Beagle. Darwin was used to waking up with flea bites while on the Beagle and was also bitten several times by a small blood-sucking bug from the Triatominae family. This bug was later found out to give Chagas’s disease, a disease that causes high fevers and liver problems. It could have been the physical and psychological problems that were causing Darwin so much pain. His Butler once recalled “Many a time when I was helping to nurse him, I’ve thought he would die in my arms.”(73, King). Even though Darwin’s pain was great he still wrote daily about his theory of evolution. His first draft of collected notes was called “Sketch” after two years he wrote another version that he called “Essay” He was very reluctant to publish; and an incident made him feel even more strongly about waiting to publish. Another scientist named Robert Chambers published a book on Natural Selection that had no evidence to back it up it was just straight out facts. This caused an uproar of complaints and anger from the people. Chambers realized this before hand and published the book with an anonymous author. Darwin now wanted an overwhelming amount of evidence to support his theory so that every doubting question would be answered. He also did not want to endanger his place among the England privileged class. Darwin did not want his family to become social outcasts because of one book that he published. It was very important in that time and to Darwin to maintain a comfortable lifestyle. This was so that no matter what, Darwin could continue to pursue what he wanted to do. He also wanted his family to have the Down House staff including a butler, a footman, gardeners, cooks, maids, and a nurse for the children. Losing his special place among the Leaders of English Society would be like losing everything. Darwin also did not want to pain Emma; who was a strict Unitarian. Emma worried that Charles lacked religious conviction. Darwin started to become an Agnostic, meaning someone who believes that there is not enough evidence to know GOD; not to be confused with atheist meaning someone who does not believe in GOD. In 1851 Darwin’s daughter Annie died of tuberculosis at age ten. Charles was devastated and wrote a memorial for Annie. This along with other things was placed in her box and has been handed down from generation to generation. Annie’s death was just three years after Darwin’s father died. Darwin decided to finally show his theory to others. He called upon Sir Joseph Hooker and Sir Charles Lyell, young scientists that were friends of Darwin. He sent them a letter sating that he had some work that he had been working on for some time and he wanted to show them. They were not very convinced but Darwin sent them a copy of the “Essay” and Hooker soon came to the Down House. Even though Darwin had the support of a scientist he delayed again. He decided to write a book on Barnacles and have it finished in a few months and then turn his full attention to Natural Selection. In 1856 Darwin decided to publish the book and title it Natural Selection. Hooker and others urged him to hurry up. They were worried that some young scientist would beat him to it. Soon enough a package arrived for Darwin from Alfred Russel Wallace. Inside contained a letter and a book. Darwin read the letter saying that Wallace wanted his book published. Darwin opened the book and was amazed at what he saw. It was all on Natural Selection. Darwin was devastated, all those years of work for nothing. But Hooker and Lyell did not give up. They arranged a joint presentation of the two books. The book was presented and there was no outcry. The book was soon later published titled The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. When it was published it sold almost over 4,000 copies. At first it was very quiet but soon Darwin was getting attacked in the newspapers and letters. People were angry that the book went against everything in the Bibles story. They believed that GOD created all things, and Darwin was saying that it was not true. He said that the animals evolved over time to become what they are today. Darwin continued to work and said that he would not stop to work until he died. He experienced several severe heart attacks and passed away in the Down House on April 19, 1882. Darwin was seventy-three years old. His last words were “Tell all my children to remember how good they have always been to me. I am not the least afraid of death.” (King, 109). Darwin’s books were read again and again after his death. He was later buried in Westminster Abbey along with other scientists. His discoveries have lead to new branches of science, such as genetics, and cellular biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaney2424 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contribution to this talk page. However, it would appear to be an essay on the topic of the article, which, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is not appropriate material for posting to its talk page.  Do you have specific suggestions for improving the article?
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Fact
Charles Darwin went to the same school as Alexander Graham Bell and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Cool, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delaney2424 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Any 19th century newspaper articles about Darwin?
Newspapers such as The Guardian and The Observer have all been around before Darwinism so there must be some 19th century prints about it. Are there? If so, any links? It would make everything sound a bit more realistic. <font color="maroon" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk  18:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is a concise overview of Darwin's biography, based on the work of modern historians: newspapers from the time are primary sources to be used with care to avoid synthesis of analysis which isn't verified from a reliable third party source. Where historians discuss publications that were significant in Darwin's life, there's an argument for linking to online versions of the publications concerned, but that's rather detailed for this article which has to be kept concise. Such expansion belongs in the more detailed sub-articles. For example, in On the Origin of Species we've references to reviews in The Westminster and The Athenæm, discussed in the context of the views of modern historians on their significance. Unfortunately going into that sort of detail here would result in an increase in the size of the article, which is already pushing the limits on size. . . dave souza, talk 22:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that secondary sources should always take precedence, and I well understand the concern about length. However, in some cases it can be beneficial to cite both a secondary source and the primary source on which it comments. This allows the reader both the benefit of knowing the interpretation in the article was based on a published opinion from a secondary source, but also the ability to interpret the primary source (which is often quite interesting) themselves. I also agree with the original poster that in some cases it can increase confidence in the material. I did this a great deal in Mary Anning where I cited period scientific papers by de la Beche, Conybeare and Buckland as well as the secondary sources (which I of course followed) that commented on them; this is especially useful in cases where the primary source is available on line. The main area in this article where that would come into play would be the section on reaction to publication where you discuss specific reviews. If it were up to me, I would provide double citations for each of those, one citation to the secondary source being followed for the text of the article, and one for the actual review (especially if it was available on line). I don't think that the few cases where this is appropriate would add too much to the length problem. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A fair point, and the sub-article on Reaction to Darwin's theory already goes some way to that sort of detailed citation of the original primary sources now that they're increasingly available online. It needs a bit of review and updating, so I've started on that. The citation size may not be so much of an issue as the demand primarily is to keep the text concise, but I'm rather conscious that this article weighs in at 121,000 bytes while Mary Anning is a more respectable 65,142 bytes. Not sure about this, so will review it once I've managed to bring the sub-article up to date. Further comments or thoughts on this would be welcome, . . . dave souza, talk 21:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammar
Would someone please repair the dangling phrase at the end of paragraph one of the "Voyage of the Beagle" section? "Despite repeatedly suffering badly from seasickness while at sea, most of his zoology notes are about marine invertebrates, starting with plankton collected in a calm spell." This states that Darwin's notes were seasick, and is also a tautology in that seasickness is only encountered while at sea. I suggest this correction: "He suffered repeatedly from severe seasickness but was still able to write copious zoology notes, most of which are about marine invertebrates, starting with plankton collected in a calm spell." Ricthree (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. Most of these problems start with over-long sentences causing writers to lose their thread. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair points. Have modified the revised first part to make it clear that he wrote lots of notes while on board the ship. As Keynes comments, "in the end well over half of the pages of the Zoology Notes were concerned with marine invertebrates. His concentration on this particular field may be attributed not so much to his admitted pleasure in working with his microscope, but to the fact that during the long periods when the Beagle was at sea few other activities were open to him. ... The efficiency with which he thus organised his written records under very cramped conditions in a ship at sea, often stricken by seasickness, was without doubt an extremely important factor in his success as an observer and a collector both in geology and in natural history." Hope that's suitably summarised now. . . dave souza, talk 17:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead
I reverted this edit according to the article's hidden comments (Please consider discussing changes on the talk page, as this opening is the result of a very long consensus-building process). So if the editor wants to restore his/her changes, please discuss them on the talk page. Thanks. --Artoasis (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, thank you, Artoasis. What I wanted to point out is that many people think that Darwin invented the idea of evolution by himself, having been a genius to discover it alone. I went to check if this is clear from the article, and I found out that neither this nor the opposite idea is clear from the intro/lead. Seems to me this is not clear from the rest of contents, neither. So, I think if this is not accented, people are prone to think that Darwin was an isolated scientist that "had his apple", and since this clearly isn't the case, I was free to add a tiny piece of important information to the article. I was not careful enough to see those hidden comments and discuss it here first, so I am asking the community around this article to give their opinion, please. I hope I was clear enough about my intentions. Thank you --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lamarck is famous, rightly or wrongly, for his quite quite different view of how evolution proceeded so is not a good example for the lead. The work of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin also helped lay some groundwork, but again probably not enough to warrant inclusion in the lead of this article <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 09:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Artoasis. Agree with Jebus989 that we shouldn't give undue weight to Lamarck. The issue is mentioned in various places in the article, and while I take the point that this could be made more explicit in the lead, the form of wording seemed to me unduly long. It's important to realise that Lamarck's concept was scientifically rejected by all but a few, and had limited influence at the time. Vestiges was a popular but not a scientific success. We could change the paragraph to start:
 * "He published his theory with compelling evidence for evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, overcoming scientific rejection of earlier concepts of transmutation of species. By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public accepted evolution as a fact. However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed that natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution."
 * Having linked transmutation here, the later lead paragraph could be modified thus: "Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin investigated the transmutation of species began detailed investigations and conceived his theory of natural selection in 1838." Thanks for being bold, trust we can find an agreed improvement. . . dave souza, talk 09:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * p.s. source [3] describes acceptance as being "In the two decades after the publication of Origin", Bowler (2003) p. 179 supports the more specific wording "by the 1870s". . . dave souza, talk 09:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Implemented this change with minor modifications, hope everyone is contented. As always, review and further proposals welcome. . . dave souza, talk 15:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking for my self, I am quite contented. Thank you Dave, I think the point has been made, i.e. now it looks less like the idea came out of a bottle. Of course, to biologists the idea sounds ridiculous, but one should have tried reading it as a totally ignorant person, furthermore a person who had already heard the basic idea and is prone to simplifying, they could have easily understood that it came just like that, from a magic bottle. Thanks again, now it looks more close to reality, which isn't easy to explain in only several sentences of intro. --Дарко Максимовић (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's a nice clarification. Thanks, Dave. --Artoasis (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks go to Дарко Максимовић, it's very helpful to have the need for such clarifications highlighted. Although we'd always been careful not to show Darwin as having originated evolutionary thought, it wasn't explicit or clear to a casual reader and it's much better to have the point brought out early in the lead. . dave souza, talk 10:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Death and legacy
I split of some content into a death and legacy section. I think this should however have more content. I heard that Alfred Russel Wallace attended his funeral from a video on NOVA. This is important because the relationship between Darwin and Wallace is not well commented on. The fact that they were good friends should also be mentioned somewhere. The BBC movie "Creation" also said that he was buried with full Christian "honours". This is important because it shows some of his relationship with the church and how he was not universally hated at that time by all Christians.Sidious1741 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't necessarily trust a movie as as source but burial at Westminster Abbey would mean a Church of England burial service and judging from the Times description of the funeral a lot of ministers were there though apparently no bishops.  BTW I am very dubious about calling it a  State Funeral except in the sense that there was permission for him to be buried at Westminster.   No members of the royal family attended, the Prime Minister did not attend, there were no bishops presiding or assisting, and it was not organized by either the crown or the government (all four I would expect at a State Funeral). --Erp (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch, we seem to have been let down by the beeb, possibly due to the Graun, but it's not supported by the best source[s]. Have modified the article accordingly As for more detail, don't forget this is a concise overview and more detail is given in Darwin from Insectivorous Plants to Worms, which I've linked as a see also. Re the 1909 celebrations, a useful source: . . dave souza, talk 08:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions re “Eugenics” section.
I think there is a case for dropping, or at least altering, the last two sentences in the Eugenics section (beginning:
 * “Eugenics movements were widespread at a time when Darwin's …”).

The influence of Darwin's ideas upon proponents of eugenics has already been dealt with in the first paragraph of the section. Do we, further, want to suggest a link between - the temporary eclipse of Darwin’s ideas, and - the eugenics movements of the first half of the 20th c, as this sentence might imply? Also the sentence implies that “Mendelian genetics” was the only factor in the eclipse of natural selection. This is not the case. More generally do we need to include a potted history of later events surrounding Eugenics, when a wiki article covering this subject is linked to at the start of the section? Prunesqualer (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, the cited sources note that "In the first decades of the twentieth century, the study of human heredity consisted of the applied science of eugenics and the theoretical science of genetics. Geneticists studied the mechanisms of heredity, while eugenicists sought to apply this knowledge to manage society." and "The primary scientific foundation for this shift [to negative eugenics] lay in Mendelian genetics, not in evolution, based on the idea that recessive genes were the locus of negative traits." There's an all too common misperception that Darwin's work led straight to nasty eugenics, which the section aims to correct in a concise way. We shouldn't imply that eugenics was the only factor in the eclipse, but it was central to the popularising of negative eugenics. Proposals for improved wording? . . dave souza, talk 14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave- I’m not disputing any of the points you made, my concerns are slightly different from those you address (I probable didn’t explain my concerns very well in my initial post). I have a problem with the article saying: “Darwin's natural selection was eclipsed by Mendelian genetics” Which, in my opinion, is a little muddled (eg it could imply to the reader that, Mendelian genetics somehow replaced, at least temporarily, Natural selection as a theory). I would also say, that later developments in Eugenics (eg links between “Mendelian genetics” and Eugenics) are probably too far off topic to be alluded to in the Darwin biography article (especially as links to articles which deal these issues are provided). Personally I would be happy to lose the last two sentences of that section.Prunesqualer (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking over losing the last two sentences, and improving clarification of points in the footnote. Your change removed the more significant aspect, that the "primary scientific foundation for this shift [to negative eugenics] lay in Mendelian genetics", so I've trimmed and modified the wording accordingly. Will now review sources on these developments. . . dave souza, talk 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Dave. Thanks for giving this your attention. I'm a little uneasy about the claim that- the "primary scientific foundation for this shift [to negative eugenics] lay in Mendelian genetics". My version has the advantage that it makes no contentious claims and leaves more complex issues to the links (ie I’m not sure that these issues can be dealt with adequately in a few sentences). There is an understandable impulse among those of us who admire Darwin, and his work, to want to distance him, as much as possible, from distasteful associations with Eugenics. However I don’t think we need to tarnish Mendelian genetics in order to do this. I shall be interested to see what your further research turns up though. Prunesqualer (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reading through the section now, I think it has reached a good state, with no obvious problems. It has been a good discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's still seems to be a problem with the following sentences:
 * "Galton named the field of study "eugenics" in 1883. In contrast to their cautious ideas of voluntary improvement, negative eugenics later developed on a basis of Mendelian genetics and led to compulsory sterilization laws which brought the field into disrepute."
 * It's not all clear (not to me, at least) whom the pronoun "their" is referring to at the start of the second sentence.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. Since the article's about Darwin, I've changed it to "In contrast to Darwin's cautious thoughts on voluntary improvement,". I'm currently reading through Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity and negative eugenics seems to have come in with Charles Davenport's ideas and the U.S. state laws on sterilisation and immigration control: British eugenicists kept more to voluntary principles, though near the end of his life Galton apparently expressed thoughts of a compusory scheme. . . dave souza, talk 11:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Political Interpretations
The political interpretations section seems very out of place in a biography on Charles Darwin -- it barely mentions the man himself, and focuses primarily on things that (as it describes) have little direct connection to him beyond occasional naming. This doesn't seem to be the appropriate place to go into it (no more than, say, you would put a section on the Crusades in Jesus Christ) -- this article is intended to be a biography of Darwin the man, and his own life, beliefs, and personal accomplishments. It also feels like it was cut-and-pasted awkwardly from another article (especially the heading -- political interpretations of Darwin himself?) --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Having only skimmed the actual content, I do agree there's a lot there. I don't agree it should be excluded altogether. The reason it's relevant is because Darwin's name is used heavily when discussing these concepts, and as such, they are a topic which a reader might pursue this biography to explore. I would have to read them over more heavily to decide, but it seems likely that they could be trimmed, particularly since the content is already linked in the "main article" templates above. If you agree, you're welcome to be bold and do it!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the word 'political' is not right; it has connotations which do not fit. I suggest the section should be 'Social interpretations', and the two sub-sections as now. Since CD expressed views on both sub-topics, the content seems justified. Discussions certainly appear in published biographies of CD. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point about renaming the section, that brings it more into line with evolution so I've made the change. These are areas of common misunderstandings of Darwin, so it's important to show his own views on these topics while indicating how he did not support later developments of these social interpretations. Some tightening may be in order to keep the focus on Darwin, but it's sometimes complex and not easy to be concise while remaining accurate. . . dave souza, talk 09:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Academic advisors seems misleading
Because I don't speak English as my mother tongue my problem might be due to language difficulties but I do find it odd that the Info-box states John Stevens Henslow and Adam Sedgwick as Academic advisors of Darwin. I have tried to understand this "academic advisary" using WP, but no avail. The article speaks about Henslow and Sedgwick in the following passages:
 * [Darwin] became a close friend and follower of botany professor John Stevens Henslow and met other leading naturalists who saw scientific work as religious natural theology, becoming known to these dons as "the man who walks with Henslow".
 * In preparation, [Darwin] joined Adam Sedgwick's geology course, then went with him in the summer for a fortnight to map strata in Wales.
 * After a week with student friends at Barmouth, [Darwin] returned home to find a letter from Henslow proposing [him] (...) for a self-funded place with captain Robert FitzRoy, more as a companion than a mere collector, on HMS Beagle which was to leave in four weeks on an expedition to chart the coastline of South America.
 * When the Beagle reached Falmouth, Cornwall, on 2 October 1836, Darwin was already a celebrity in scientific circles as in December 1835 Henslow had fostered his former pupil's reputation by giving selected naturalists a pamphlet of Darwin's geological letters.
 * Darwin visited his home in Shrewsbury and saw relatives, then hurried to Cambridge to see Henslow, who advised on finding naturalists available to catalogue the collections and agreed to take on the botanical specimens.
 * Still rewriting his Journal, [Darwin] took on editing and publishing the expert reports on his collections, and with Henslow's help obtained a Treasury grant of £1,000 to sponsor this multi-volume Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle,
 * The Church of England's response was mixed. Darwin's old Cambridge tutors Sedgwick and Henslow dismissed the ideas,

I have not read up on Darwin more than this, but the old tutor and first and foremost close friend Henslow does not at all sound like an "academic advisor". The role Sedgwick played does not fit my idea of such an advisor either. I suggest that the Info-box be stripped of their names. If there is something important I'm missing I hope the "academic advisor" will be linked to a suitable article for my sake (and the sake of other foreign readers). --78.69.55.99 (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Template:Infobox scientist describes the "academic_advisors" field as being for "Names of any significant educational advisors (other than doctoral advisor)", then its Usage guidelines says "Insert names of significant academic teachers other than the doctoral advisor: e.g. Master's advisor, postdoctoral supervisor, significant undergraduate mentor/teacher etc. In Cambridge, before 1919, there was no PhD and so you can insert the relevant Cambridge tutor." As discussed in more detail in Charles Darwin's education, Henslow was a tutor to Darwin on mathematics and theology, as well as teaching him botany and natural history. Sedgwick taught Darwin about geology, as well as taking him on a brief but influential expedition to examine stratigraphy (rock layers) in Wales. So in my view they both significant academic teachers of Darwin. Hope that explains their inclusion, . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * To me an important tutor is something else than an academic advisor, whatever the Usage guidelines of Template:Infobox scientist says. Your explanation does not make sense in my world, Henslow and Sedgwick didn't "advice" Darwin in the way a full professor would have done, had Darwin been a 20th century postgraduate student. I still think the article would benefit from having the "academic advisor" removed from the Info-box, even after having read your description of the tutor-student-relation between Darwin and Henslow; Sedgwick must go at once, mustn't he?
 * (A few more words about the use of Info-boxes: An Info-box serves two purposes, on the face of it, the Info-box summarizes the most usual answers the editors expects a causal visitor would look for. On a deeper level the Info-box teaches the visitor what questions to ask, at least in the case of a template. The editors teaches the readers to think along the lines: Scientists can be described by a few typical traits, and Darwin is a scientist, therefore we (the readers and the editors together) can describe Darwin, and understand him, and his contributions, by simply stating his position in the multi-dimensional space of scientists, defined by his "academic advisor", his "alma mater", etc. This takes the reader away from the important questions, and puts him in a place where he can feel safe - having all the answers - but totally fooled all the same - he has not gained an inch in understanding Darwin by learning about his academic advisors and his alma mater.
 * The problem of course, for 21st century readers, is the enormous differences between our days, and the world of 19th century "scientists". A "scientist" today is something very different from a "scientist" 200 years ago, the use of a common Info-box template obscures this very important fact. (One example difference: Back then, you received an education because of who you were, today you receive an education because of who you shall become.)) --78.69.55.99 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that there's a problem involved in outlining early 19th century concepts with an infobox which uses modern American terms. Your comments at Template talk:Infobox scientist will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I think also you may be expecting too much from an info-box. The purpose of an info box is to provide convenient access to certain facts about the subject of an article (for biographical articles things like birth date, death date, nationality, religion etc.). You say "he has not gained an inch in understanding Darwin" by reading the info-box, and that is probably true but I can't help (and perhaps this is just me being over familiar with the English language Wikipedia) but I am very puzzled by anyone who would expect to gain any understanding from an info-box. Info-boxes are for quick reference for certain standardized information. The lead of an article is supposed to summarize what is important about the subject, not the info-box. I admit that when I use Wikipedia for a reference I sometimes ONLY read the lead of an article if it tells me what I am looking for, but I would never just peruse the info-box, unless I was looking for one specific fact such as say nationality, or place of birth. As to the "academic advisor" issue. I realize that you seem to have a certain very specific/formal definition of that term in mind which I suspect has something to do with the specific way the term is used in some modern Universities (where an academic adviser might be a person assigned by a university or academic department to advise a particular student), but I find what Henslow did for Darwin to be very consistent with what is described in the academic advising article, and I don't see much problem with describing Sedgwick that way either. Just because a particular profession uses a term in a very specific way doesn't mean that it can't be used in a more general, commonsense, way in an encyclopedia article written for a general audience. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To illustrate my reservations regarding info-boxes, or rather templates of such things, let my suggest that we had gathered a list of the one houndred most important contributors to the field of science born before Julius Caesar. Now think about the task of designing a template for Info-box 100best100BC. How would you go about selecting apropriate fields for such a template? You would have to study those one houndred "scientists", I would say rather hard, to decide what to summarize about them for the causal reader. (Of course you would have to study the causal reader as well, to be able to judge what information he would like to see, but then again the WP-editor can look to himself for a reader-model. (Maybe it is the educational task of the editor to teach the reader to put the right questions, that is certainly what I expect the not so effortless template design to do.))
 * A second task, lets look at all "scientists" mentioned in WP at the end of last month born between 1750 and 1849, and think of how to design a template Info-box 18th and a half century scientist WP 1 June 2011.
 * Now think about the general template Info-box Scientist and compare it to the 100best100BC and 18th and a half. Are there any common ground between the three of them? Not necessarily, because the general Info-box Scientist template mirrors first and foremost (modern day) (vague) general ideas about scientists - Einstein is probably lurking somewhere in the back of the editors heads - and not a real effort to summarize real people in the real world. (Speaking of scientists is really a matter of speaking about the exceptions, and a template is about the rules, so a scientist template is a self-contradiction.)
 * Speaking about Darwin there is no need to call his tutors "academic advisors", if the Info-box was designed to mirror Darwin in his time, without glancing at other more contempory scientists, there would be no mentioning of "academic advisors", but of course his most important tutors and real life friends and supporters would be mentioned as such. --81.229.102.134 (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC) (Formerly 78.69.55.99)
 * I really don't agree. I don't see any real difference between the term "tutor" and the term "academic adviser" they seem pretty interchangeable to me. It is not like we are talking about thesis advisers which would be a modern concept. The info box has a separate field for thesis advisers and clearly says that the "academic advisor" field should not be used for them. It seems to me that the people who created the infobox had in mind exactly the way the term is used here; a teacher who strongly influenced a student's later career. Now we may have preferred a different term perhaps "academic mentors" or "educational influences", but I think that is a separate argument than you are making, which seems to be that the very concept doesn't apply to 19th century scientists. Now one area where I think we do agree is that the "scientist" info box doesn't make much sense for figures from tantiquity. I don't think anyone prior to at least the 16th century really could be called a scientist. Figures like Aristotle, Ptolemy, Thales, Anaximander, and even many later figures like Descartes, Copernicus, and Kepler (Galileo was truly an exception) were really natural philosophers (and thought of themselves as such) whose scientific contributions were merely incidental to their philosophical work. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 24 November 2011
On the Origin of Species proved unexpectedly popular, with the entire stock of 1,250 copies oversubscribed when it went on sale to booksellers on 24 November 1859.

Peperoque (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Reference:


 * Hi, you'll have to explain more clearly what change you'd like made as this appears to be identical to the current wording. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 17:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Maull and Polyblank portrait
There was considerable discussion some time ago, and agreement that the seated portrait by Maull and Fox was the best portrait for the infobox, but the Maull and Polyblank portrait was recently swapped with that picture. The latter works reasonably well in the "publication" section, but has an unfortunate impact. As Darwin said to Hooker, "if I really have as bad an expression, as my photograph gives me, how I can have one single friend is surprising". So, in my view inappropriate for the infobox and have swapped them back. Will think about whether to quote Darwin's view about the photo in the caption. . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Biologist?
Where and when did Darwin study and earn a degree in biology? --41.151.8.68 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As the article shows, Darwin studied biology at both Edinburgh and Cambridge, there was no such thing as a degree in biology at Cambridge at that time. He also studied biology in greater depth when working on barnacles and plants. . dave souza, talk 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Article Is Blocked
The Article Is Blocked For Other Users Except Administrators And Bots. It Is A Polpular page in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonphan1 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article can be edited by established users. If you keep on vandalising articles you'll be blocked, and won't be able to edit any articles, so please try to improve your editing and be constructive. . dave souza, talk 23:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Darwin's views on race and Descent of Man quote
User:Timmoreland added a quote to the Social Darwinism section from from The Descent of Man:

"'“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”"

I have no issue inserting the quote if it is properly explained and placed in context. The quote is sometimes used by critics of evolution and Darwin to show that he was racist or was a proponent of social darwinism. There should be some reliable sources discusses his views on race and that quote in particular. Since this is an issue, people may be looking for it when they go to this article. We could split it from the social Darwinism section so that there's a clear separation between his views and later interpretations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good call, the detailed explanation of this particular creationist quotemine are dealt with in The Descent of Man and don't need to be repeated here. . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's some precedence for this. For instance the Margaret Sanger article has a section on her views on Race. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article already outlined Darwin's views on race, scholarly views are clear that he was much less racist than most people of his time. It may be useful to move some points from notes into the body of the article, will think about that. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Also put most of the Eugenics section into Views on Eugenics. It does create some redundancy as you have to explain Francis Galton twice. You can expand the Eugenics section a bit to focus on the field as opposed to Darwin's views on it. I also move the following quote to the end:

"Taking descriptive ideas as moral and social justification creates the ethical is-ought problem."

There's no citation. Critics of Social Darwinism have said that, but you have to include a source. I also removed:

"Darwin's theory of evolution was a matter of explanation. He thought it 'absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another' and saw evolution as having no goal."

Again, no source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The first was sourced to Wilkins, the statement "absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another" is already sourced further up in the article, his theory was unusual in that evolution to him lacked a goal or direction but don't think that was well sourced so have left it out for now. . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Full quote:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Source:Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As above, see Descent for commentary. . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Also removed the citation to Anthony Flew. I am not sure how useful it is. It seems to contradict the rest of the section. "Darwin did not share the racism common at that time: a point examined by the philosopher Antony Flew, who is at pains to distance Darwin's attitudes from those later attributed to him." --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reference:


 * Good call. . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Overall, there are some problems with this reorganisation and it may have lost some useful sourced info. However, it's worthwhile reviewing this part of the article. As a first step I've simplified some of the sections, putting the emphasis a bit more on Darwin's views. Note that women aren't a separate race, so a more general heading is appropriate. Have also moved the pic of daddy with Wm. out of the box, you're right about it getting too large. . . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re the section title, the article explains how "Darwinism" means many things, and we should show that rather than avoiding it because of creationist misuse in one country. The proposed change to "Social Darwinism" gives anachronistic weight to a neologism that didn't exist in Darwin's day, so I'm happier with the shorter title. It already mentions various evolutionary ideas, we could always add a bit about use of "Darwinism" for Weissman's Neo-Darwinism or evolutionary theory with an emphasis on natural selection. . dave souza, talk 18:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording in 1st paragraph
Please reconsider the wording in the second sentence. It is not very scientific in its style. "He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection."

He proposed that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and is the founder of the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection."

A hypothesis is proposed, theories are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.207.235 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This matter has been thoroughly discussed (see the archives at the top). Darwin did a lot more than wake up one morning with a proposal. Also, reliable sources verify that the scientific community moved from a position of ignorance of the subject to support for Darwin's conclusions in a remarkably small number of years—that is the reason for "established". Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This might be a reason for editorial opinion for use of the word "established" but where are the references to support such a conclusion?Wcwarren (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Use of Word "established"
In the second sentance the second word is "established". In a previous version the word "showed" was used. This change was made by Mann jess on 14 June 2010‎ at 16:36 and allegedly is based on long discussions up to that time. This is not correct!

I have read the relevant discussions and the change from "showed" to "established" is actually in the context of Darwin's establishment of the theory not his alleged establishment of the science of evolution! This is a vital difference. This sentence reads much more strongly than any reference or discussion supports!

Please see the the fourth sentance of the fourth paragraph for the correct context of the use of this word. In that sentance it is clear that Darwin only "established" an explanation not the conclusion. This sentance is referenced appropriately.

If anyone can show the error in this section please give direct reference to any missing discussion. Please do not include YOUR opinions on the value of the use of the word "established".

This reverted change is NOT based on the ideas of the content but on the wording agreed upon in discussion.

Please do not mindlessly revert this reverted edit.

I hope this clears things up as this single word "established" has been defended incorrectly many times. A simple search of this word in edits and discussions proves the truth of what I am saying.

Wcwarren (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see Evolution as a theory and fact. Providing sources for your proposal would also help.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you miss the point. Discussions here are NOT about the theory but the discussion of the use of this word. This change has NOT been discussed. I checked! Wcwarren (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Your argument is based on an incorrect distinction between "theory" and "fact". The article I linked to explains that in exhaustive detail, with ample sources. We go by what the sources say, not the opinions of our editors. Please just read the article. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My argument has nothing to do with a distinction between "theory" and "fact". The changes to this article are discussed here but this change which I reverted has NOT been discussed. The sources do not say Darwin established science but that he established a concept or idea, call it a fact or theory it is still an idea. Wcwarren (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Archive 11. However, even if it hadn't been discussed, as you alleged, edit warring would not be appropriate.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts;


 * I accept the observation that edit warring should be avoided, I'll watch my edits. I am not very experienced.


 * I believe the "consensus" seen is based on editor's opinions on this topic. Sorry Jess, but the original insertion of "established" is I think based on subjective interpretation not on references. There is lots of debate about the current reading though I see that many editors like it. An objective consensus taking this sentance back to an unbiased point of view should be sought. The collective wording says much more than the parts agreed to by some editors. Wcwarren (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Can we stop wasting time on this pointless discussion? It's yet another case of fundamentalist Christians preaching Creationism, this time in an article on a great scientist. No matter how much they argue otherwise, it's a fringe POV position by world standards. Much of this page should be hatted and ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem on the edit warring; Wikipedia is a learning experience by nature. It's just something to look out for going forward. According to the discussion on Archive 11, "showed" was rejected because 1) it implies a visual demonstration primarily, 2) it implies an immediacy to his work, though some of his work was not accepted until later, 3) it is less precise about the impact and acceptance of his work today, 4) it is implied by other alternatives which do not have similar problems (such as demonstrated and established). That the theory of evolution is "established", in the sense that it is both true and a cornerstone of modern biology, is strongly supported by our reliable sources. Here's one, but there are others in the Evolution as a theory and fact article, as well as Evolution and Objections to evolution. If you have sources which demonstrate otherwise, I'd encourage you to link to them. All the best,  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a thoughtful reply to my discussion. It is good to see constructive discussion without resorting to attempts to distract from the core issue of good literature and NPOV. I didn't search "showed", just the alternative of "established" which lacked discussion. Thanks for the background. I still feel that this word attributes too much to Darwin which is not supported by references. Since some of his ideas were not accepted till latter then he didn't establish the theory but added to the discussion. Again we are not talking about the theory of evolution but Darwin's contribution. The merits or otherwise of the theory is a secondary discussion and ought not even be the core of this article. Maybe we can put to the community a change to "demonstrated" then since this word gives greater accuracy to an understanding of Darwin's contribution to the concept of evolution. Wcwarren (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Another solution would be to put a hatnote above the article to put it all in context. This could be similar to the sentances used in other articles with divergent perpectives like Age of the earth.Wcwarren (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Re Age of the Earth: I reverted the by Wcwarren which introduced a hatnote to the effect that the article is concerned with scientific estimates (however, the hatnote has been restored). The practice at Wikipedia is to write what pertinent reliable sources say: the Earth is 4.54 billion years old (not "some scientists believe..."). The same applies to this article: Darwin did establish common ancestry (although of course the evidence available now is overwhelmingly more powerful than was available 150 years ago), and the article should not say "some scientists believe...". Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @John: Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm the one who restored it. I didn't see a problem with the wording on Age of the Earth, but as my edit summary indicated, you're more than welcome to revert me and we can discuss. Obviously, I agree with you; the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and saying "scientists believe" would violate WP:DUE.
 * @Wcwarren: I think "established" is better than "demonstrated", since our reliable sources indicate common descent is established, and that it originated with Darwin's work. Demonstrated gives almost precisely the same meaning, except that it skips over that fact. I'm not sure what sort of hatnote you wish to put at the top of the article, but none of the ones I can think of would be appropriate. ("For religious interpretations of Charles Darwin...") Hatnotes are intended to guide readers to the topic they were searching for... If they hit "Charles Darwin", they were obviously looking for a biography, not something religious.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And just to make sure I've hit all your points, Wcwarren, it doesn't matter whether Darwin's work established common descent during or after his lifetime. We haven't supplied any dates in that sentence, so we don't need to restrict ourselves to just that period. BTW, we talked about all this in Archive 11. Did you read the discussion I linked you to?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 07:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. A "hatnote" could say something like ''This article is about Charles Darwin's contributions to the theory of evolution. For detailed discussion of evolution itself see that article.''

In Archive 11 Jess's quote sums it up. Established rightly gives him credit for founding and popularizing the theory, No problem here, Darwin established the theory but he did NOT establish the science. The point in timing is a third conversation about who established the theory. Darwin's evidence did not establish evolutionary science but did help to popularise the "concept" or "idea" or "fact". Wcwarren (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Misleading. Darwin's work and authority established the fact that evolution occurs, other scientists had been gradually working towards this but Darwin provided the tipping point. He did not establish his theory of natural selection in his lifetime, that came later. . . dave souza, talk 00:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a proposal for a new consensus for discussion here - let's think about this. It seems we have one group of people that favors "showed" and one group of people that favors "established."  Since neither group is willing to accept the other group's word, let's think of a possible alternative to both.  I propose (and please, hear my argument out) that we instead use the word "determined."  By saying "He determined that all species of life...", we are treating it as both a discovery and the basis for Darwin's work (leaving the dead-horse theory-vs-fact argument completely out of the loop).  I know this has been discussed at length, but I think we might be able to find a better consensus here than what we previously had.  Any ideas or counter-suggestions?  Cheers.  Sleddog116 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "established" covers the main point which is that "Darwin's name is so linked with evolution because his works convinced the international scientific community that evolution was true." The other terms don't have the same meaning. He "determined" that evolution was a fact around 1837 soon after his return from the Beagle voyage, but it took him many years of work before he was prepared to convince the scientific community. It's true that he "showed" this to the scientific community, but more than that, "Darwin, as an unquestionably respectable authority in elite science, publicly threw his weight on the side of evolution" and "the great majority of the scientific community came to accept that Darwin was right about the evolution of life". . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point; I'm just trying to come up with an alternative that will not cause edit wars. (I realize, of course, that there are some on both sides who won't drop it even if the proof is right in front of them.)  If you don't like "determined" (and let's say just for the sake of discussion that "showed" and "established" are also both out), what do you propose?  And for the record, I'm not against the current status quo - I'm just trying to come up with a solution that will please both sides.  Sleddog116 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but there is no reason to think that "established" is out. Many articles offend fringe groups and are subject to frequent attempts to "balance" scientifically accurate statements by fiddling with the wording—if this were ever resolved, another word in the article would be the next focus of attention. As dave has mentioned, the transformation to scientific thinking caused by Darwin's work is astounding (and well sourced), and "established" is exactly correct. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, great contributions. There is a serious lack of reference to the use of the word established in literature however. The use of this word is a consensus of editors' interpretation and thus should be changed or removed as it is not verifiable. The correct use of the word is the establishment of the theory and this is precisely what the references say. Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. He established an explanation, a great contribution to the story of origins but not the science itself. Wcwarren (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Darwin's work and intervention tipped the balance to establish what other scientists had been coming round to, the fact that evolution occurs. That isn't "the story of origins", but it does explain the origin of species. As discussed above, your bias is showing and is not a view that should be given weight in this science article. . dave souza, talk 23:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct! Darwin did establish a theory that other scientists were coming round to. However there are no sources which say Darwin established the fact of evolution as the origin of species. If there are then provide the quote, please. The key point is that the use of the word established is NOT supported by any quoted sources or references as it is used in the article. Yes he did propose an explanation, now widely accepted, but he did not establish the history of origins any more than any other historian ever established the real history of events NOT OBSERVED. Darwin established the theory not the facts!!!Wcwarren (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Wcwarren, not quite. Darwin's intervention established the fact that evolution of some sort was occurring and had occurred, but his theory was generally rejected or thought to be only a minor factor. As is shown by the sources. . dave souza, talk 03:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a serious lack of references supporting the editorial conclusion that Darwin established the fact of evolution. Change in species is seen but that is not the same as evolution of one species from another. To illustrate this fact the observed changes like finch beak sizes are within a species and reversible over time! The finches are not evolving into a new species and this definition of evolution has NEVER been observed, ANYWHERE!!! If the quotes don't support the text then it should be changed. This is the whole point. Wcwarren (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We get it. You can't see the evidence. However, this is not a forum. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This article should not be about editorial opinion or who sees or understands the "evidence". Wikipedia is about verifiable sources of information not about editorial analysis or original work. Where are the sources which say that Darwin established the fact of evolution? Clearly he helped establish the theory in the scientific community but did not establish any alleged facts of evolution itself.Wcwarren (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Recommendation on Article Opening
As someone with great respect for the scientific endeavor, as practiced via true scientific method, I am taken aback by the second sentence of this article. This sentence proclaims that Darwin "ESTABLISHED" common ancestry. I submit that it would be prudent to maintain the Wikipedia principle of neutrality with this high-profile article. To start the article with this absolutist assertion for the proposed scientific "THEORY" is not in keeping with the principle of neutrality. I recommend that this second sentence be modified to properly present this assertion as the opinion of some, and also be forthright about this being Darwin's theory, and not verified scientific fact. I'm certain this topic must have been discussed before, which is why I am astounded that this second sentence remains in the article. Such an immediate mis-statement does not speak well for this article, nor considering that this is such a high-profile article, does this speak well for Wikipedia. There are many ways this sentence could be constructed without the absolutist one-side opinion put forth. It could simply say "asserted" instead of "established". Regardless of the exact manner, this matter should be promptly addressed. Sincerely, G. Brett  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.42.231 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and as you suspect, "established" has been thoroughly discussed in the past, and consensus is that "established" is the correct word to describe what happened, according to the many reliable sources. If you know of a reliable source suggesting that it was not established, please post it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The intro is in conformity with WP policies. Neutrality does not mean always giving equal weight to all sides in a dispute. Read the following:
 * WP:UNDUE
 * WP:FRINGE
 * --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This startling issue has yet to be resolved. Although a consensus of editors believe in the use of the word "established" there are no references which make this claim of Darwin's studies. This use of the word "established" does reflect editorial bias and does not reflect referenced sources. Darwin established only the theory in the scientific world but did NOT establish evolution as a scientific fact. Again no sources make the claim of fact for his work, especially since most of his work was simply a reproduction of ideas and alleged evolutionary examples which existed for many decades before he published his Origins book.Wcwarren (talk) 23:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Try van Wyhe and the other cited sources, Darwin's work was an influential tipping point in the the already growing acceptance that some sort of evolution had occurred, and common ancestry became established in science in his lifetime. His theory of common descent took longer to be accepted, as the article shows. Your last sentence is nonsensical. . dave souza, talk 18:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

On blackbirds
When I read about an English person, especially if he is an ornithologist like John Gould, and especially if he is referring to an English biologist like Charles Darwin, I expect "blackbird" to mean Turdus merula and nothing else, because that would have been the meaning of the word for both of them. --Episcophagus (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a very good point. They would probably have been aware of the New World birds, but unlikely to use "blackbird" as a common name for these birds. I've changed it accordingly .dave souza, talk 06:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

A question
I wanted to tentatively suggest the idea that artificial selection be mentioned at the end of the first paragraph, because this comparison/contrast is an essential way to an easy understanding of what Darwin meant by "natural selection". One could say: "...and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, which he compared and contrasted with artificial selection." Just an idea. I do understand that a lot of people may not agree with this suggestion. Invertzoo (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We would have to stick with the principle that material added to the paragraph you propose has to be dealt with in more detail lower down the page. It's only alluded to briefly here, as "animal husbandry", and in no great detail in  Inception of Darwin's theory. There seems to be a bit of a gap, somewhere, in our coverage of this (allowing, of course, that I may have missed it) which could be filled in a bit. Good suggestion! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do feel this is an important theme, see my note below. Invertzoo (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Astutely observed, so I've had a go at revising the relevant detail as well as forming a new sub-subsection on Malthus and natural selection.
 * The "animal husbandry" link isn't very good, but has been superseded for our purposes by selective breeding which is much better. In your suggestion, it would work better than "artificial selection" which is a term coined by Darwin and which would not mean much to most readers. So, perhaps  "...and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in an analogy with selective breeding." . .  dave souza, talk 10:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding a new subsection, this is an important theme in Darwin's development of his theory. We actually already have a pretty good article on artificial selection, so maybe we could put "...and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, which he compared to artificial selection, his term for selective breeding."
 * I feel that the average person (at least here in the USA) simply does not understand the principle of evolution by natural selection at all (!) and by far the easiest way to understand it is to see it as a similar process to selective breeding, but the selecting being done by changing environmental pressures rather than by a farmer or animal breeder. Darwin was strongly influenced by what he saw of pigeon breeding. There's lots of good sources online for this. Invertzoo (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

State funeral
Following this edit my immediate recollection was that we had the reference to a state funeral before but decided it was technically a major ceremonial funeral. However, a look for sources found van Whye calling it a state funeral in his book giving an overview, so I edited the lead to match. This description also appears in Mark Patten's The Rough Guide to Evolution, so that's two authors who tend to be cautious about Darwin legends. There's no indication in Browne or in Desmond & Moore that it was officially a state funeral, but the Graun and the BBC have described it as such, in the context of discussing suggestions that Thatcher might get a state funeral. The Natural History Museum also call it a stat funeral in their timeline. Our State funerals in the United Kingdom article includes Darwin in its list, and says that "The real distinction between a state funeral and a ceremonial funeral is that a state funeral requires a motion or vote in Parliament." Freeman p. 81 notes that the request to Westminster was on House of Commons paper, signed by Lubbock and nineteen other MPs. That's supported by Francis Darwin's Life and letters. Desmond and Moore describe the context on pp. 664–677, on pp. 666–557 they describe the Revd. Frederic Farrar, Canon of Westminster, as saying that a petition would be needed, and when Lubbock heard this he went to the House of Commons to collect signatures: only the short notice prevented him from getting more signatures. So, there was a petition from Parliament. Protocol seems to have changed a bit since Darwin's time, so given the above sources it appears correct to call it a state funeral. . .dave souza, talk 14:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge
Can some mention be made of Sir Francis Darwin, Sir George Darwin, and Sir Horace Darwin and granddaughter Frances Cornford all being buried in Cambridge? Frances Cornford being a daughter of Sir Francis 'Frank' Darwin, and is interred in the same grave. Please add these details as the Darwin family has close connections to this immediate area of Cambridge. Martin Packer 2.27.125.136 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not exactly relevant on a page that is about none of them. Might be appropriate in the Darwin-Wedgwood family page. --Erp (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Attempts
Attempts to minimise Hume's racialism are similar to attempts to minimise Darwin's racialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.217.231 (talk) 14:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an article about Darwin, not Hume. Your source for your provocative statement? . . dave souza, talk 16:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Attempts to minimise Marx's racialism are similar to the other two attempts. See verbatim quotations from all three racialists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anti-Kaplan (talk • contribs) 09:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Influenced: Richard Dawkins
I just watched this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipDdd1SISoM In it Richard Dawkins says that he is influenced by Darwin. Should he be added to the influenced section? HostDavid (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I reckon this is marginal stuff. It goes without saying that most modern scientists in a particular field were influenced by major figures from the past in that field. How we choose particular individuals for mention beats me. And the Infobox is only meant to be a summary of what's buried in the depths of the article. To this end, the list is already doubtful. The ONLY mention of George Romanes and John Lubbock is in the Infobox. No context or explanation at all. I'd be reluctant to add Dawkins. (And we should removed Romanes and Lubbock.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 October 2012
In the summary section headed by Darwin's photograph and finishing with his signature, there is an error in the Spouse's year of birth shown just above the signature--it should read 1808 not 1839

Michaelanthonywhite (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * ❌ It's not her year of birth, it's the year they got married. --Six words (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've clarified it in the box. That's an absurd way of presenting marriage dates; any range of dates following a person's name is going to be interpreted as birth-death unless otherwise indicated, so some form of clarification is needed if we've adopted IMDB's approach to marriages. - Nunh-huh 18:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better to just leave it as (married 1839), because the marriage finished on Darwin's death, not in 1896. Mikenorton (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I didn't check who died first. I'll drop the "end" year of marriage - it's silly to have it in any case unless the marriage ended by divorce or annulment. - Nunh-huh 00:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Evolutionary biology template at top
I have removed the evolutionary biology template at the top of the article. This enormous template box detracts from the appearance, and its content should go at the foot of the page, not the beginning. In fact, there is already a navbox on Basic topics in evolutionary biology at the foot of the page, which appears to cover much the same ground.

The template at the top was added in Feburary by this edit, without any discussion, pro or con, that I can see. This is a featured article, and the text should be given precedence. We do not need two templates covering much the same subject, and where they do not overlap, one should be made comprehensive. Kablammo (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That 'State Funeral'
If, as appears to be the case, the evidence for a state funeral is wobbly, then the article should not say that Darwin was given one. The obituary in The Times cited above make no mention of any gun carriage or other military dimension or of any of the usual paraphenalia of a state funeral. The Prime Minister didn't attend, though that article says that 'Lord Spencer, President of the Council [...] represented Her Majesty's Ministers at the funeral'. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Times/1882/News/Funeral_of_Charles_Darwin The article shouldn't perpetuate a myth. Norvo (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just reached out for Charles Darwin by Gavin deBeer off my bookshelf. On the second last page it says "The only British national honour that Darwin received was burial at Westminster Abbey." (My bolding.) That pretty much eliminates a state funeral. It should be removed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And, strictly speaking, it was not even a "national honour". The decision was made by the Dean of Canterbury upon application by John Lubbock. Galton and Huxley also applied pressure. Neither Gladstone nor the Archbishop attended the ceremony, and technically it had no official state sanction at all (last few pages of Janet Browne's biography). The Dean is not an official of the British state, obviously. I think it's right to say without qualification that Darwin had no official sign of recognition by the British state either during his life or after his death. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have boldly removed the reference to a state funeral.--ukexpat (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Norvo (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Dean is a royal appointee so is a state official in a sense (though not a government official). It was certainly considered significant in that the Speaker of the House of Commons and Lord Spencer as a representative of the Queen's ministers attended (these two attending especially the latter attending as a representative and possibly the former if there as Speaker and not in his private capacity count as 'official recognition'), several peers were among the pallbearers, and representatives from several embassies also attended (see the Times article on the funeral). I agree the funeral was not a state funeral far from it but it was certainly a national honor given where and who attended. --Erp (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As discussed at above, sources differ on this but it's clear that it was a major public event held by a state church. On the basis of these further discussions and my review of sources I've removed state funeral from the lead, and substituted "major ceremonial funeral" as before. Will review the more detailed section. . dave souza, talk 19:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

John Edmonstone
"He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who had accompanied Charles Waterton in the South American rainforest, and often sat with this "very pleasant and intelligent man".[18]"

Does anyone else feel that this sentence has a slight "Charles Darwin: NOT A RACIST" subtext? garik (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To me this observation is more likely to be expressing quite the opposite if you read the whole quote not just the last bit. Important also we don't apply a 2011 perspective to a 19th century statement. Tmol42 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * <ec> Maybe we should make it a stronger subtext, possibly citing Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (2009), Darwin's Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the quest for human origins, Allen Lane, Penguin Books, which has a lot on the topic. This review covers that specific point. However, I'm reluctant to add yet another reference book to the list. How do others feel? . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tmol42: I'm not sure how Darwin's observation is expressing the opposite. My point anyway is not about what Darwin might have meant, but what the sentence in the article is doing. Dave souza: I should add that I'm not saying Darwin was a racist and that this sentence is therefore misleading. My worry is that this sentence makes me cringe; it seems to be saying: "Look! Darwin knew a black man and found him intelligent and pleasant!" I have no doubt that he did, but I think the article would be better either addressing the "Darwin not a racist" point more explicitly (i.e. not as a heavy-handed subtext) or not at all. garik (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We do cover the point more explicitly later on, in the Education section we're covering the notable fact that he did have this training and had these friendly and respectful dealings with a freed black who had been a slave, as well as learning the craft of taxidermy which would prove useful on the Beagle voyage. This story shows aspects of his character at that time. He was significantly less racist than many scientists were at the time, but modern sensitivities can take amiss Darwin's willingness to describe people as savages or western civilisation as superior. Like the similar issues with his contemporary Abraham Lincoln, it has to be considered in context. Darwin was strongly motivated to consider people on an egalitarian basis, but he ranked people by abilities, had the class consciousness of his time, and did not have modern ideas of multiculturalism. . dave souza, talk 18:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would strongly suggest citing a secondary source like the one you mentioned previously. Simply putting that quote in there, devoid of context, is plainly trying to make an argument without properly sourcing that argument to a secondary source.  Since we have secondary sources talking about Darwin's attitude on race, we can cite those directly.  (However, either way, Darwin's attitudes towards race shouldn't be given undue weight in the article, since it's not what makes him notable.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, well sourced improvement of this aspect will be welcome, will try to assist when time permits. We don't want to give these attitudes undue weight, but D&M do make a case that his attitude to slavery and hence to other races had a strong influence on his willingess to see unity in life, and so influenced his theorising. There's also the need to clear up misunderstandings that are sometimes promoted by anitevolutionists. . .dave souza, talk 19:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, it seems a fairly ham-fisted sentence to me. Easily fixed by removal of the last part of the sentence, "and often sat ...". Being educated by a freed slave is bibliographically significant; that Darwin often "sat" with someone is not; Darwin's characterisation of a black man as "educated" is not a key feature of Darwin's Childhood and Education.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.253.56.104 (talk) 05:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A3243G Mitochondrial mutation: Did Darwin have Mitochondrial Disease as some experts speculate?
The Wiki article on Mitochondrial Diseases reports that Charles Darwin and Thomas Wedgwood both may have had a Mitochondrial Dz, specifically the A3243G mutation. While we have an understanding of Mitochondrial genetics, we have just come to realize that there is an adult form of Mitochondrial Dz. The article on Mito Dz reports a 1:4000 prevalence, but there are new studies (see: United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation) reporting a prevalence of 1:200. Many geneticists believe that all disease--organic and our susceptibility/response to infectious) has at their core a mitochondrial cause.

As someone who has just been Dx with the Adult form of Mito w/dysautonomia, I noted in this article on Darwin the reports of his concern that his lifetime of mysterious and poor health may have had a genetic basis. In fact, it has been speculated that Darwin had the A3243G mutation of the Dz. If Darwin had Mito, I can truly understand his sense in wondering if he had more than just Bad Genes. While experiencing scores of symptoms such as fatigue, pain and a large number of autoimmune type symptoms, a person with Mito does not consider themselves as ill. Poor Genes and a less fortunate genetic inheritance, yes. But actually illness? No. Lacking the health and vitality of his peers, with Mito, Darwin would have simply accepted this and proceeded to "work around" any health issues as they presented.

Aging is disproportionally harder for adult mito PTs; they show aging symptoms earlier and have to devote more time dealing with their "maladaptations to physical stress" as they age. All of this Darwin (and no doubt his wife and family) would have seen and wondered about as Darwin aged. Four years ago, he would have been tested for the Mito and Nuclear DNA mutations. But in 2013, he will be exome sequenced! Soon, we may know more about Darwin's speculation that he had a genetic disease. But of course, we now know that we all have at least one of those--something Darwin, no doubt, assumed!Charley sf (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, sorry to hear of your own Dx and hope it affects you much less than the symptoms Darwin suffered. We have a whole article on these issues, and I think that point is covered under Charles Darwin's health. if any further detail has been published in a reliable source then it can be shown in that article with a citation to meet verifiability policy. . . dave souza, talk 04:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 12/30/12
I have looked up William Paley and his 'Evidences of Christianity' after reading this line from the article, When his own exams drew near, Darwin focused on his studies and was delighted by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of Christianity.  I found this paragraph that I have to admit that I am 'assuming' is a direct quote from Darwin off a page about William Paley, 'Again, in my last year I worked with some earnestness for my final degree of B.A., and brushed up my Classics, together with a little Algebra and Euclid, which latter gave me much pleasure, as it did at school. In order to pass the B.A. examination, it was also necessary to get up Paley's 'Evidences of Christianity,' and his 'Moral Philosophy.' This was done in a thorough manner, and I am convinced that I could have written out the whole of the 'Evidences' with perfect correctness, but not of course in the clear language of Paley. The logic of this book and, as I may add, of his 'Natural Theology,' gave me as much delight as did Euclid. The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind. I did not at that time trouble myself about Paley's premises; and taking these on trust, I was charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation. By answering well the examination questions in Paley, by doing Euclid well, and by not failing miserably in Classics, I gained a good place among the oi polloi or crowd of men who do not go in for honours.'

I would like to have an addition to the following sentence in the article - 'When his own exams drew near, Darwin focused on his studies of and was delighted by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of Christianity as he was of Euclid. Darwin also said, 'The careful study of these works, without attempting to learn any part by rote, was the only part of the academical course which, as I then felt and as I still believe, was of the least use to me in the education of my mind.'

I believe that the additional sentence portrays Darwin's feelings more acurately.

I got the paragraph from a website of http://www.wmcarey.edu/carey/paley/paley.htmMylittlezach (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Mylittlezach, Wikipedia, as you know, isn't a place for original research. If this is an accurate quote, you are giving an interpretation to an original source and an interpretation that is out of context.  Moreover, even if Wikipedia did not have a fundamental rule against original research, I would argue that your interpretation is a little off. So, the sentence as it is captures Darwin's view well as expressed by the secondary source quoted.--I am One of Many (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Mylittlezach, thanks for raising the point. The wording in question was actually cited to Darwin's biography, which your source reproduces. This is a very condensed summary, the topic is developed in more detail in Charles Darwin's education which was based on Desmond and Moore's Darwin, and since we really should cite a secondary source I've added a citation here to the relevant pages. Though Darwin does refer prominently to Euclid, that had less impact on his later life than his study of Paley's Evidences and Natural Theology, which we cover in the next paragraph. Oddly enough, Desmond and Moore interpret it as Darwin learning the Evidences by heart: the brief statement in this article is fine, I'll think over the wording in Charles Darwin's education. Thanks again for raising these points, . dave souza, talk 12:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Add to WikiProject Shropshire?
Darwin is already in the London project, so I believe that he should be in Shropshire due to his home county's influence on him, and his subsequent influence on it. Discuss, and make the change if necessary. I haven't done it yet due to the vital importance of this article Indiasummer95 (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me, if someone in the project wants to add it that would be ok. . . dave souza, talk 18:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 February 2013
He almost could not board the ship because he had heart problems.

M5ServerInfo (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Source? — <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;"> raeky t  22:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS and add a reliable source to back up your claim. Camyoung54   talk  03:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's covered by Charles Darwin's health, and was a self diagnosis which had no effect on him going so it's rather too detailed to cover in this overview article. From his bio, "I was also troubled with palpitation and pain about the heart, and like many a young ignorant man, especially one with a smattering of medical knowledge, was convinced that I had heart disease. I did not consult any doctor, as I fully expected to hear the verdict that I was not fit for the voyage, and I was resolved to go at all hazards." . . dave souza, talk 09:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Get a grip - get rid of the Alma mater
(Please accept my apologies for any spelling mistakes and the like - English is not my mother tongue.) Because of reasons not necessary to discuss here, the American culture (maybe also the British, please enlighten me) has a fixation with the institution at which anyone received his higher education. This is evident from the Info-box in the article where the Alma mater of Charles Darwin is presented, the Universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge. If a primary school child comes to Wikipedia to learn, by a quick look, something about Darwin, he (possible a girl, because I use he as a gender neutral pronoun) might very well return from the visit with the knowledge that Darwin was educated at Edinburgh and Cambridge. This would be a waste, because the theology Darwin studied at Cambridge has no relation to his contributions, and of course Darwin's true university was H.M.S. Beagle - what the child would be much better off to have learnt was the grandfather's of Darwin, and so I suggest that the Info-box, obviously of no good to anyone but a schoolboy, be changed and the Alma mater data be replaced with data about his grandfathers.

(It can be worthwhile to look around at the other languages of Wikipedia, the German page does not sport an Info-box at all, and the French page says nothing of Darwin's formal education in it's Info-box. The Spanish page does mention the Alma mater in its Info-box, not Edinburgh but Shrewsbury, something for the Spanish speaking editors to look into, but the Italian page again spares the reader the sufferings of an Info-box.)

((What I'm really trying to say above is this: The American view of the world is a tilted one, and the article reflects this American view more than it reflects Charles Darwin, and therefore the article would be improved if the American view was set aside just an inch for a more accurate description of the life and times of Charles Darwin, not the life of modern time American Wikipedians, some of which are to young to know the essential things about Darwin, but hopefully none to old to be willing to look closer at the differences between their own days and the times of Darwin.)) --78.69.55.99 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly how the article is displayed in Spanish let alone the French Wikipedias sites etc is irrelevant and in my view a little condescending, but I will comment no further on this. I can't see what you are getting at by 'an American tilt'. The article no doubt has a whole range of contributions from editors of many nations and be assured if any cultural bias crept in there would be plenty of editors from both sides of the pond and further afield stepping in to address any such 'tilts'. If you have any specific examples I suggest you be more specific and refer to these here. You are also wrong about the irrelevance of Darwin's Alma Mater and his theological education having no influence on his contribution to science. There will be some Darwin experts who can comment on this more eruditely than I can but it was perhaps the very fact that he continually had to resolve conflicts in his mind between his religious beliefs and the evidence which emerged from his scientific discoveries that led him after years of personal struggle to publish On the Origin of the Species. Tmol42 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To put another slant on it, this is a biographical article so of course his education is relevant. – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Info-box, I think, correct me if I am wrong, is the minimal short summary Wikipedia would like to tell any quick visitor about the subject, especially those of less knowledge and shorter time spent in school, children, even small children. Such minimal short summaries should try to focus on the most important points of the subject, and the fact that Darwin had an education of some kind, and the fact that it happened to be a partly theological one, are not so important, and - now I have to ask you to read again what I wrote above - the institutions at which Darwin received his education is of absolutely no importance, lest the kind of education is first told the visitor. The Info-box mentions his Alma mater, but not the kind of studies Darwin took, and so a visitor will learn nothing of importance by staring at the words Edinburgh and Cambridge. (Please note that I suggest one single specific improvement, the removal of the Alma mater of the Info-box, and the addition of the names of Darwin's grandfathers. I do not claim to have read the article in any length, I am busy reading OtOoS, which happens to be a very nice book, recommended.) --78.69.55.99 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * By consensus, infoboxes for people contain fields for their places of education. If you wish to change that consensus, feel free to suggest it. In any event, educational background is far more relevant that grandfathers, but if the grandfathers are notable, they maybe listed in the ibox too. – ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What I suggest is this: Charles Darwin is such a different and important man that he deserves an Info-box design of his own - to give a hint of his story requires something more, and different, than the Info-box of an ordinary run-of-the-mill kind of scientist. Therefore the Alma mater is ill-placed in his Info-box and should be removed and replaced. (I am convinced that Ukexpat is plain wrong when he (who might be a woman, because I use he as a gender neutral pronoun) states: "In any event, educational background is far more relevant that grandfathers" - in this particular case the educational background is of far less importance than the family tree, not to mention his world tour. To assume educational background, here taken to mean the place of, not the kind of, education received, to always be of greater importance than a persons grandfathers is part of the tilt of the (modern day) American world view. In 19th century imperial homeland England quite a number of people are found who exhibits qualities not related to their places of education, Florence Nightingale is perhaps the prime example.) --78.69.55.99 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think our IP contributor makes a good point. Yes, someone's education is important, but to just list the academic institutions, and not the field(s) of study, tells the reader very little. And I too agree that it seems to be an American habit to rate the place of one's education ahead of what one actually learnt. Infoboxes are dangerous places. The inevitable tendency to use a field just because it's there can lead to both a shallow and distorted view of a subject. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of an info box in an article on a person is to provide common biographical information (date of birth, date of death, nationality, field of work, and institution of higher education attended are examples). They do include a field for what a person is known for, but they do not provide a space suitable for much explanation about what is really important about a person. This is no different than say the info box for an article on a country that provides useful statistics and facts about that country (population, area, languages spoken and religions practiced there etc.) but nothing about what is really important about a country's history, politics, physical geography, flora and fauna, or culture. The really important information is summarized in the article lead not the info box. Furthermore I find it puzzling that anyone who was really familiar with Darwin would write "the theology Darwin studied at Cambridge has no relation to his contributions". Darwin's education at Edinburgh, and especially at Cambridge was immensely important to his future work. His studies in natural theology shaped his view of the natural world, especially his emphasis on the adaptation of living things to their environment, and his studies of entomology (esp. beetles), botany, and geology (all of which were studied as part of natural theology at the time) with Henslow and Sedgwick at Cambridge as well as his earlier studies of marine invertebrates with Grant at Edinburgh provided him with the background in natural history that made his observations during the voyage of the Beagle possible. Not to mention of course that it was one of his professors at Cambridge, Henslow, whose recommendation secured him the position on the Beagle in the first place. Finally, while we Yanks no doubt deserve much of the blame/credit for what is good and what is bad about the English language Wikipedia, you can't blame much about this particular article on us. Most of this article has been shaped, for better or for worse (mostly for the better I think) by British editors, and one Brit in particular :) Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. I assumed that, as is very common, the infobox was designed by an American. Dunno about anyone else, but it's more the structure of the infobox that I'm criticising, in that it over-emphasises some things and ignores others. Apologies if it wasn't an American creation. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the term 'alma mater' that looks odd to me - what's wrong with 'education'? I've never heard the term used outside the US and I always thought that it was the first university/college attended whereas many scientists have attended multiple institutions, as in Darwin's case. Mikenorton (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Whatever we end up doing, we should say something other than "alma mater", which sounds rather pretentious to many people (I'm an academic, and it makes me cringe) and is a little odd when there are several institutions listed. I think education is fine. I don't have strong feelings either way whether we include what he studied or not, but I'd lean towards something like "Edinburgh (medicine), Cambridge (theology)". garik (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the term alma mater (and I can see your point) the place you need to discuss it is at Template talk:Infobox person or maybe at Template talk:Infobox scientist. I think you are going to have a hard time reaching a consensus to move away from the standard biographical info box templates for this (or any other) biographical article. The templates are used to provide a little commonality in structure, appearance and terminology across articles. As it stands now the term alma mater appears in the info box of many thousands of biographical articles, and changing it in one but not others is probably going to cause confusion; standardizing terminology was one of the big motivations for adopting info box templates in the first place. I do think there is probably room for improvement in the way the info box template is used for this article. I don't have any objection to adding his field of study in parenthesis after the school as suggested above, and I would like to see common descent added to the things he is known for. I would also like the word "evolution" to be worked into the list of things he is known for as well, as not having it there is a bit like ignoring the elephant in the room. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points, I'm not much interested in infoboxes but agree that alma mater is an Americanism which is totally out of place in a British bio. First I heard of Alma mater was listening to Chuck Berry. So Tertiary education would be better, have raised this at Template talk:Infobox scientist. The other proposals also seem like good ideas. . . dave souza, talk 18:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable no university is credited for the passion of Vincent van Gogh. I'd like to see the Xerox machine at the patent office listed as the alma mater of Thomas Alva Edison, a good matching of an American term with an American figure, alas chronology has a more persuasive platform than I do. Charles couldn't copy his classmates, he could certainly lecture his lecturers, and his university was no school of revolution. Credit where it's due. My own schooling prepared me to address the English speaking world and farm animals alike. I find chickens and dogs to be naturally multilingual, and the dialect of cats I cannot fathom. Like the IP Contributor I feel it's worthwhile to look beyond our noses for a wider view. I oppose shelving the discussion in templates, I support 'Getting a Grip' with passion. Penyulap   talk 14:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The references to his university work seem acceptable to me. Don't see why the original argument began.Paragraphbee (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, the template talk didn't resolve this odd Americanism, so I've cunningly put them under Institutions. . . dave souza, talk 19:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That looks like a reasonable solution - good suggestion. Mikenorton (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 27/03/2013
Digitised images of the Darwin-Hooker correspondence have been made available on the Cambridge Digital Library http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/collections/darwinhooker Should this be added to the external links section? EifionJones (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Done, replacing the news item: links to both Cambridge Digital Library and Darwin Correspondence Project as both have pages on this joint publication. . dave souza, talk 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 April 2013
Please change statement/ assertion in first par. sentence 2, which says "He established that all species of life have descended over time from ...." to read "He proposed that all species" [or words of similar effect].

There has never been any testable or measureable evidence which can be referred to as scientific proof, brought forward of Darwins ideas on the subject. The immediate next part of the same sentence more accurately describes the true nature of his work:

'''"... and proposed the scientific theory .." - However even this is innacurate, considering the meaning of "Scientific Theory".''' According to Wikipedia's own site, scientific theory:

"is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment" So, I ask: Where are the repeated confirmations, observations, and measureable experiments Darwin carried out to gain theory status for his work? I put to you they simply do not exist, otherwise they would be able to be repeated over & over again, and with even greater accuracy and conviction in our modern & high-tech era.

It is therefore I request that the word "established" (or any similar words & phrases) be substituted for a lesser descriptive when referring to Darwin's work.

124.169.133.189 (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is covered in the references, and the wording has already been extensively discussed. Your comments suggest that you are unaware of scientific findings on evidence of common descent and evolution, please note that this is an article about a science topic. . . dave souza, talk 13:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No Source Cited for a vital claim.
Second Paragraph:

"By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public accepted evolution as a fact."

I'm astounded that this wild claim is not cited in any way. I'm not in any way contending it's truth, but it is an extremely presumptuous claim to make without a wealth of evidential support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianStray (talk • contribs) 04:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead doesn't have to be cited if the material is dealt with in detail lower down. See "Responses to publication". --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:LEADCITE:

"...there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations..."


 * It is a common misconception that the lead is immune from WP:CHALLENGE <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 09:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources cited for this sentence and the sentence which follows it are van Wyhe 2008 which focusses on scientific acceptance (link to current version), and Bowler 2003, pp. 179, 338, 347. Bowler gives more detail and covers the public acceptance, but as his explanation that in the general public there was a spread of opinion and "in the decade following publication of the Origin, even the conservatives became more willing to accept the general theory of evolution" appears on p. 178, I'll amend the citation accordingly. Note Bowler's comment that Darwin's great achievement was in precipitating a change in public opinion and scientific opinion. dave souza, talk 11:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The claim is not even true anyways. Look up the Institute for Creation Research, they (and I for that mater)are scientists who do not believe in evolution.Lee Tru. (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Institute for Creation Research, a well known bastion of pseudoscience. Of course, I don't believe in evolution, as a well established scientific fact it doesn't need belief. See WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. . dave souza, talk 19:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request in info box: Influences
On notable influence that is sorely missing from the information box is Thomas Malthus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus). Malthus and Lyell are largely responsible for Darwin's formulation of natural selection, as syllogistically stated. Lyell influenced Darwin with the gradualistic perspective of small changes over lots of time results in large change. Malthus' "An Essay on the Principle of Population" was Darwin's base for incorporating limited resources ("subsistence" in Malthus' words) and competition into the natural selection model. I have yet to see a historical treatment of Darwin that have failed to include Malthus as a major influence on the formulation of evolution by natural selection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.161.11 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 16 May 2013‎
 * Thanks for commenting, we do of course mention Malthus and Lyell in the article. The Template:Infobox scientist advises "influences List names of any notable people who influenced the scientist significantly. The intention is to only list those influences that had physical contact with the scientist. Do not insert those influences that were not in person (e.g. via study of works or books) as this is more tenuous and there are generally too many for each scientist." Malthus predated Darwin, and we include Lyell as an influence. . . dave souza, talk 08:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Darwin avoiding the term "evolution" is a relevant detail
Dave souza, I'm reverting your edit deleting the reference to the fact that the word "evolution" wasn't used in the first edition of On the Origin of Species. It's a fact backed with sources, and it is interesting and relevant enough to appear somewhere in the article. Everybody relates On the Origin of Species with the concept of evolution, and rightly so. But how many readers of this article are aware that such term wasn't used at all in the first edition, and was only introduced years later when Darwin was more confident about using it publicly? I agree with you it's not a big deal but I don't see a reason to remove half sentence down in section 1.6, where the publication of this first edition is explained. If you disagree please explain your reasons here. Thank you.--QuimGil (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It was there for that reason, but your wording "In the first edition of the book he put a strong case for common descent, but avoided the then controversial term" is clumsy and rather implies that he didn't put a strong case for common descent in subsequent editions. Have used secondary sources to clarify the point, Browne attributes his reluctance to use the word to it being most commonly used for embryological development at that time. Freeman notes when CD first added it to his writings. . dave souza, talk 18:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience and for contributing your deep knowledge in this subject!--QuimGil (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ha, sorry to be a bit grumpy. The research made a worthwhile improvement, with a new focus on Browne's expert opinion. . . dave souza, talk 21:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

On the money
Shouldn't it be mentioned that he's on the 10-pound-note? <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#ddddcc;border:1px solid #bbbb99;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&#9798; CUSH &#9798; 08:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it is mentioned: see Charles Darwin. As I recall, it was part of the 2009 Commemoration of Charles Darwin but for some reason it doesn't seem to get a mention in that article, which it should. These tenners used to be uncommon in Scotland, but I've seen a lot more lately for some unknown reason. . . dave souza, talk 18:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

First sentence
Previously this stated that Darwin "was an English naturalist", this has now been extended with "best known for his contributions to evolutionary theory". While true, the aim of the simpler formulation was to avoid focussing all attention on this aspect of his career. I propose extending this, to read that Darwin "was an English naturalist", an eminent geologist and biologist, best known for his contributions to evolutionary theory. This indicates his initial career as a geologist, Secretary of the Geological Society and author of several significant books and geological theories, and biologist whose work on barnacles earned him the Royal Society's Royal Medal, all before he published on evolution. . dave souza, talk 20:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Do we have secondary sources that describe him as a biologist or as a geologist? I don't disagree that he studied barnacles or that he did a considerable amount of geological work when he on the Beagle for five years. But as far as the sources are concerned, what is he primarily known as? And isn't the term "naturalist" sufficient? danielkueh (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Firstly, note that his geological theorising lasted for years and included publication of The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, Geological Observations on South America and Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands. See  On Biology, Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 408–409, "What had started as a few months work in 1846 on one strange boring barnacle ended almost eight years later in two technical treatises overhauling the entire sub-class. It was the longest piece of sustained research he would ever undertake.... [he had] become the world authority on barnacles....  It established him as a zoological expert, and no longer just the geological expert. More important, it was his license to speak on species." For more detail, I have Darwin and the Barnacle, Rebecca Stott to hand. . . dave souza, talk 22:57, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Two things: Right now, I am still not convinced awhy these titles/labels have to be part of the first sentence of the lead. As one editor correctly pointed, Darwin is known for many things. But that doesn't mean we have to list all of them in the first sentence. 2) Again, I don't dispute that he became a zoological expert or that he published work on barnacles. But I question the modern label, "biologist." Was that label used during Darwin's time? If so, was it used to describe Darwin in particular? danielkueh (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "In summing up an estimate of Mr. Darwin's work in science, we are profoundly impressed with his versatility. He was a geologist, as his "Observations on South America Geology," and upon "Volcanoes," will testify. He was a palaeontologist. He was a biologist without a peer. His works upon the Cirripedia, and on Coral Islands, show a profound knowledge and wonderful observing power." – James, Joseph F. 1882, Obituary of) Charles Robert Darwin. The journal of the Cincinnati society of natural history The word "biologist" was in use in the 1850s, The first paragraph amply covers Darwin's evolution work, but at the time he published Origin he was already eminent for this earlier work, so if we mention evo in the first sentence it should be shown in this broader context. . . . dave souza, talk 04:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * He was an Englishman, a scientist, an agnostic, a father, an abolitionist, a medical school dropout, etc. So what? Do we have to list all of his characteristics, career positions, and/or accomplishments in the first sentence? You don't need to know any of that in the first sentence to know that he made contributions to evolutionary theory. If you're going to take an all-or-none approach, then fine, we can just revert the first sentence to its original version. danielkueh (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean go back to this edition, can't complain about that. However, I'm coming round to including the recent additions plus at the minimum geologist: that would tie in with the Oxford Biography Index entry, "Darwin, Charles Robert (1809–1882), naturalist, geologist, and originator of the theory of natural selection". Obviously we mention natural selection further down the paragraph, so suggest: Darwin "was an English naturalist" and geologist, best known for his contributions to evolutionary theory. That would at least offset the common misperception that his whole career was as an evolutionary biologist. . dave souza, talk 13:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, Preference 1: revert back to the original version. Preference 2 : use the labels at the same level, i.e., biologist and geologist. Not naturalist and geologist or naturalist and biologist. It's like saying writer and author of fiction. Ok with compromise if we go with Oxford as a source . danielkueh (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have done. I think that offsets the strong emphasis on evo biology in the first paragraph, and is more representative of CD's life. . dave souza, talk 15:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Claims Summary
The claims of the second sentance in the first paragraph are uncited and inaccurate.

He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry,...

It is NOT established in science that all species of life have descended over time from a common ancestry and it is not accurate to claim that Charles Darwin established this concept as a fact. I propose the following more accurate version:

He proposed that all species of life could have descended over time from common ancestry,...

A reference to these two claims should be cited at minimum if authors believe the current version is truthful and accurate.

Wcwarren (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at serious, serious length before. Anyone have a link handy to that discussion? de Bivort 03:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Try here, et sec; anything to forestall that argument kicking off again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could it be that "natural selection" is being applied to the origin and evolution of this article? Texaswikiman777 (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your responses. I thought that this would probably have been discussed at length but I could not find the discussion. Evolution is a theory, and has never been established as proven fact (hence the ongoing debate). I know this sounds like an old discussion but the words used here describing Darwin's contribution are very important. Facts are established, theories (no matter how popular or supported they are) are proposed and supported or challenged. If Darwin actually proposed theory then the sentance also requires the word could as suggested above. Wcwarren (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyone who uses Western medicine is being treated by people who know that evolution is more than "just a theory". However, our opinions are not relevant: reliable sources are required, particularly when dealing with scientific issues. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Gravity is a theory. Fortunately there aren't alternative versions in ancient religious texts for nutters to push as alternatives. HiLo48 (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If posts of the Great Turtle Theory now start appearing in the Gravity article, we know whom to blame for starting them off! --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the article on Scientific Theory, as that argument is quite laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.177.39 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 November 2011‎

Please see Use of Word "established" for a hopefully useful detailed explanation and conclusion.Wcwarren (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is in serious question. The whole introduction should be worded differently, it establishes evolution as fact at least twice. There is no such thing as a scientific fact. See Scientific Method and Scientific Analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.147.134 (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources cited in evolution as theory and fact disagree with your unsourced assertion. . dave souza, talk 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Evolution is a scientific fact. WP:NPOV applies when there is actually a controversy surrounding a matter, however, with evolution, there is no controversy among the educated people who have studied biological processes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.177.39 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 November 2011‎

That is absolutely not true!Lee Tru. (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So this whole discussion comes down to sources cited! If two sources say different things which do we believe? The majority belief is no guide so maybe we use some common sense? I propose evolution, defined as molecules to man, defies common sense proof, since it can't be proved and was never and has never been observed (science method fundamentals are violated) it MUST remain a theory. Wikipedia readers are not thinking about philosophical arguments which move ideas into so called facts. Swirling controversy does surround evolutionary theory except for those who's ideas are opposed to any other possibility so conclude evolution must have happened (so just believe like Richard Dawkins does). WP:NPOV should be applied rigorously to this article!!!Wcwarren (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, extraordinary developments in the last 150 years mean we now have medical procedures that would have been regarded as magic in Darwin's time, and we can type messages to each other, and land on the Moon, and a lot more. All that is due to science, and scientific sources verify what is in the article. By the way, evolution has nothing to do with "molecules to man"—it concerns what happened after life began. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wcwarren argues for common sense. Creationism is anything but. Keep that faith based, irrational dogma away from this scientific content. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Please keep your theology out of my biology. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lies! Evolution requires more faith that Creationism! This is for the simple reason that there actualy is evidince for Creation and there is none for evolution! In regards to the above comment, theology and biology are inseparable.Lee Tru. (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Evolution is all about molecules evolving into life and that life evolving into man. How else did life begin if it did not spontaneously evolve?Wcwarren (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Questions are good. While it is known that life has evolved from a common ancestor, how it all began is more speculative—see abiogenesis. At any rate, evolution concerns how self-replicating organisms change when subject to natural selection, and does not consider how the first such entities arose. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Has the issue of WP:NPOV applying to this article been discussed and resolved? Ever?Wcwarren (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article is known to be poorly sourced or undue. After some study of the topics, perhaps suggestions about changes might be made. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly my point, the words in the second sentance ARE undue and do not match the rest of the article. The words give greater prominance to one point of view of conclusions about the theory and are NOT neutral. The second paragraph uses words like theory, evidence and consensus which is neutral wording. Using terms like established is opinion. Charles Darwin himself did not even try and make a claim of confirmed facts in his research. He added refinement and evidence to already existing theories.Wcwarren (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As was suggested to you above, this point has been given endless discussion already—example here. I can't think of anything that's left to be said, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. What's the new point, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wcwarren, if you think that Darwin didn't "establish" but merely "proposed", could you then tell me, who "established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry"? I am not an expert on Darwin and evolution despite being a biochemist. That is why I am asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carstensen (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. Theories are proposed and facts established. Evolution is a conclusion not a testable and proved fact.Wcwarren (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see the definition of "theory" as it applies to evolution...


 * Theory does not mean what you think it means. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a great definition but it is worth noting the key joining words in it. Theory is a scheme or system held (belief) to explain the known facts. It could also be a confirmed hypothesis (evolution lacks experimental support however). It might be a general law OR principle OR cause of facts observed. Since evolution has never been observed (Dawkins) and is only a conclusion (though often believed in or held) the popular reading of theory fits well. Evolution is a concept or idea. Wcwarren (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Evolution lacks experimental support? Hardly. Did you have suggestions for improving the article? Otherwise please see WP:NOTAFORUM. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My points about a lack of experimental support for evolution are simply to illustrate the bias of this article. Editorial bias is attributing unproved and unsourced claims to Darwin. For the sake of accuracy and NPOV these errors should be corrected. The section I started below goes into detail on the significant wording problems I see. If this is corrected then this article will be significantly improved and the interpretive and subjective editorial bias corrected.Wcwarren (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. You want the article to be biased to suit your religious view which has no support in science. Wrong article, wrong 'pedia. Try reading NPOV more carefully, it does not support giving undue weight to your fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no bias in my suggestions at all. Neutrality is a worthy goal in a subject as contentous as evolutionary theory. I am not seeking a balance to other perspectives just an accurate representation of Darwin's work. Editorial opinion may lean heavily to this articles bias but the quoted sources do not. This is not an issue of my or any other's opinion but the need for verifiability of wording that is the issue needing to be solved.Wcwarren (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Richard Lenski has seen evolution in action, to name just one example.evolution is no longer in controversy.142.22.115.45 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference between microevolution and macroevolution. microevolution is adaptation like Darwin saw,(ie. the finches grow bigger or smaller and have thicker or thinner beaks) this is real, this has been observed, macroevolution is completely false, this is the kind that is often called just "evolution" this is, for example, a reptile turning into a bird, this, in addition to being genetically/biologically impossible, in the above example the "protobird's"lungs would not work, macroevolution has  never  been observed.Lee Tru. (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You couldn't be more wrong. The appearance of tetrapods in the fossil record is a form of macroevolution. Stasis, adaptive radiations, extinctions of entire lineages, co-evolution, and convergent evolution in primates are all examples of macroevolutionary phenomena. 98.209.42.117 (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Editing the page on Charles Darwin
Charles Robert Darwin, FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist and geologist,, though his training was not in these fields. He was best known for his contributions to evolutionary theory. He proposed that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors, and in a joint publication with Alfred Russel Wallace introduced his theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection, in which the struggle for existence has a similar effect to the artificial selection involved in selective breeding.

British zoologist and physiologist Gerald A. Kerkut wrote, “There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”

British geologist Bernard Wood wrote,“There is a popular image of human evolution that you’ll find all over the place … On the left of the picture there’s an ape … On the right, a man … Between the two is a succession of figures that become ever more like humans … Our progress from ape to human looks so smooth, so tidy. It’s such a beguiling image that even the experts are loath to let it go. But it is an illusion.”

Darwin published his theory of evolution in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, which was not peer-reviewed. His notion involved concepts of transmutation of species. Darwin hypothesized that all species evolved from one species with a single cell. Ian Thompson said, "Darwin’s ominous book [Origin of Species] had been available in Bronn’s translation for two years. The German professional zoologists, botanists and geologists almost all regarded it [Darwin’s theory] as absolute nonsense. Agassiz, Geibel, Keferstein, and so many others, laughed until they were red in the face –." Ian Taylor wrote, "He (German biologist Ernst Haeckel) became Darwin’s chief European apostle proclaiming the Gospel of evolution with evangelistic fervor, not only to the university intelligentsia but to the common man by popular books and to the working classes by lectures in rented halls."

The evidence for his theory is weak and the evidence against his theory is compelling.

British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle said, "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

In the 19th century, only a minority of the scientific community accepted evolution as a fact. Many favored competing explanations. By the 21st century, a broad consensus seems to have developed in support of the theory. Concerning the consensus,Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park, said in his lecture at California Institute of Technology : “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

In modified form, Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.

American philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote, “I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. [I]t is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.”

American writer Leon Wieseltier wrote, "Scientism is not the same thing as science. Science is a blessing, but scientism is a curse. Science, I mean what practicing scientists actually do, is acutely and admirably aware of its limits, and humbly admits to the provisional character of its conclusions; but scientism is dogmatic, and peddles certainties. It is always at the ready with the solution to every problem, because it believes that the solution to every problem is a scientific one, and so it gives scientific answers to non-scientific questions. Owing to its preference for totalistic explanation, scientism transforms science into an ideology, which is of course a betrayal of the experimental and empirical spirit." Darwin's early interest in nature led him to neglect his medical education at the University of Edinburgh; instead, he helped to investigate marine invertebrates. Studies at the University of Cambridge encouraged his passion for natural science. His five-year voyage on HMS Beagle gave him informal education in geology, as described in the [publication of his journal of the voyage. Sir [Charles Lyell]]'s uniformitarianism concept probably contributed to guiding Darwin's thinking.

Puzzled by the geographical distribution of wildlife and fossils he collected on the voyage, Darwin began detailed investigations and in 1838 conceived his theory of natural selection. Although he discussed his ideas with several naturalists, he needed time for research and his geological work had priority. He was writing up his theory in 1858 when Alfred Russel Wallace sent him an essay which described the same idea, prompting immediate joint publication of both of their theories. Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. In 1871 he examined human evolution and sexual selection in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.

Darwin was honored with a major ceremonial funeral and buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton. Darwin has been described as one of the most influential figures in human history.
 * Reference:

Intercalate (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, umm, yeah, so, what are you asking again? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hatted the rewrite? Waiting for discussion. Vsmith (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a lot to discuss. Most of it is another attempt to argue against evolution and not appropriate in Darwin's biography. Dougweller (talk) 10:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: more pics of darwin
64.130.148.70 posted this comment on 31 October 2013 (view all feedback).

"more pics of darwin"

Any thoughts?

We've already got 11 images of Darwin in the article, and cover most of the available sources. While portraits mostly come from his later years, File:Charles Darwin drawing by Samuel Laurence, 1853, alternative.jpg is an attractive pastel drawing from 1853. We could put that in place of the current infobox picture, which could then be moved down to the Publication section and the rather grim File:Charles Darwin by Maull and Polyblank, 1855-crop.png moved down a bit or moved elsewhere. Comments? . dave souza, talk 13:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I like the second one the best as it is the most recognizable. I like the infobox picture as is. danielkueh (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

small grammatical edit
The wording "agreed unrealistic dates" seems to have a word missing. It would be improved by "agreed to unrealistic dates." DonRobinson (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ellen Wordsworth Darwin, nee Crofts : the second wife of Sir Francis Darwin
I am looking for her whereabouts: interred/cremated, but there appears to be no record anywhere!

Any answers/assistance here please or on the Talk Page of Sir Francis Darwin; Martin Packer

2.30.188.43 (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The Complete Title of Darwin's Book.
It is important to not omit the complete title of Darwin’s book:

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.”

From my perspective, Darwin was both a racists and a eugenicists.’ His work certainly reinforced and fueled leading theories of racial hygiene and superiority in the West. It is ironic that in spite of Darwin’s spurious theories on “natural selection,” he himself could not explain his own mitochondrial deficiencies, he being a congenital sufferer of Mitochondrial disease. This fact too has also been omitted from this article.

Finally, if Darwin’s unifying theory of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” has any credibility, all roads would still lead to Africa, since it is now well established that all humans evolved from the African Eve.

It is also ironic that absolutely nowhere in African, Native American, nor Asia cosmologies or indigenous science, do they claim to have descended from apes. Most claim origins from other solar systems such as Sirius and the Pleiades. However, I am ranting here; but my point is that the full title of Darwin’s book needs to be revealed. It is that which reveals the hidden motivation behind “Social Darwinism” and what it meant for indigenous humanity. There are two sides to this story.74.229.102.208 (talk) 01:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The book was not only known as this, just for the first few editions, 2) you misunderstand what is meant by 'race' 3) your perspective is of no concern, please read WP:NOTAFORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear 74.229.102.208, why are you so concerned about cabbageism? See On the Origin of Species for clarification that the first use in the book refers to "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage". As for your perspective, it not only appears to be misinformed, it is unpublished and so cannot appear in Wikipedia: see WP:V. .. . dave souza, talk 04:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

“I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” ― Charles Darwin

“Of all the problems which will have to be faced in the future, in my opinion, the most difficult will be those concerning the treatment of the inferior races of mankind.” ― Leonard Darwin

74.229.102.208 (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So? WP:SYN means not drawing our own conclusions, see WP:PSTS. . . dave souza, talk 07:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Leading Section
I believe the leading section of the article could address where Darwin did his studies. If he didn't go to various places, for example the Galapagos, Darwin may have never adopted the same theories and ideas. It is important to acknowledge the relationship the location of his studies had on his ideas. You never know what would have come about if his studies lead him somewhere else in the world.

Another suggestion I have for the article is to break up the public reaction sections, into two sections - one for supporters, another for his critics - this makes the article easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewscutt (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these comments, his studies and Beagle voyage are already covered in the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead: specific places such as the Galapagos are discussed in the body text. Splitting the Responses to publication section would probably make it harder to read, as the responses were not binary, and in addition subdividing it would have npov problems. . dave souza, talk 13:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

A Few Critiques on the Article, Charles Darwin
This article on Charles Darwin is very informative and does a great job of summarizing his major accomplishments. What the article could improve on is removing irrelevant information that clutters the lead section. For example, it mentions details about where his funeral was and other significant figures that he was buried next to. This information is important, but not necessarily in the lead section. Another thing that could be changed is that under the heading “Evolutionary social movements,” there are no subheadings. This portion of the article focuses on Darwinism, Eugenics, and Social Darwinism. I think that those three topics could be made into subheadings within this section to make it easier for the reader to find these specific topics. Most pictures that are used in this article are relevant, besides the one of “Man dressed as Charles Darwin during Lyme Regis Fossil Festival.” This picture does not contribute necessary information to Charles Darwin. It is also chronological according to Charles Darwin’s lifetime. However, it talks about his children after it talks about his death. The subheading of “Children” can be moved to a place earlier in the article. In this section “Overwork, illness and marriage,” it is stated that, “Darwin’s health suffered from the pressure.” This was not cited by any source, and it is not known if the pressure was the direct cause of his declining health.

Jcf028 (talk) 02:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)jcf028
 * Thanks for these constructive points, I've tried implementing some changes:
 * The funeral detail is covered in the main text, so have tried to simplify it in the lead while keeping the point of it honouring his preeminence. [This originated as the erroneous claim that he had a state funeral.]
 * I'm dubious about subdividing “Evolutionary social movements" as it's a brief pointer to other articlew while noting that these had only a limited amount to do with Darwin himself. Worth discussing further?
 * Yes, the Man dressed as Charles Darwin during Lyme Regis Fossil Festival was charming, but not necessary, so have removed the pic.
 * Have tried reorganising the sections, introducing a new Legacy heading with Children as a subsection. Commemoration then fits logically under Legacy. Any comments? I'm not sure how well this changed layout displays with various browsers and screen sizes.
 * The “Overwork, illness and marriage” paragraph is based on Desmond and Moore, have changed “Darwin’s health suffered from the pressure" to “Darwin’s health suffered under the pressure" to avoid the implication that it was a direct cause.
 * Thanks again for your thoughts on this, specific suggestions for improvement are always welcome, . . dave souza, talk 08:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you'll excuse me opining here, I gotta say I'm not enthralled by the idea of relegating the children to a "legacy" section. They really ought to be included within the main biography. Are children left behind, and therefore a legacy? Well, yes, but so was Darwin's work on evolution. And the child who arguably had the most effect on Darwin, Anne, died in his lifetime, and therefore isn't actually a legacy at all.   The legacy section should be reserved for events and developments after Darwin's death. - Nunh-huh 21:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good points. It does follow naturally from the "life" section, but is out of sequence in that the children influenced his life at various times, and it also outlines their subsequent careers. There's also the case that Francis, Henrietta and George extensively worked with their father at various times, so a different sort of influence. Anyway, I'm open to suggestions for the best sequence: maybe Children in a separate main section, either before or after Legacy? . . . dave souza, talk 21:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My thought would be to move the pertinent portions of the paragraph regarding the children (and its associated sidebar listing of them) up to the end of the "Overwork, illness, and marriage" section (thus moving them up before death), and then mention the children individually only as needed in the rest of the article (in the biography if their relationship with Darwin is being discussed, or in the legacy section if they are being mentioned for something that occurred after Darwin's death). - Nunh-huh 02:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work for me, it means a massive interruption to the flow of Darwin's life at a crucial moment for his theorising, adding info about their ten children before they were married. Similarly, the children's births could fit logically into the #Geology books, Barnacles, evolutionary research section, but as you note their later careers don't fit there. We could always split it into a new sub-article, but possibly a better approach is to make it a standalone main section just before #Views and opinions. It would also be possible to add more about his children into the context of his life, but as usual we have to be concise.  . . dave souza, talk 08:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Since no further comments, have made Children a separate section, which looks ok to me. . dave souza, talk 10:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Michael H. Hart reference
After looking into the removal of "" from the article, I agree that is very likely a biased source given Michael H. Hart extreme views and should not be used here or anywhere else to determine or characterize the most influential people in history. I am One of Many (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that clarification. In light of Darwin's strong opposition to slavery and oppression by Europeans, Hart seems completely inappropriate as a reference. . dave souza, talk 22:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

CHARLES DARWIN'S FAMILY
Of Charles Darwin's immediate family, only the grave of first wife of Leonard Darwin has not yet been identified : Elizabeth Frances Darwin, nee Fraser - otherwise known as "Aunt Bee" = (1846 - 1898); if anyone knows anything about her, can you please post here or on F-A-G? 2.30.189.104 (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * info at Talk:Leonard_Darwin - Nunh-huh 21:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Crohn's disease
It now seems pretty certain that Darwin suffered from Crohne's disease. This was proposed in 2007 in the Royal society Journal of the History of Science, and in a Channel 4 Documentary broadcast a few days ago it was confirmed by Professor Stephan Schuster who sequenced part of his genome and found "a total of twenty-one markers for Crohn’s disease, five of them being diagnostic, including the major marker on chromosome 16".. Unfortunately the only reference I can find is a newspaper article, however, having seen the documentary this does seem to be an accurate account of what Professor Schuster said. Is this reliable enough to add something to the article? Richerman   (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this is one of the many possibilities discussed in Charles Darwin's health and if you find a good source it would be worth adding to that article. The Mirror is rather dubious as a source, hopefully Professor Schuster will publish his research in a journal. . dave souza, talk 06:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Influenced: Karl Marx
Darwin was a major influence on Karl Marx. Why he is not in the "influenced" section? --DerAnsager (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Two reasons. Firstly, your claim is very dubious. Secondly, Template:Infobox scientist "influenced List names of any notable people who were significantly influenced by the scientist. The intention is to only list those that were influenced by physical contact with the scientist." They never met. . . dave souza, talk 15:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say personal contact rather than physical. Letters exchanged could be more influential than a face to face meeting especially considering how much Darwin depended (and vice versa) on his correspondents.  However the influence of Darwin on Marx is likely little.  --Erp (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, i think the influence was not little. Read "The Part played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man" --DerAnsager (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * From The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man: "Though incomplete, the essay elucidates two aspects of materialist theory which had underpinned Marx and Engels’s thinking since the mid-1840s." It seems unlikely that they were greatly influenced in this by Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, or CD's other publications at that time. Of course CD didn't publish on human evolution until 1871. . . dave souza, talk 05:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a citation for this? A reliable source that is. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Freeman (2007) p. 201: "Marx, Heinrich Karl, 1818-1883. German communist. CD never met, and some doubt has been thrown on the authenticity of M's letters to CD". . . dave souza, talk 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

27 degree Freemason?
Is Charles Robert Darwin a 27 degree Freemason? Illuminavissem (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fahrenheit or Celcius? Highly improbable, source needed. . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Error in Henrietta Darwin's date of death
"Darwin's children William Erasmus Darwin	(27 December 1839 – 1914) Anne Elizabeth Darwin	(2 March 1841 – 23 April 1851) Mary Eleanor Darwin	(23 September 1842 – 16 October 1842) Henrietta Emma "Etty" Darwin (25 September 1843 – 1929*) George Howard Darwin	(9 July 1845 – 7 December 1912) Elizabeth "Bessy" Darwin	(8 July 1847 – 1926) Francis Darwin	(16 August 1848 – 19 September 1925) Leonard Darwin	(15 January 1850 – 26 March 1943) Horace Darwin	(13 May 1851 – 29 September 1928) Charles Waring Darwin	(6 December 1856 – 28 June 1858)"
 * It should read: 17 December, 1927; can someone/anyone with edit ability correct it please?

It is also currently wrong in two ODNB biographies: William Darwin (2005) by Randal Keynes and Charles Darwin (2007) by a trio of Darwin experts! It started in 1952 in Period Piece by Gwen Raverat. Why it is wrong TWICE in these ODNB biographies in 2005/2007 is a mystery! It is right in "Darwin and his Family" by Tim M. Berra, as published by OUP in 2013 on page 80.

The reference is: Henrietta Darwin's obituary in "The Times" on 24th December 1927, and NOT 1929.

2.27.113.193 (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking this point up, that's it changed to 1927. Confirmed by Darwin Correspondence Project » Namereg: 1225 and reference to Freeman. Much appreciated. . dave souza, talk 20:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

2.27.113.193 (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It should read: 17 December, 1927; can you complete it please? Just "1927" is not enough!
 * Got an online source for that? I can't edit on the basis of a source I've not seen. . .dave souza, talk 00:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP editor has already given one (although with a slightly incorrect title): Tim Berra's Darwin and his Children: His other Legacy, p.80.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 01:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a "online source"; it's the Wikipedia article for Etty Darwin herself

Henrietta Emma Litchfield, née Darwin, (25 September 1843[1] - 17 December 1927[2]) was a daughter of Charles Darwin and his wife Emma Wedgwood.

References:

[2] ^ Burke's landed gentry. London: Burke's Peerage. 1952.

How this error can be in Period Piece in 1952, and still be in two ODNB biographies in 2014 is.....

2.27.132.196 (talk) 07:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks 2. However, editing takes a bit of time, although I am sure the dates will be cleared up. I took the liberty of refactoring your comments above, mainly to remove the uppercase. Apart from making the section more readable, that allowed your Etty Darwin link to work (it's a redirect to Henrietta Litchfield). Johnuniq (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone, Berra's book worked for me so I've amended this article, and also avoided the redirect from "Etty" by linking directly to Henrietta Litchfield. . dave souza, talk 08:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dave,

Can William Erasmus Darwin have his date of death too: 8 September 1914 ?

Can [Elizabeth "Bessy" Darwin] have her date of death too: 8 June 1926 ??

It must be awesome responsibility editing Charles Darwin with so many errors/omissions! As far as Berra's book is concerned, it too is riddled with 'errors and omissions' by the way.

2.30.189.44 (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can edit it too! All you need to do is get an account, be patient for the run-in period, and provide good sources. Wm.'s death date matches a photo of his tombstone, so that's ok. Can't find anything so far for Bessy: got an online link? . . dave souza, talk 17:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"Elizabeth "Bessy" Darwin (8 July 1847 – 1926)"
Try the fine print on the images of the family gravestone on her Find-A-Grave entry:

Elizabeth "Aunt Bessy" Darwin

Birth: 	Jul. 8, 1847 Downe Greater London, England Death: 	Jun. 8, 1926 Downe Greater London, England

ps Please tread carefully in using Tim Berra's 2013 book, but "it's good in parts" by the way!

IF ONLY "ODNB" WAS AS PRO-ACTIVE AS 'WIKIPEDIA'? THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND ASSISTANCE DAVE! 2.27.146.89 (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, found it so have changed entry. . dave souza, talk 11:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dave! ps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Frog ! [Not mentioned in CD article?]

2.30.189.147 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Covered by "More than 120 species and nine genera have been named after Darwin". Even Commemoration of Charles Darwin hasn't got room for all of them, you might want to start a list article. . dave souza, talk 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

first line...
Hi. I like to improve leads, but this lead is already really good, which is better than most. I've got one suggestion. The opening sentence reads "Charles Robert Darwin, FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist and geologist,[1] best known for his contributions to evolutionary theory." This sentence is true, but there are lots of people who are best known for their contributions to evolutionary theory. When contemporary experts describe Darwin, what do they say? In my reading, they concur that he revolutionized science by establishing the theory of evolution by natural selection, which is the foundation of modern biology. The lead eventually gets to that point, but it's a long way in. He's repeatedly described as having a towering and disciplined intellect, with a keen sense of observation. How about saying he's best known for "formulating the theory of natural selection to explain how new sorts of living things appear" or "establishing modern evolutionary science." Leadwind (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, due to a lot of interest in the topic this lead has had a chance to evolve. Since Darwin is so well known his importance to evolutionary biology tends to be exaggerated, so the first sentence notes his position as a naturalist and geologist, as well as evolutionary theory. When contemporary experts described Darwin, he was famed for establishing as science a version of the evolutionary concept which others had already argued. The concept of natural selection came in a joint publication with Wallace, and that sequence is shown in the second sentence of the lead. As we note in the second paragraph, natural selection did not gain wide support in Darwin's lifetime: see The eclipse of Darwinism. Darwin didn't establish modern evolutionary science: that had to await the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s, and of course there have been significant changes since then.
 * So, we can aim to improve the first sentence, but don't want to undermine this balance. As van Wyhe writes, "Historians of science now believe that Darwin's effect was, as James Secord put it, a 'palace coup' amongst elite men of science rather than a revolution. ... Nevertheless to the end of his life Darwin was regarded as a great scientific revolutionary who had overturned the ideas of his generation. . Darwin, as an unquestionably respectable authority in elite science, publicly threw his weight on the side of evolution... Darwin's name is so linked with evolution because his works convinced the international scientific community that evolution was true." Wyhe also emphasises that "a generation of biologists regarded Darwin as correct in uncovering the evolution of life but mistaken in stressing natural selection." . . dave souza, talk 10:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, it's certainly true that his role is exaggerated. "we can aim to improve the first sentence" Glad to hear it. Any suggestions? The stuff you wrote in your response all looks good. Leadwind  (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Voyage of the Beagle section is missing any reference to Darwin in Australia; a very important visit it was, too.
When he visited Australia, he made his way to Bathurst (then, as now, a reasonably large country town) to see a Platypus; a creature that was so different to any seen in other parts of the world as to be absolutely sensational. Indeed, in Portland, a very small town on the way to Bathurst, there is a memorial of Darwin and a platypus commemorating the visit. Darwin's encounter with the critter was in its own way as profound as his encounters with, say, the Galapagos finches or mockingbirds. He mused as to what might be God's purpose in creating an animal that served the same purpose (today I guess we would say "lives in the same ecological niche") as say an otter, yet was so different. It was one of Darwin's first questioning of his deeply held religous beliefs on the matter. Surely something as important as this deserves some space in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.161.78.119 (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, how about a couple of sentences: "In Australia the marsupial rat-kangaroo and the platypus seemed so unusual that Darwin thought it was almost as though two distinct Creators had been at work. He found the Aborigines "good-humoured & pleasant", and noted their depletion by European settlement." Of course this article has to be as concise as possible, and there is a link to second voyage of HMS Beagle for more detail. . . dave souza, talk 17:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, an excellent start. I think it deserves more, but that might only be because I'm Australian and a great admirer of the platypus. So I'll leave the judgement up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.199.77 (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Darwin's family : dates & data
The dates of birth and death are now all correct (see below) but the location of the 22 members of Charles Darwin's immediate family can be found in their individual WIKIPEDIA articles (where they have them) and can also be found on Find-A-Grave; ODNB biographes (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) are NOT 100% correct, including the CD biography by three authors.

b. Feb. 9, 1850 d. Sep. 11, 1876 Holy Trinity, Corris Gwynedd Wales
 * Darwin, Amy Richenda, nee Ruck,

b. Mar. 2, 1841 d. Apr. 23, 1851 Great Malvern Priory Church, Great Malvern Malvern Hills District Worcestershire England
 * Darwin, Anne Elizabeth "Annie",

b. Feb. 12, 1809 d. Apr. 19, 1882 Westminster Abbey Westminster City of Westminster Greater London England
 * Darwin, Charles Robert,

b. Dec. 6, 1856 d. Jun. 28, 1858 St Mary the Virgin Church, Downe London Borough of Bromley Greater London England
 * Darwin, Charles Waring,

b. 1868 d. Dec. 18, 1940 Forest Row Cemetery Forest Row Wealden District East Sussex England
 * Darwin, Charlotte Mildred "Mildred", nee Massingbird,

b. Jul. 8, 1847 d. Jun. 8, 1926 St Mary the Virgin Church, Downe London Borough of Bromley Greater London England
 * Darwin, Elizabeth "Aunt Bessy",

b. 1846 d. Jan. 13, 1898 Putney Vale Cemetery, Wimbledon London Borough of Merton Greater London England
 * Darwin, Elizabeth Frances "Aunt Bee", nee Fraser,

b. Jan. 13, 1856 d. Aug. 28, 1903 St Andrew Churchyard Girton South Cambridgeshire District Cambridgeshire England
 * Darwin, Ellen Wordsworth "Aunt Ellen", nee Crofts,

b. May 2, 1808 d. Oct. 2, 1896 St Mary the Virgin Church, Downe London Borough of Bromley Greater London England
 * Darwin, Emma, nee Wedgwood,

b. Nov. 7, 1854 d. Jul. 5, 1946 Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge City of Cambridge Cambridgeshire England
 * Darwin, Lady Emma Cecilia "Aunt Ida", nee Farrer,

b. Dec. 29, 1804 d. Aug. 26, 1881 St Mary the Virgin Church, Downe London Borough of Bromley Greater London England]
 * Darwin, Erasmus Alvey "Ras" (brother of Charles Darwin),

b. Jan. 31, 1864 d. Mar. 5, 1920 Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge City of Cambridge Cambridgeshire England]
 * Darwin, Lady Florence Henrietta, nee Fisher, previously Maitland,

b. Aug. 16, 1848 d. Sep. 19, 1925 Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge City of Cambridge Cambridgeshire England
 * Darwin, Sir Francis "Uncle Frank",

b. Jul. 9, 1845 d. Dec. 7, 1912 Trumpington Parish Extension, Trumpington City of Cambridge Cambridgeshire England
 * Darwin, Sir George Howard "Uncle George",

b. May 13, 1851 d. Sep. 22, 1928 Ascension Parish Burial Ground, Cambridge City of Cambridge Cambridgeshire England
 * Darwin, Sir Horace "Uncle Horace",

b. Jan. 15, 1850 d. Mar. 26, 1943 Forest Row Cemetery Forest Row Wealden District East Sussex England
 * Darwin, Major Leonard "Uncle Lenny",

b. Jul. 27, 1861 d. Feb. 6, 1947 Trumpington Parish Extension (cremated), Trumpington City of Cambridge Cambridgeshire England
 * Darwin, Lady Martha Haskins "Maud", nee Du Puy,

b. Sep. 23, 1842 d. Oct. 16, 1842 St Mary the Virgin Church, Downe London Borough of Bromley Greater London England
 * Darwin, Mary Eleanor,

b. Nov. 8, 1839 d. Oct. 24, 1902 St Nicolas Churchyard North Stoneham Eastleigh Borough Hampshire England
 * Darwin, Sara Price Ashburner "Aunt Sara", nee Sedgwick,

b. Dec. 27, 1839 d. Sep. 8, 1914 St Nicolas Churchyard North Stoneham Eastleigh Borough Hampshire England
 * Darwin, William Erasmus "Uncle William",

b. Sep. 25, 1843 d. Dec. 17, 1927 St Mary the Virgin Church, Downe London Borough of Bromley Greater London England
 * Litchfield, Henrietta Emma "Aunt Etty", nee Darwin,

b. Jan. 6, 1832 d. Jan. 11, 1903 Cimetiere du Grand Jas de Cannes... Departement des Alpes-Maritimes Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur France
 * Litchfield, Richard Buckley "Uncle Richard",


 * There is no other list on the internet/in books as absolutely correct as this one! This is the first complete record of all of the dates of birth and death/burials of the Darwin family's first generation.The following comment should seriously considered: "One wonders when all of the so-called academic 'Darwin experts' are going to get their acts together? I looked at a new Charles Darwin book the other day: it started with an error: year of death for Henrietta Darwin "1930" (for '1927') and it finished with an error: "Down" (as in House) instead of 'Downe' as in place! [Not surprisingly I was very sceptical about the contents.] Another expert - at the end of his 2009 book - refers to the Darwin families having not suffered any deaths in WWI, ignoring both the Erasmus Darwin (1915) and Cecil Wedgwood (1916) fatalities. Who is at fault: the authors (for making mistakes/repeating other authors' mistakes) or the publishers? As for ODNB, I counted three errors in one paragraph of a 2005 biography of a 'Darwin'; the 'Henrietta Darwin year of death error' is repeated across three Darwin biographies; the 13 ODNB 'Darwin' biographies have some 12 different 'authors', including 3 top authors combined for Charles Darwin alone! When will academic writing and publishing catch-up with the internet, eg Ancestry.com's Find A Grave? [If it is correct on the internet, eg Wikipedia, surely it should be correct in any new book?] Is there any excuse for errors in ODNB biographies being repeated in OUP books when ODNB and OUP are effectively one and the same business under the "Oxford" University banner?)"

Charles and Emma Darwin's family really much deserves better in books and the internet (ODNB).

2.27.131.214 (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's very good, but Wikipedia requires published sources and this looks like unacceptable original research. Perhaps you could interest Darwin Online in publishing it, and that would then be a source we could use. One of your points is rather questionable: the village was still named Down in 1842, the name was changed to Downe at a later stage.. . . . dave souza, talk 18:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Charles Darwin factual college degree?
I was trying to find some facts about Darwin's education, but it seemed missing. World Biology was mentioned several times in biography, but for most part his level of education wasn't present. I concluded a research and found that Darwin's only degree was in Theology. Strangely enough the world famous Wikipedia missed Darwin's education level on its pages. Biased? Agendized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prkarpi (talk • contribs) 01:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you assume such a poor motive? Or just nobody actually knew (or was unable to find solid evidence). What is the reference you found? Remember, everyone here is a volunteer who can contribute research, so even you can help write and improve any article you find to be lacking. DMacks (talk) 01:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See Charles Darwin for an outline, and follow the link at See also: Charles Darwin's education if you want more detail. It's rubbish to say that "Darwin's only degree was in Theology", his sole degree was an ordinary Bachelor of Arts degree which covered various topics, including at that time theology as a standard part of a Cambridge education. He didn't go on to the specialised divinity course needed to become a parson, as originally intended. A good place to start hunting for more info is Darwin Online: Biography. . . dave souza, talk 05:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2014
Under However, many favoured competing explanations and it was not until the emergence of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s that a broad consensus developed in which natural selection was the basic mechanism of evolution.[7][8] In modified form, Darwin's scientific discovery is the unifying theory of the life sciences, explaining the diversity of life.

Would you please change favoured to favored. Even under your own spell check it shows as misspelled which I know isn't but it is more recognizable as a spelling.

Deserif (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * ❌ - As it say in this talk page header, the article is in British English - see WP:ENGVAR. Mikenorton (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Date of funeral
"He died at Down House on 19 April 1882. His last words were to his family, telling Emma "I am not the least afraid of death – Remember what a good wife you have been to me – Tell all my children to remember how good they have been to me", then while she rested, he repeatedly told Henrietta and Francis "It's almost worth while to be sick to be nursed by you".[149] He had expected to be buried in St Mary's churchyard at Downe, but at the request of Darwin's colleagues, after public and parliamentary petitioning, William Spottiswoode (President of the Royal Society) arranged for Darwin to be buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton.[17][150]"....

...on Wednesday, 26th April 1882

2.30.187.228 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I've added the date. . dave souza, talk 22:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Charles Darwin's funeral
The family & friends who attended CHARLES DARWIN's funeral, Westminster Abbey, London: 26th April 1882.

[These names listed exactly as they are and in in the same order as the report in "The Times" on 27th April 1882.]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Times/1882/News/Funeral_of_Charles_Darwin


 * "Mr. William Erasmus Darwin, (chief mourner)
 * Mr. George Darwin, F.R.S.,
 * Mrs. William Darwin,
 * Miss Darwin,
 * Mrs. Litchfield,
 * Mr Francis Darwin,
 * Mr. Leonard Darwin,
 * Mr. Richard Buckley Litchfield,
 * Mr. Horace Darwin,
 * Mr. Leonard Darwin, R.E.,
 * Mr. Darwin of Elston-hall,
 * Mr. F. Alvey Darwin,
 * Captain Charles Darwin,
 * Mr. Reginald Darwin, of Buxton,
 * Mrs. Vaughan Williams,
 * Miss Wedgwood,
 * the Rev. Charles Parker,
 * Mr. Robert Packer,
 * Mr. H. F. Bristowe, Q.C.,
 * Mr. Francis Galton, F.R.S.,
 * Mr. Ernest Wedgwood,
 * Mr. Hensleigh Wedgwood,
 * Mr. T. H. Farrer, Secretary of the Board of Trade,
 * Mrs. Farrer,
 * Mr. Godfrey Wedgwood,
 * Miss A. Wedgwood,
 * Mrs. Ruck,
 * the Rev. Arthur Wedgwood,
 * Mr. J. C. Hawkshaw,
 * Mrs. Hawkshaw,
 * Mr. George Allen,
 * Mr. Henry Allen, M.P.,
 * Mr. William Jackson, servant
 * Mr. Joseph Parslow." Butler


 * and Mrs. Evans the cook.

2.30.187.228 (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but if this list belongs anywhere it would be in the detailed article covering CD's final years. I think it's probably too much for an encyclopedia, is it available at DarwinOnline? . dave souza, talk 22:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Seeing it's at Wikisource, it makes sense to link it from the detailed article but I don't see much value in replicating it. . dave souza, talk 22:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a bit much for this article. BTW Mrs. Vaughan Williams would be the mother of Ralph Vaughan Williams (then age 10 so a bit young to attend) and Charles Darwin's niece twice over and Miss Wedgwood was possibly Frances Julia Wedgwood.  Henry Allen is probably Henry George Allen a first cousin of Emma Darwin (her mother was Henry Allen's father's sister).  Miss A. Wedgwood is probably Amy Wedgwood, sister of Godfrey and daughter of Francis.  Mrs. Ruck is likely the mother of Francis Darwin's first wife.  Mrs. Hawkshaw is Cecily Mary Wedgwood, a daughter of Francis Wedgwood (her husband's sister married Godfrey Wedgwood, her brother).  T.H. Farrer was father-in-law to Horace Darwin and was married (second marriage) to Katherine Euphemia Wedgwood (Mrs. Farrer), a daughter of Hensleigh Wedgwood.  H. F. Bristowe is Henry Fox Bristowe who seems to have been a distant cousin. Charles Parker is a nephew (son of Charles' sister, Marianne).  Don't have the faintest idea who Robert Packer is and wonder if it is a typo for Robert Parker (a brother of Charles Parker). I also added a few links to the list just for reference. --Erp (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Charles Darwin and Sir Henry Fox Bristowe were specifically 2nd cousins once removed :)  - Nunh-huh 21:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Q.E.D.
Charles Darwin

"Darwin's book was only partly written when, on 18 June 1858, he received a paper from Wallace describing natural selection. Shocked that he had been "forestalled", Darwin sent it on that day to Lyell, as requested by Wallace,[112][113] and although Wallace had not asked for publication, Darwin suggested he would send it to any journal that Wallace chose. His family was in crisis with children in the village dying of scarlet fever, and he put matters in the hands of Lyell and Hooker. After some discussion, they decided on a joint presentation at the Linnean Society on 1 July of On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection; however, Darwin's baby son died of the scarlet fever and he was too distraught to attend.[114]" (Wikipedia article).

Don't tell anyone but both Darwin and Wallace were FELLOWS OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY, but for someone unknown reason (that no one had previously noticed) Darwin is not listed as a Fellow! Think about it, would Darwin have been 'presenting' his paper, had he not been FLS? God knows who else is missing off the Wikipedia list, but having searched "Linnean Society" on ODNB, there may well be more! 'J.P.' 2.27.132.227 (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You are assuming that IF x speaks-at LS then x is-a FLS, which may have been true or may not, who knows, perhaps they invited guests in from time to time. It certainly isn't self-evident, so (to reiterate) we require written evidence from a reliable source (which we cheerfully admit Wikipedia isn't). So, sorry, don't waste time berating the encyclopedia, it is only allowed to go on what is known and printed; and it's very much a work-in-progress. If you know of things that are reliably sourced, feel free to add them rather than endlessly arguing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Wallace was a Fellow of the Linnean in 1858? The ip looks increasingly unreliable. . dave souza, talk 23:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The reference for CD being a Fellow of TLS is :

"They chose the Linnean for entirely opportunistic reasons. Lyell, Hooker, and Darwin were all fellows of the society and council members (Darwin was elected to the council in 1858.)" on Page 35, Chapter 1 of Janet Browne's "CHARLES DARWIN: THE POWER OF PLACE" (Volume II Of A Biography") published in 2002.

I will keep you guys posted tomorrow on the response of TLS to the Wikipedia list of F.L.S.; 'J.P.'

2.27.132.111 (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Link to google books copy, p.35. On the following page (36), Browne says that Wallace was elected a fellow in 1871.
 * David Wilson (talk · cont) 03:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wallace is categorised as a Fellow of the Linnean, but his election's not mentioned in the Alfred Russel Wallace article. .dave souza, talk 08:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Charles Darwin's funeral: the 10 pallbearers!

 * The Duke of Devonshire,


 * The Duke of Argyll,


 * The Earl of Derby,


 * Mr. J. Russell Lowell,


 * Mr. W. Spottiswoode,


 * Sir Joseph Hooker,


 * Mr. A. R. Wallace,


 * Professor Huxley,


 * Sir John Lubbock,


 * and the Rev. Canon Farrar.

Note: The Earl of Derby: Edward Stanley and the Rev. Canon Farrar: Frederic Farrar were both Cambridge Apostles like Erasmus 'Ras' Darwin was.

2.27.146.105 (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

And in April 1882, The Duke of Devonshire = William Cavendish, 7th Duke of Devonshire; The Duke of Argyll = George John Douglas Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll; The Earl of Derby = Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby. - Nunh-huh 02:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, with links: William Cavendish, 7th Duke of Devonshire; George John Douglas Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll; Edward Henry Stanley, 15th Earl of Derby; James Russell Lowell; William Spottiswoode; Joseph Dalton Hooker; Alfred Russel Wallace; Thomas Henry Huxley; John Lubbock, 1st Baron Avebury; Frederic Farrar - Nunh-huh 02:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To round it off the service was conducted by Canon George Prothero (1818-1894) (no wikipedia article though his sons Rowland Prothero and George Walter Prothero have articles) and the other Westminster Abbey staff present were

The Dean, George Bradley, was not in the country at the time of the funeral hence Canon Prothero was in charge. --Erp (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * minor canon Rev. John Henry Cheadle, ???? - ????
 * minor canon Rev. John Troutbeck, 1832-1899
 * Canon Thomas James Rowsell (1816-1894)
 * Canon Alfred Barry (1826-1910)
 * Canon Robinson Duckworth 1834-1911
 * Rev. Samuel Flood Jones (precentor) 1826-1895
 * the Chapter Clerk, Mr. Charles St. Clare Bedford (1810-1900)
 * Frederick Bridge, organist 1844-1924 (according to The Times, he composed an anthem for the funeral)
 * When W. D. Hamilton died, Richard Dawkins had the anthem that Bridge wrote for Darwin sung at his memorial service.  - Nunh-huh 12:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and getteth understanding.", Proverbs iii, 13, 15, 16, 17. . dave souza, talk 13:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been recorded by the Choir of New College Oxford. You can hear it at their shop (scroll down, it's #12). - Nunh-huh 22:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

More detail on the funeral?
Considering the sheer scale of the event, doesn't it deserve far more detail? [Almost a state funeral!]

"Death and funeral See also: Darwin from Insectivorous Plants to Worms In 1882 he was diagnosed with what was called "angina pectoris" which then meant coronary thrombosis and disease of the heart. At the time of his death, the physicians diagnosed "anginal attacks", and "heart-failure".[148]

He died at Down House on 19 April 1882. His last words were to his family, telling Emma "I am not the least afraid of death – Remember what a good wife you have been to me – Tell all my children to remember how good they have been to me", then while she rested, he repeatedly told Henrietta and Francis "It's almost worth while to be sick to be nursed by you".[149] He had expected to be buried in St Mary's churchyard at Downe, but at the request of Darwin's colleagues, after public and parliamentary petitioning, William Spottiswoode (President of the Royal Society) arranged for Darwin to be buried in Westminster Abbey, close to John Herschel and Isaac Newton. The funeral was held on Wednesday 26 April and was attended by thousands of people, including family, friends, scientists, philosophers and dignitaries.[17][150]"

2.27.132.13 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is a concise overview, and is already pushing past the recommended size for such articles. Much more detail of the funeral is shown at Darwin from Insectivorous Plants to Worms, and while that can possibly be expanded a bit it's noticeable that Browne's very highly rated biography actually gives relatively litte space to the funeral so I don't think the detail is as significant as you suggest. Of course you could get a user account and try writing Funeral of Charles Darwin, making sure that it's fully supported by reliable secondary sources. . dave souza, talk 21:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Browne's "very highly rated biography" managed to leave out Rev. Farrar as one of ten pallbearers on page 497! Browne's "very highly rated biography" also got the date of Henrietta Darwin's death wrong!

00:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.132.13 (talk)

CD = A Fellow of the Linnean Society : 1#

http://www.linnean.org/Education+Resources/History_of_science

2.30.188.133 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Linnean Society
He was elected as a Fellow of the Linnean Society in 1856.

2.27.112.206 (talk)
 * Source needed, both for the fact an for any particular significance that would in some way justify mentioning the fact in this brief overview. . 17:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Fellows of the Linnean Society of London
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Fellows_of_the_Linnean_Society_of_London&pageuntil=Macleay%2C+Alexander%0AAlexander+Macleay#mw-pages

CAN SOMEONE ADD:

Charles Darwin, 1856

Francis Darwin, 1875

Thanks,

2.27.112.206 (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sources needed. . dave souza, talk 17:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

An e-mail from the Linnean Society Dave! I checked through the whole list for two hours this morning; I was amazed that both CD and Francis Darwin were missing - perhaps deleted in error when Sarah Darwin was added? If you transpose the whole list of FLS to the main body of the article, I can do some much-needed editing on Tuesday afternoon; I have supplied the list to The Linnean Society, and expect some reaction next week (to put it mildly). The Chairman of the CD Trust is one Stephen Keynes, a Darwin descendant by the way. Unfortunately there are several people listed who most definitely NOT FLS - but overall it has the feel of a good list, albeit somewhat neglected. Thanks for your help; J.P. 2.30.190.5 (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dear 2.30.190.5, Verifiability policy requires published sources: a private email gives an indication, but isn't a published sources. Also, why not get your own account to make editing much easier? . . . dave souza, talk 00:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , if you could publish suitable evidence on the Linnean Society website, we could cite that in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately 'Wikigeds., it is a sad refection on Wikipedia that Charles/Francis Darwin are not on the Linnean Society (Wikipedia) list of Fellows, and that there are people included who are NOT F.L.S.2.30.190.66 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It isn't sad at all. During the middle ages, Wikipedia would have reported (with authoritative sources) that the Sun and planets orbited the earth on crystal spheres (Apian, Peter. Cosmographia, 1524). We follow what is reliably published, we do not use what somebody told us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

CD = A Fellow of the Linnean Society: 

http://www.linnean.org/Education+Resources/History_of_science

'J.P.' (Butler)

2.30.188.133 (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Chiswick Chap for the good faith edit, but the timing is wrong and this election really isn't significant enough for the short summary: I'll look at adding something to Publication of Darwin's theory. Freeman, R. B. 1978. Charles Darwin: A companion p. 107 says that CD joined the Linnean in 1854 (for library access), and on p. 109 lists "Linnean Society of London, CD Fellow 1854." That covers the principle for the category,. Still no reliable published source for Francis Darwin. . dave souza, talk 23:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Page ii here says,"In 1882 he was elected Fellow of the Royal Society; he was Foreign Secretary from 1903 to 1909, and Vice-President 1907-1908." Yopienso (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

'''THANKS FOR THE R.S. OBITUARY OF F.D., CAN YOU POST THE LINKS FOR GEORGE AND HORACE PLEASE? 'J. PARSLOW' ''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.207.97 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Yopienso, that covers the Royal Society for Francis Darwin, but not the Linnean Society. Wikisource has him as "Sc.D, MB, FRS; Hon. Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge; botanist" so no indication there about the Linnean. Hopefully something will turn up. . dave souza, talk 07:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops! This Journal of the L.S. has Francis being removed from the Council on p. 12 and elected to it on p. 17. He's found on a list of donors here. On p. 72 of the Proceedings his name is followed "F.L.S." Not the highest quality sources, but clear enough, I think. Yopienso (talk) 08:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! Taking the same approach, my googling was less successful but led me to p. 32 "Dr. FRANCIS DARWIN, F.R.S., F.L.S.: I beg leave to thank you," so that's reassuring. Now all we need is for the persistent IP to find a source for the year he was elected. . dave souza, talk 11:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, if he can find it. The Linnean Society seems to be more a club like an American honor society than an academic association, and much less exclusive than the Royal Society. They practically beg you to join . . . for £50, discounted for junior members. Doesn't seem worth putting much effort into this detail. Yopienso (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know when to quit. :( And I imagine the L.S. was more prestigious 200 years ago than it is today. The book by Janet Browne, says on p. 434 that CD nominated Francis in 1875. His election on 2 Dec. of that year is recorded in the Proceedings. Yopienso (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Yopienso, that seems to cover the various points and we can go along with Freeman on CD being elected Fellow in 1854. Apparently the IP posted a private email without permission, as a courtesy I've redacted the relevant points. Think that's us finished. . dave souza, talk 15:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

List of Fellows of The Linnean Society
I have supplied a very long list of FRS's (past) from what is hopefully a excellent source (ie not from Wikipedia) to the Linnean Society, in order to encourage them to publish their own data on-line; unfortunately there is a fundamental difference between biographical articles written by experts, and the poorer articles which appear on Wikipedia. (Ironically the Wikipedia articles appear far more prominently on "google" search engine results and hence get much more attention.) Watch this space! NB:

'''Sir Francis Darwin was elected as a Fellow of the Linnean Society on the 2nd of December 1875. This was published as follows: "1875. Dec. 2. Darwin, Francis, M.B. Down, Beckenham, Kent." in: The Linnean Society of London: List of the Linnean Society of London, 1876. [London:] Printed by Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. p.10. ''' 2.27.132.17 (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Timeline
Does the article fully reflect the most important (non-family) events of CD's life?

'''1809 12 February Born in Shrewsbury, England, the son of Robert Waring  Darwin and Susannah, nee Wedgwood.

1813 In the summer goes to Gros, near Abegele, in Wales, for sea-bathing with family, some of his earliest recollections coming from this.

1814-1816 No information about his being away from The Mount.

1817 Attends day school in Shrewsbury run by George Case, Unitarian minister. His mother dies.

1818 In June goes to Samuel Butler’s school at Shrewsbury as a boarder (stayed 7 years). Butler was the grandfather of Samuel Butler (1835-1902) the  science writer and critic of Darwinism.

1819 July Summer holiday at Plas Edwards, Towyn, N. Wales.

1820 July went on riding tour with Erasmus brother to Pistyll Rhayader, N. Wales.Darwin aged 9

1822 June went to Downton, Wilts with sister Caroline. July went to Montgomery & Bishop's Castle, Shropshire with sister Susan.

1824 Visits Llandudno, Wales, with school friend John Price.

1825 17 June taken away early from Shrewsbury School by his father. On 22 October matriculates with his brother Erasmus at the University of Edinburgh. Registers for medical courses. First lecture on 26 October. Lodged at 11 Lothian St.

1826 June takes a walking tour in North Wales. In the winter meets Dr Robert Grant (1793-1874), naturalist and Lamarckian, and examines marine animals. 10 November elected to Plinian Society.

1827 27 March reads papers on marine animals to Plinian Society. Leaves Edinburgh in April. Visits Belfast and Dublin in spring. Visited Paris in May with Wedgwood cousins, his only time in France. This summer he spends much time at Woodhouse, the home of the Mostyn Owens. On 15 October is admitted to Christ’s College, University of Cambridge, but does not move there until January 1828. Reads for an ordinary degree, the usual preliminary for theological training (which was never undertaken).

1828 Becomes friendly with his cousin William Darwin Fox at Christ's. Is a keen entomologist and collector of beetles. Attends John Stevens Henslow’s botany classes.

1829 Travels to Wales to collect insects with entomologist Frederick William Hope. Spends Michaelmas term in Cambridge. Entomologises with Leonard Jenyns; Friday evenings at Henslow's. July his name appears in Stephens' Illustrations of British Entomology. December three weeks in London with Erasmus. Entomological visits to Hope and Stephens.

1830 January in Cambridge, reading for 'Little Go'. August collects insects in North Wales with Hope. March passes 'Little Go'. August entomological tour in North Wales with Hope and T. C. Eyton.

1831 Passes his BA examinations on 22 January without honours and remains at Cambridge for a further two terms to fulfill residence requirement. Spends much time with Henslow, and in August accompanies Adam Sedgwick, Professor of Geology, on his annual field trip to Wales. In August he returns to Shrewsbury from Wales to find a letter from Henslow inviting him to join the Beagle voyage. Darwin’s father objects, but his uncle, Josiah Wedgwood II, persuades him otherwise. Meets Captain Robert FitzRoy (1805-65) and makes preparations for the voyage. Begins Beagle diary. After two false starts, the ship leaves Plymouth on 27 December.

1832 16 January, Darwin makes his first landing on a tropical shore at St Jago, Cape Verde Islands. Field notebooks begin to be used. From February 1832 to May 1834 the Beagle surveys the east coast of South America. In December arrives in Tierra del Fuego.

1833 March, Beagle visits Falkland Islands. From April to July around Maldonado, August to December in Rio Negro and Montevideo.

1834 Early part of the year is spent surveying in Tierra del Fuego and another visit to the Falkland Islands. April to May Darwin and FitzRoy make an inland expedition along the River Santa Cruz. Repeated ports of call in Tierra del Fuego, eventually leaving the Straits of Magellan in June. From June 1834 to September 1835 the Beagle surveys the west coast of South America. Calls at Chiloé Island. From end of July to November Darwin resides in Valparaiso, returns to Chiloé until February 1835.

1835 Spends February in Valdivia and early March in Concepcion, makes long excursion northwards from March to September, calling at Copiapo, Iquique and Callao. Beagle departs Lima on 7 September for the Galapagos Archipelago. Darwin spends 16 September to 20 October exploring the archipelago, 15- 26 November in Tahiti, 21-30 November in New Zealand. December Henslow prints extracts from his letters.

1836 Beagle calls at Sydney in January, Hobart in February, Cocos and Keeling Islands in April, followed by Mauritius. Visits Cape of Good Hope from 31 May to 18 June. Writes first article to be published with Fitzroy. The ship makes way across Atlantic ocean calling at St Helena and Ascension Islands in July. Returns briefly to Brazil in August to check some readings. Calls at Azores in September. 2 October, Beagle drops anchor at Falmouth, England, and on 4 October Darwin returns home to Shrewsbury. Begins to publish scientific papers.

1836-1837 16 December to 6 March 1837 lives in lodgings in Fitzwilliam Street, Cambridge.

1837 In March takes lodgings in 36 Great Marlborough Street, London. Gives papers at the Geological Society of London. Arranges for his Beagle specimens to be identified. Begins publication of The Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle (1838-43). Becomes friendly with the geologist Charles Lyell. The naturalist John Gould identifies his bird specimens. In July opens his first notebook on the transmutation of species.

1838 Works intensely on a variety of natural history and geological topics. Finishes a paper on the geology of Glen Roy in Scotland. On 28 September he read 'for amusement' T. R. Malthus Essay on the Principle of Population (1798). 'Here, then, I had at last got a theory by which to work' (Autobiography). On 11 November proposes marriage to his cousin Emma Wedgwood (1808-96). In the last weeks of the year moves to a house in Gower Street, London.

1839 Marries Emma Wedgwood on 29 January. Publishes Journal of Researches, later known as Voyage of the Beagle. Elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. First child, a son William, is born. He and Emma eventually have ten children, seven of whom reach adulthood. Disseminates Questions about the breeding of animals.

1840 Publishes paper On the formation of mould. The book on this subject would only be published in 1881.

1841 Writes cousin Fox that, when finished with current projects, will write a book to be entitled 'Varieties & Species'. Publishes some geological articles such as On the distribution of erratic boulders.

1842 Makes a short geological excursion in Wales. Settles with his wife and young family in Down House, in the village of Downe in Kent. Publishes The structure and distribution of coral reefs. On a visit to his wife’s family home, Maer in Staffordshire, makes a brief pencil sketch of his theory of ‘descent with modification'.

1843 Building works at Down House. Continues work on volcanic islands.

1844 Expands sketch into a longer Essay. Writes a memorandum to Emma Darwin requesting that this essay should be published if he should die unexpectedly, giving the names of several friends who would serve as possible editors. Publishes Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands visited during the Voyage of HMS Beagle.

1845 Expands and revises Journal of Researches for a second edition. Begins a lifelong relationship with the London publishing house of John Murray.

1846 Publishes Geological Observations on South America. October begins work on barnacles.

1847 Continues work on barnacles. Visits Shrewsbury February to March, June British Association for Advancement of Science at Oxford. Later returns home in July. 22 October to 5 November in Shrewsbury.

1848 November, his father Robert Waring Darwin dies.' Goes to Shrewsbury for the funeral but arrives too late to attend.

1849 March to June the whole family reside in Malvern Wells so that he can take the water cure. Publishes chapter on Geology in A manual of scientific enquiry; prepared for the use of Her Majesty's Navy.

1850 Working on barnacles. 11-18 June visits Malvern Wells.

1851 March takes oldest daughter Annie to Malvern where she dies of fever on 23 March, aged ten.' In July the family visits the Great Exhibition in London’s Hyde Park. Publishes the first of two volumes on barnacles, A Monograph on the sub-class Cirripedia, and the first of two volumes on fossil barnacles, A Monograph on the fossil Lepadidae.

1852 Spent year working on barnacles (Sessile Cirripedes). 24 March to Rugby for a day and thence to Shrewsbury returning home 1 April. 11 September to Leith Hill Place to visit Josiah Wedgwoods, returning home on 16th.

1853 Spent 'Whole year preparing M.S of Sessile Cirripedes for press.'

1854 Publishes concluding volumes on barnacles, A Monograph on the sub-class Cirripedia, and A Monograph on the fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae. Immediately begins full-time work on species.

1855 'March & April. Employed chiefly in comparing seeds—trying experiments in salting seeds.— & reading.—'

1856 On Charles Lyell’s advice begins writing up his views for a projected big book called 'Natural Selection'.

1857 Whole year spent writing chapters of species book.

1858 In June receives a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace who is collecting specimens in Indonesia. Wallace encloses an essay on species and varieties that mirrors Darwin’s own theory of natural selection. 'I never saw a more striking coincidence. ..If Wallace had my MS sketch written out in 1842 he could not have made a better short abstract!' Baby Charles dies of scarlet fever on 28 June. Extracts from Darwin and Wallace’s writings presented by Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker at the Linnean Society of London on 1 July. Neither Darwin nor Wallace attend. Papers published in Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Visits Isle of Wight where he begins an 'abstract' of his views for publication.

1859 On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life is published in London on 24 November by John Murray. On publication day Darwin is taking the water cure in Ilkley, Yorkshire.

1860 Publishes 2nd edition of Origin. Foreign editions appear. Begins work on Variation book.

1861 Continued work on Variation book. Published 3rd edition of Origin. Began work on Orchid book.

1862 Begins to grow a beard after an episode of ill health. Publishes On the Various Contrivances by which British and foreign Orchids are fertilised by Insects, and On the Good Effects of Intercrossing. Meets Alfred Russel Wallace on his return from Indonesia.

1863 Seriously ill, consults many medical men about his symptoms. Ill health continues until spring 1866.

1864 In November awarded the Copley medal of the Royal Society of London, its highest scientific honour.

1865 Publishes an article on climbing plants in the journal of the Linnean Society of London, ‘On the Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants’. Later published as a book in 1865.

Charles Darwin in 18661866 Publishes 4th edition of Origin. Continued work on Variation book. Sits for the portrait, right.

1867 Completes Variation MS. Distributes several Queries about expression.

1868 July Visits Isle of Wight and meets Alfred Lord Tennyson and Julia Margaret Cameron. Is photographed by Cameron. Publishes The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication.

1869 Publishes 5th edition of Origin. Continues work on descent of man.

1870 Whole year working on descent of man. Various visits to relatives.

1871 Publishes The Descent of Man, and Selection in relation to Sex. Engages in dispute with St George Mivart, adds a new chapter to sixth edition of Origin of Species to rebut Mivart’s claims. Daughter Henrietta marries Richard Litchfield and moves to Bryanston Street in London where Darwin becomes a regular visitor.

1872 Publishes 6th edition of Origin. 13 February to 21 March rents London holiday house at 9 Devonshire St. In October takes a family holiday in a rented house in Sevenoaks, Kent. Is impressed with the veranda and on returning to Down House builds one there. Publishes The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals.

1873 Attends a soiree at George Eliot’s house. Worked on climbing plants and 2nd edition of Descent of man.

1874 A séance is held at his brother’s house in January but Darwin does not attend. ‘The Lord have mercy on us all, if we have to believe in such rubbish.’ 2nd editions of Descent and Coral Reefs published.

1875 Publishes Insectivorous Plants. Gives evidence to the Royal Commission on Subjecting Live Animals to Experiments. Sits to the portrait painter Walter William Ouless, for the family. A copy later made by Ouless for Christ’s College, Cambridge, etched by Paul Rajon. ‘I look a very venerable, acute melancholy old dog’.

1876 During the summer begins to write an autobiographical memoir for his children and future grandchildren. ‘I know that it would have interested me greatly to have read even so short and dull a sketch of the mind of my grandfather written by himself, and what he thought and did, and how he worked.’ This memoir published in edited form in Francis Darwin’s Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1887) Publishes The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable  Kingdom. In September Darwin’s first grandchild is born to Francis and Amy Darwin. Amy dies in childbirth and Francis goes to live with his parents at Down House with the baby, Bernard Darwin. Francis becomes Darwin’s secretary and botanical assistant.

1877 Awarded Honorary LLD from Cambridge University. Publishes The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the same Species and ‘A biographical sketch of an Infant’ in the journal Mind which was written up from notes made in 1839-41 on his firstborn, William Darwin.

1878 'The whole of this last year [working on] on the circumnutating Movements of plants & bloom.'

1879 In August takes a family holiday in Coniston in the Lake District. Meets John Ruskin. Publishes a biographical study of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. Translated from the German by W.S. Dallas, with a preliminary notice by Charles Darwin, followed by bitter controversy with Samuel Butler after he accuses Darwin of plagiarism. Is painted in oils for the Cambridge Philosophical Society by William Blake Richmond, dismissed by Emma Darwin as ‘quite horrid, so fierce & so dirty’.

1880 Publishes The Power of Movement in Plants…Assisted by Francis Darwin.

1881 July, takes another holiday in the Lake District, based in Ullswater. In August his brother Erasmus dies, and is buried in Downe churchyard. Publishes The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with observations on their Habits. Bestows money to Kew Gardens for publication of Index Kewensis. Arranges a civil list pension for Wallace. Defends right of scientists to experiment on live animals.

'''1882 Dies 19 April, aged seventy-three. Buried in Westminster Abbey, 26 April.'''

2.27.131.101 (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The main points are covered in this article, the details are in the sub-articles. Of course some details may appropriately have some more coverage in these articles, and you may feel that specific points are so important that they should be noted in this article: if so, please propose specific wording on the relevant article talk page, with the source or sources that you feel justify their inclusion. . dave souza, talk 12:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Dave, the above timeline was put together by two world-class CD experts, but it lacks family history. 2.27.132.216 (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

LDS
Is Ermengard Maitland buried with her mother, Lady Florence Darwin, previously Maitland, nee Fisher?

2.30.187.198 (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Charles Darwin in Cambridge: The most joyful years" (2014)
I can recommend this new book - with the exception of page 123, which has NO place in an otherwise well written and illustrated book; this has just been brought to the author/publisher's attention in Singapore! [Also an obvious error on page 112, confusing 'Down(e)' and "Down", as in the place and house of course.] Otherwise it's a good read, written before the Darwin family graves in Cambridge were identified: Francis, George, Horace and the four wives, and some of their children: Frances Cornford and Gwen Raverat. Darwin's legacy in Cambridge? Most of his family is buried there, and not in Downe.

2.27.146.59 (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pallbearers
Interesting that the 8th Duke of Argyll was one of Darwin's pallbearers. In the 8th Duke's Wikipedia bio. it states that: "He was a leader in the scholarly opposition against Darwinism (1869, 1884b)" Why would he then be a pallbearer?

2.30.190.65 (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Respect. . . dave souza, talk 18:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

NO tutors at Christ's College, Cambridge mentioned?

 * Rev. Edward John Ash = 1830 to 1831, CD technically graduated in 1832,

b. 1799 d. Mar. 4, 1851


 * Rev. John Graham = 1829 to 1830,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Graham_(bishop) b. Feb. 23, 1794 d. Jun. 15, 1865
 * Rev. Joseph Shaw = 1828,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Shaw_(Christ%27s_College) b. 1786 d. Jun. 1, 1859

2.30.207.233 (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We mention both John Stevens Henslow and Adam Sedgwick, who both tutored CD while he was at Christ's. If good sources show that these others have some significance to CD's life and work, that sourced info could be added to Charles Darwin's education but it really doesn't look significant enough to go in this overview article. . dave souza, talk 12:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Rev. John Graham = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Graham_(bishop)

Rev. Joseph Shaw = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Shaw_(Christ%27s_College)

See above articles for 2 out of 3 Dave! These 3 tutors do deserve to be mentioned in the 'overview'! Their discovery in the records of Christ's College, Cambridge was only made last year Dave (2014).

For the record, Ash, Graham, and Shaw were Darwin's actual tutors, while Henslow and Sedgwick were not 'tutors, they were PROFESSORS Dave!

2.24.4.67 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Darwin info from another article
In the course of copy-editing the article on Edinburgh Phrenological Society, I deleted an irrelevant paragraph about Darwin. That is, it's irrelevant to the Edinburgh Phrenological Society but might be very relevant here. It contains details that are not in the current Darwin article, although there are no references. If someone were interested in splicing parts in, here it is:


 * Charles Darwin: In June 1838 (around the time of Queen Victoria's coronation), after months of ill health, Charles Darwin revisited Edinburgh and his undergraduate haunts some eleven years after his hurried departure. Characteristically, Darwin recorded many of his psychological speculations on this trip in his M Notebook. At the same time, he was teasing out the details of his theory of natural selection and was in some emotional conflict, entertaining the possibility of marriage to his devoutly Christian cousin, Emma Wedgwood. Interestingly, it was at this time that he committed his "gigantic blunder" concerning the parallel roads of Glen Roy. Darwin seems to have hit on the essence of natural selection in September 1838, and on 21 September he recorded a vivid and disturbing dream in which he was involved in a public execution at which the corpse came to life and claimed to have died as a hero. He married his cousin on 29 January 1839. Darwin's marriage was a success, and the domestic security with which he was provided enabled him to continue his scientific researches, culminating in the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859.

—Molly-in-md (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this looks like a bit of synthesis muddling up some accurate incidents: the place for it to be covered is Inception of Darwin's theory or thereabouts, while that's not got inline references it's based on Desmond & Moore which is pretty good. Hadn't seen the point about him noting phrenological psychology in the M notebook, we'd need a good secondary source for that. We don't cover the dream in which "a person was hung & came to life", van Wyhe suggests some interpretations of that are much exaggerated. Still, all very interesting and thanks for bringing it here. . dave souza, talk 21:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Dave, I have brought the above to the attention of 'van Wyhe' in Singapore. (Not a happy man!) 2.30.187.248 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Rev. Edward John Ash
Can someone create a 'stub' article to which data can be added, please?

Find-a-Grave has entries for all three of Darwin's tutors!

2.30.198.63 (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia, you'll find it helps to get a user account which also gives you greater privacy as your IP address isn't displayed. . dave souza, talk 10:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There is the question of whether Edward John Ash is sufficiently important in his own right to have a Wikipedia article; I don't think he is. Simply being Darwin's tutor isn't enough unless he is shown to be a major influence (and find-a-grave is definitely not evidence of importance).  He had Cambridge degrees B.A. 1819, M.A. 1822; Fellow and Tutor of Christ's College; later Rector of Brisley-cum-Gateley, Norfolk, 1838 (the living was from the college); died 4 March 1851.  He married in 1842 Jane Charlotte Ray 3rd daughter of Colonel Philip Ray of Eldo House (later Major General).  None of this seems to show much importance.  He had at least two sons, Philip James and Edward Philip.   --Erp (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Charles Darwin's third tutor at Cambridge from 1830 to 1831.

"Darwin returned to Christ's on 24 February 1829. Fox was gone, he had taken his B.A. degree on 23 January, ranking 88th out of 160. Earlier in the month, Darwin's cousin Hensleigh Wedgwood was elected a Finch and Baines Fellow, but he would hold this only until October 1830. Two days after returning to his comfortable rooms, Darwin wrote Fox to report on his stay in London where he had visited entomologists F. W. Hope and James Francis Stephens. The former had generously given Darwin specimens of 160 beetle species for his collection. Darwin ordered a beetle cabinet to help house his growing collection. Darwin also reported that “By Grahams decided advice, I do not go in for my little Go.” John Graham (1794–1865) replaced Shaw as Tutor in 1829. He clearly did not think Darwin was ready to pass the examination. Shipley described Graham as “one of the most brilliant of the alumni of the College (fourth Wrangler and Chancellor's Classical Medallist in 1816), who was elected Master of the College in 1830, and was appointed to the Bishopric of Chester in 1848. Graham was one of the small group of Cambridge Liberals in the days of the first Reform Bill, and a strong supporter of the abolition of University tests. As a disciplinarian in College, he is said to have been somewhat too “easy-going” '''After Graham was elected Master in 1830, Darwin's Tutor was Edward John Ash (1799–1851). Darwin may well have benefited from this lack of discipline.'''"[page 66 by John van Wyhe, 2014]

How you can 'justify' not creating a Wiki article for Ash when the other two tutors have articles is beyond me! (Sadly such a very stupid decision reflects adversely on Wikipedia and its rather odd editors! Re-consider please?) 2.30.187.248 (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Because the other two were important for other reasons. Notably one became a bishop and both were Masters of Christ's College.   Ash was neither.  In neither of their wikipedia biographies is their role as Darwin's tutor much discussed (one sentence mentioning it in each of their Wikipedia articles); if they weren't important for other reasons they wouldn't have articles either.  --Erp (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

A trio of knighthoods!!!
"Of his surviving children, George, Francis and Horace became Fellows of the Royal Society,[164] distinguished as astronomer,[165] botanist and civil engineer, respectively.."

THIS MISSES THE POINT THAT ALL THREE OF THEM WERE KNIGHTED!

2.30.207.225 (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

✅ YoPienso (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Funeral
"Music by Purcell and Croft was sung, as well as an anthem composed for the occasion by the Abbey's deputy organist, J. Frederick Bridge - 'Happy the man that findeth wisdom and getteth understanding'...the service ended with the choir singing Handel funeral anthem - 'His body is buried in peace, but his name liveth forever'" [Frances Spalding, 2001: "Gwen Raverat - Friends, Family & Affections".]

2.30.190.50 (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See Darwin from Insectivorous Plants to Worms. . . dave souza, talk 19:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ehm, Mr. IP, could you stop evading your block? Your main accounts is still blocked... <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 16:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

6 'missing' members of The Glutton Club which CD was a member of
Looking for their grave locations and ANY BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION for :

Blane, Robert b. unknown d. May 30, 1871 = No cemetery (London?)

Cameron, Rev. Jonathan Henry Lovett b. 1807 d. Nov. 21, 1888 = No cemetery (Shoreham!)

Heaviside, Rev. James William Lucas b. unknown d. Mar. 5, 1897 = No cemetery (Norwich?)

Herbert, John Maurice b. 1808 d. Nov. 3, 1882	= No cemetery (Ross?)

Lowe, Henry Edward b. unknown d. Jan. 1, 1895 = No cemetery (Torquay?)

Whitley, Rev Charles Thomas b. 1808 d. Apr. 22, 1895 = No cemetery (?)

FindingJohnCornford (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

High resolution digital images of Darwin Manuscripts
Here at Cambridge University Library we are currently in the process of putting online very high-resolution digital images of a number of Darwin's most important manuscripts:

Darwin Manuscripts Collection

Many of the images are accompanied by transcription (available under the View more options tab) provided by the Darwin Manuscripts project

Hopefully these might prove useful! I lack the subject expertise to make any edits to the page itself.

EifionJones (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! While this looks useful in principle, and at first glance it looks worthwhile adding an external link to this collection, it's not clear what this adds to DarwinOnline. An issue we've come up against is whether we can re-use images to illustrate articles. For that, licensing has to meet the Commons:Licensing policy giving free use. In some countries old images are public domain, but this clearly isn't the case with the first image I looked at. Thanks anyway, good to see work being done to put high quality images online. . dave souza, talk 15:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks - we'll look into the licensing, very useful to know this. I now see that someone has added us to the external links, maybe I missed it, but getting our images useable would be great for us EifionJones (talk) 19:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, glad to see the link's been added. The licensing issue (from memory) is that in the U.S. a straight reproduction of a pre-1923 2D published page or artwork is public domain, but in the UK the act of photographing or scanning the document gets copyright. Museums tend to guard this, and we discussed this a few years ago with John van Wyhe as all the DarwinOnline pages are copyrighted. Your website allows for both situations, so presumably in some cases copyright doesn't apply or has been waived, but the "pencil sketch" page requires specific agreement for re-use beyond basic fair use. That means we can't use the image on Wikipedia. In one previous instance, we got someone in the U.S. to scan illustrations from a library copy of Fertilisation of Orchids so were able to illustrate that article. . dave souza, talk 21:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Darwin was not a geologist, is not right what you wrote.
Charles Darwin did not achieved any degree in geology, as well as in biology, so if you write Charles Darwin was a naturalist, geologist, you are making a great mistake! On the same time Darwin published 127 opera circa of biological point view and only 6 of geological point view, also in relation of publications he was more biologist that geologist!

So, or you change writing Charels Darwin was naturalist (or scientist), or to be honest and claim the truth you write was an English biologist, geologist, in other any case wikipedia confirm to be partial and not REAL!

Everywhere also at Oxford and Cambridge University also at Harvard University at MIT is considerated a biologist, only you on wikipedia claim faulse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grussino (talk • contribs) 14:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I think one or two other people would say he was. For instance - "Back in London, Darwin delivered a series of well-regarded papers at the Geological Society of London before becoming its secretary in 1838. This job carried significant responsibilities and was the most substantial scientific obligation Darwin was ever to accept. And how about Sandra Herbert's book, Charles Darwin Geologist?  Richerman    (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There were no degrees in geology at the time CD got his degree. Desmond, Moore, Browne and Herbert are among the eminent biographers who describe him as a geologist: look at the cited sources. Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle was written by various authors, edited and superintended by CD. Voyages was a travel narrative rather than a scientific study. His own first scientific books were The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands and Geological Observations on South America. Worth reading "Charles Darwin as a prospective geological author". . . dave souza, talk 15:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In 1859 he received the Wollaston Medal, the Geological Society's highest award. He was an outstanding geologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campolongo (talk • contribs) 07:21, 22 July 2015‎
 * Thanks, that's a very good point. . . dave souza, talk 08:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015
Darwin mentioned his unhappiness due to the study of evolution: "I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me....My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts....The loss of these tastes is a loss of happiness, and may possibly be injurious to the intellect, and more probably to the moral character, by enfeebling the emotional part of our nature."

192.31.114.252 (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as that is a random quota, not a request for a specific change, with a reason, in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
 * Also, the quote is from Darwin's autobiography which gives no support to the claim that this was "unhappiness due to the study of evolution". On the contrary, he wrote "if I had to live my life again I would have made a rule to read some poetry and listen to some music at least once every week; for perhaps the parts of my brain now atrophied could thus have been kept active through use." A very good secondary source would be needed to support the IP's claim. . . . dave souza, talk 13:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

More on His Research
I learned from a documentary that CD said (now I'm only paraphrasing, so someone needs to find the info if you want to put this in) that if the simple cell was complex his theory would shut down. We do need to add this and explain how his theory is still alive for the most part even though we know that the cell is complex. This at least needs to be put in the article for evolution. Just an idea. Punk4orchrist (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds like simple creationist quotemining: what documentary? It would be interesting if you could give the title. The most likely source is OoS, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." See Quote #84 in Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous". Perhaps you could learn more by checking documentary claims against good sources? Even very reputable documentaries sometimes put in over-simplifications or make mistakes. . . . dave souza, talk 21:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have forgotten the title of the documentary. It was just an idea I had for this page. Thanks for the input. Punk4orchrist (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Dawn of Humanity (2015 PBS film) notes Darwin (& Huxley)‎
FWIW - re your recent edit removal of "Dawn of Humanity (2015 PBS film)" from the "See also" sections in the Darwin & Huxley‎ articles - these edit removals may (or may not) - be *entirely* justified - esp since a significant amount of material re the recent discovery of "Homo naledi" fossils seems *directly* related to Darwin & Huxley‎ in the complete PBS documentary film (113:07) - which can be viewed at the following link => http://video.pbs.org/video/2365559270/ - Comments welcome from other editors of course - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Letter being auctioned saying " I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God"
See[ I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God]. Doug Weller (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we cover the letter at Religious views of Charles Darwin citing Darwin Correspondence Project » letter: 12851 so at least it's in the public realm. Perhaps this source for the news? Doesn't really show atheism, as the view is compatible with deism and probably with CD's Unitarian upbringing. . . dave souza, talk 20:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Relevant analysis.. . . . dave souza, talk 21:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * p.s. two for the price of one? Darwin Correspondence Project » letter: 12845 shows both the lawyer's self-centred request "The reason of my intrusion—which I trust you will pardon—is this. I have a great desire to read your books... but I am a busy man & not at all a clever man, and if I am to have pleasure in reading your books I must feel that at the end I shall not have lost my faith in the New Testament", and also his suggestion "So you will write on the back of this page Yes or No you will be doing a real kindness". Not clear if CD did just write his brief reply on the back of the barrister's letter. . . dave souza, talk 22:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Darwin was a creationist
Darwin was basically a creationist, this should be added to the article

I suggest the above scientific paper by Cosans added and summarized with a few lines. Latenightjogger (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What scientific paper? You've linked the abstract of a 2005 historical paper headed "Was Darwin a creationist?", and per Betteridge's law of headlines the answer is that he wasn't. A summary would be "In his notoriously nasty (anonymous) review of OtOOS, Owen said CD still relied on God as an explanation for the origin of life. Little did Owen kno that CD privately thought that life could have originated in a warm little pond somewhere." Doesn't look very significant. .  . dave souza, talk 23:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the paper. Glancing over it, it seems heavily speculative (in the sense that the author is saying "you could insert a religion here, and Darwin hadn't explicitly declared himself an Agnostic at that point in his life, as he did later.")  The bulk of the paper seems to be more devoted to Owen than to Darwin.  In any case, we already have a section (and an entire article) devoted to Darwin's religious views, which goes into more detail than this and, I think, cites better sources. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Drosera
I am a little disappointed not to see any mention of Darwin's work withcarnivorous plants mentioned on this page. I'm not surprised though, given that his work on natural selection is much more significant. but anyways, heres a citation It is already cited on the page Drosera. Where should this information go do you think? Sarr <b style="color: #CC5500;background:#FFD700">Cat</b> ∑;3 19:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Always in chronological order. Samsara 19:24, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The section on Charles Darwin has a "see also" link to Darwin from Insectivorous Plants to Worms, which gives more details, and concludes "His evolution-related experiments and investigations led to books on Insectivorous Plants, The Effects of Cross and Self Fertilisation in the Vegetable Kingdom, different forms of flowers on plants of the same species, and The Power of Movement in Plants. In his last book he returned to The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms." The link goes to an article on his book. So, it's given reasonable mention, and the links lead on to detailed info. As this is an overview article and has to be kept concise I'd be concerned about expanding it, but perhaps wording can be improved or improvements made to the linked articles. . . dave souza, talk 20:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A Pictorial Biography of Charles Darwin
Thanks to Samsara for restoring this external link: It's nicely illustrated, with pictures showing context as well as thumbnails of Portraits of Charles Darwin. Essentially self-published by an author and filmmaker, who wasn't found notable in the recent Articles for deletion/Danny Vendramini discussion, and in at least one instance his statements are debatable. So, quite an attractive link but not sure if we should keep it. . . dave souza, talk 10:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A Pictorial Biography of Charles Darwin
 * I've no strong feelings about it. What I noticed is that the pictures are on the small side. As far as Vendramini goes, I think he's asking some of the right questions but not arriving at the right answers. While his work is a bit populist, I don't think it's sufficiently pseudosciencey to merit any kind of suppression on our part. Having said that, the website is obviously promotional of his book. Samsara 19:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. On balance, this is a non-maintained link to a slightly questionable website, so I've removed it for now. It would probably be a good idea to review some of the others in the large list of external links. Having said that, the page did bring together a number of thumbnail images showing the context of Darwin's life, so it's a close call and I wouldn't mind if the link was reintroduced by someone who likes it. . . dave souza, talk 08:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Example of what can not be explained by Evolution according to Darwin
1. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, makes me sick. - Darwin said 2. Also how an eye is formed during evolution. These 2 can not be explained by evolution according to Darwin. Request to add these in the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.114.252 (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are wrong on both counts. Both are explained by evolution, already by Darwin (at least in principle). The eye quote is a lead-in to an explanation of how the eye can evolve and the peacock quote is something that puzzled him at the time but led him to write on sexual selection in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Please don't be mislead by quotes taken out of context, but check the sources yourself.  Sjö (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Darwin and Women
An education project is active. I reverted some extreme WP:SYNTH from this article on the basis that it was a copyvio from [here (Institute for Creation Research)]. The material was then copied to Darwin and Women and edited. It was speedy deleted as a copyvio, but has been recreated with text that is probably less of a copyvio (I haven't studied it), but it is still highly misguided. Editors from this page might want to have a look. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)