Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 6

Commemoration
The Darwin page includes a number of awards and places including two mountains, as well as Darwin (unit) and Darwin's Rhea, not currently mentioned in the Commemoration section. Do we want to list them all, or possibly refer to the disambiguation list? .. dave souza, talk 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new opening picture
How about a crop of this: ? It's non-satanic-looking, and just slightly after Origin. Adam Cuerden talk 14:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

That'd make me happy. Personally I like the portrait the best, but anything's better than the current leading picture, I really do find it quite horrific. WLU 14:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good photo, and representative of the types of photographs taken at that time. The current photo is a bit--how can I put it--intimidating? Tarinth 14:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that my wording is somehow being mocked, but I think people must admit the current photo is much better. Thanks for all the work on the picture Adam.  WLU 15:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely no intention to mock your wording, but unfortunately "at age 51" is rather inappropriately USian. I've tried rephrasing it in a way that gives a coherent sentence for those unable to see the picture, which by the way looks fine to me. .. dave souza, talk 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know someone's going to hate me for this, but could it be reduced in size a bit? Current image looks pixelated to me.  I tried playing around with it but I don't know how to edit an image when it's in the infobox WLU 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Grr hate hate: well, there's a better way, which is for someone to find a copy of the picture and scan it at higher resolution. Alternatively we can try a wee tweak: spot the difference? ... dave souza, talk 22:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You can stop hating me because the one that's on the page now looks fine, no more pixelization. In case it's still relevant, the picture above on the right does look less pixilated to me. Also, the picture that was up before the most recent one looked fine on my laptop screen at home, don't know why it looked so weird here.Again, thanks for the good work. WLU 21:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good work done by Photoshop Elements' wee scaling algorithm, glad it succeeded. .. dave souza, talk 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Works
To shrink the length of this article a bit, it might be a good idea to create a list of works on a sub page, I made one for an article I recently worked, here. Since all the pertinent works are already linked in the text - the inclusion of the long list in this article just makes the article even longer. --Peta
 * Thanks for the suggestion and the example: when the idea's been raised in the past, my feeling has been that the list was a useful way of pointing out that he did a lot more than The Origin. However, now that such a good bibliography is available at DarwinOnline, there's an argument for splitting it off while adding some more (brief) mentions of less well known works into the "life" sections. Do other editors have any comments on this before I try doing something along these lines? ... dave souza, talk 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sounds like a good idea. I think we should list, say, ~6-8 of his most important works and then link to List of publications by Charles Darwin (or whatever). Mi kk er (...) 19:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The references section already lists the main works, so I'd refer to that rather than duplicating it. .. dave souza, talk 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like clarification if this violates one of the policies in WP:NOT, mostly not a directory. I tried looking through the List guideline and a couple others (Lists_in_Wikipedia, etc.) and couldn't find anything really clear about this kinda thing, but my sense is that it might be iffy. There's an external link to such a list already on the page, thus. If the page referred to that external source, that'd be one way of cutting down the length of the page, and it's probably more accurate than what we'll ever manage here. My 2 cents. WLU 19:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Take the point about the Darwin Online bibliography, though it's perhaps a bit complex for easy reference. It would certainly be linked and used as a source. There are plenty of other lists in Category:Bibliographies by author. .. dave souza, talk 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since we can link to the Wiki articles on them, a list of his works is appropriate as a seperate page at the least. For convenience, we can add links directly as well. Adam Cuerden talk 13:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not a violation of NOT in this instance; as Dave points out there are many bibliographies. It is an issue of article size; and this article is too long. All of his major works are already mentioned by name in the text, and in the infobox. Removing the works makes the page 4kb shorter and a screen shorter for anyone who was printing the article. --Peta 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In Darwin's case, I'd say his books are of so much import to the article that they're valid, listed in full. However, it might be sensible to put them in an info box instead, possibly with links to both wikiarticles and text in the box. Adam Cuerden talk 01:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And list only the books, removing references to articles/letters/etc? That makes sense.  Also, the Darwin Online link is in the article twice - once in works, once in external links. Is this on purpose? WLU 12:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Darwin" infobox at the foot of the page already contains a list of the main works – any books with articles about them can be added there, as I've done with the Movement of Plants, Autobiography and Correspondence. The joint publication with Wallace of On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection appeared under two different halves of that title, so I've made both show the full title, and in the Works list I've added the title used for Darwin's section, Extract from an unpublished Work on Species. .. dave souza, talk 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I just wanted to comment that some dumbass put "Journey on the Bagel: did it taste good?" Could somebody please take that off (including the dumbass line he added)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Looks like it's been reverted; this article gets a lot of vandalism, so stuff like that doesn't go unnoticed too long. Opabinia regalis 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Given the degree to which the article faces 'drive by' vandalism on a daily basis, would semi-protection be an option? It doesn't really hit any of the big do/don't categories on the SPP page, but it's so regular and the page is so developed (it was a featured article after all) that SP seems to make sense. Thoughts? WLU 16:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been semi-protected before at times, but as you imply, it's so well watched that the guideline rather discourages such protection as not really necessary. Noting the reversion you did, I've recorded it on User talk:141.156.209.198 and as the user contributions shows, that wasn't the last vandalism. Any more in the near future and blocking will be in order. dave souza, talk 17:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence
I'm re-posting this from further up the page. I've left my original entry as it was as it had been responded to, and I'm unsure of the etiquette surrounding the deletion of other people's comments. Anyway:


 * Re: the opening sentence:


 * Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an eminent English naturalist[I] who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community that species develop over time from a common origin.


 * This formulation strikes me as incredibly awkward and stilted, maybe worse. It makes it sound like Darwin pulled some kind of confidence trick on the scientific community. Also, given the initial failure of natural selection (rather than evolution per se) to win many scientific converts, it's somewhat inaccurate.

I can see how this formulation arose, and perhaps in such an open forum as Wikipedia any accurate treatment of Darwin's contribution stands to be dismissed as POV by some people; but really, this should mention natural selection or evolution. How many entries on scientists start by stating what they're famous for, not what they actually did. I don't have enough faith in the elegance or economy of my prose to alter this myself, but I was hoping to draw the line to attention of someone who could improve it. Jamrifis 11:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The Kingdom of England effectively ceased to be after the 1707 act of union with Scoland. The later act of union with Ireland in 1800? Created “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”. This was the name of the nation in which Darwin was born, so making him a “British” subject. Though it is true he was from Shrewsbury in the English county of Shropshire, it is inappropriate to refer to him as being merely “English”. Could someone change this to “British”? --86.128.21.202 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

image attribution and editing
My comment applies to many Wiki pages other than the this one. I believe that images, even those whose copyrights have expired, should be credited to their creators, and should not be edited or cropped. I am an amateur portrait painter and an avid admirer of realistic portraiture. It seems to me contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia that images of photographs and paintings are routinely displayed without credit to the artist, often having been edited by another hand. There is a fine full length oil portrait of Charles Darwin by John Collier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Collier_(artist) (Google for "Darwin John Collier".) I presume it passes the copyright tests, because it was painted in the 1880's. I suggest that a complete image of that painting be put at the top of this section. Jive Dadson 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Added later: I notice there is a detail from the painting, cropped and in black and white, near the bottom of the article. I would like to see it removed, and replaced with an unedited color copy of the whole painting. Jive Dadson 05:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

One more note, and I'll say no more on the subject. If you must crop a portrait, be aware that the standard rule of thumb for bust-type portraits is that the chin should be no lower than the middle of the picture. It's a good rule. I won't go into the reasons.


 * You do assume that a digital copy of the original is available to editors. You are right that artists, when known, should be acknowedged. Of course you are as capable as anyone else of doing that edit, probably more so in that you seem to have a good knowledge of the artists concerned. --Michael Johnson 05:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've never uploaded and linked an image. I guess I'm a little lazy. I can find several jpgs of the painting on the web. Is any faithful jpg of a painting done in the 1880's fair game? Jive Dadson 07:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I hadn't uploaded a picture until recently, and found it quite easy. There are instructions, and it is easier (and better) to load it into WikiCommons. Go to the help section - it is all there. As for what particular image is acceptable, I'm no expert on copyright law, sorry. Once again there is infomation in the help section on this. --Michael Johnson 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * An accurate photograph of a 2-dimensional work adds no creative information to the original work, so the copyright of the original applies. So there's absolutely no problem for an 1880 painting. (For the curious, this was pretty well cemented in U.S. law in the Bridgeman v. Corel decision.) - Nunh-huh 01:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The variation of domestic plants and animals

 * The following section was added in several edits up to 11:35, 17 February 2007 by 151.30.132.232 – it seems a worthy contribution in principle, but rather extended for this article. Should there be a brief mention of this point at a suitable place in the article? It must also be questioned to what extent he was a forerunner of modern ideas of breeding – this had been underway for some time, and Darwin took his ideas from breeders such as Yarrell and the pigeon fanciers. .. dave souza, talk 11:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * And not only Plants & Animals. His works on botany are mentioned in the article, barely, however I understand the book on Coral Reefs is still regarded as a standard text but not mentioned at all. The Journal was also a best seller at the time, setting Darwin up for his subsequent career. Evolution, quite naturally, crowds out much of the rest of Darwins career. However even if "Origin" had never been written he would still have been noted as a biologst of importance. How you fit that into the article I have no idea. --Michael Johnson 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It would probably work well to move the list of works to a separate article, as discussed above, and incorporate brief mentions of the most significant at appropriate places in the biography. Will try to tackle it sometime soonish, but rather bogged down in other articles at the moment. .. dave souza, talk 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Phase 1 complete, will try to amend biography when possible. .. dave souza, talk 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's all the main books given a mention, Apart from van Wyhe suggesting Variation didn't sell very well, haven't found much to say about it: the best thing would be for someone to produce a well sourced, if brief, Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication article. In the Works section the statement "even without publication of his works on evolution would have had a considerable reputation as..." hopefully covers Michael's request. ... dave souza, talk 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of the supressed paragraph about the variation of domestic plants and animals. I hope that my censors will read, page by page,the huge Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication, as I did, and I am sure that, after reading, and, possibly, underdstanding, they will agree with me. A. S.


 * A.S., it would help if you registered and signed on. No-one is suppressing your edit. However there are restraints on the length of this article. It has been suggested that a new article on the book be started, and you could contribute to that. --Michael Johnson 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, if A. S. stands for Antonio Saltini, you should take careful note of the requirements of Attribution. It would be good to find other opinions on the work from more widely recognised biographers... dave souza, talk 11:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate
Does anyone have a source regarding whether this edit is correct or not? JoshuaZ 05:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit is correct;; one source is Ruvigny and Raineval, The Marquis of, Plantagenet Roll of the Blood Royal, 1905, reprinted Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., Baltimore, MD, 1994, Essex Volume. p. 136, #3e. - Nunh-huh 07:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia added
I hope it's ok that I added a trivia section. This would be interesting to some people. Alkaline Trio Rocks 19:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your effort, but we're trying to keep this article from going too far over the recommended maximum size, and it's already larger than would be ideal. There's probably a near infinite number of trivial references to Darwin, do others think this would be a suitable subject for a new article? Bear in mind that it has to meet the Notability standards. ... dave souza, talk 20:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Darwin in fiction

 * I added this section. This was not meant to include every suggestion of Darwin in fiction but only those of major importance.  I believe Irving Stone's excellent biographical novel qualifies. User:Sweetmoose6 (06:21, 10 March 2007)


 * Thanks for the info, I've incorporated it into "Commemoration" to include it without giving it undue significance. While the novel is no doubt excellent, it appears from Amazon to be out of print, and have had limited success – see also fantasticfiction .. dave souza, talk 09:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation list
I see the citation section is too long, so I use the template instead to separate it into 2 columns (like the instruction). Why don't I see any effect? Can anyone explain to me?  Apple  • •w• •o• •r• •m• •  16:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, it's not working anywhere at the moment. It's not working on another page I edit, Classes in World of Warcraft. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see two columns in both. Apple, your change actually moved from 3 to 2 columns (making it longer), but your comment sounds like you saw only one. The column feature, as far as I understand, works only in Mozilla-based browsers, and definitely not in IE. For the time being, I'll put it back to 3. Opabinia regalis 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh is that what it is? I usually use FF, but am on IE as I'm on another computer... weird. Sigh, IE is so rubbish. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. reflist says columns require CSS3, which IE doesn't even try to do as far as I know. I also have a slightly old version of Firefox on another computer that can't do columns either, so it seems like a fairly recent thing. Opabinia regalis 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Can anyone explain to me the difference between citations and references? I see many of the citation links lead to the reference links. For example, a lot of citations are from Desmond and Moore 1991. Why shouldn't we merge them to guide the readers to one general reference, rather than concretely pointing out the pages? Also, when should we put a footnote to citations or references?  Apple  • •w• •o• •r• •m• •  16:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Emma Darwin's Diaries
Emma Darwin's diaries have today been published online and are available at darwin-online. May provide some information with which to update this article. --Jon186 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening Sentence
I decided to be bold and change the opening sentence, since it seemd to me to be rather POV. The old one seemd to suggest that Darwin's main fame came from 'convincing the scientific community' and not from the theory itself. However, this being Wikipedia, if anyone feels differently, I will be happy to discuss it.--NeoNerd 11:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While the sentence is rather clumsy and I've been mulling over ways to change it, NeoNerd's version missed the point well made in van Wyhe's bio that Darwin, as an eminent naturalist with a mass of evidence, gradually convinced the scientific community of evolution, at the same time getting wide public fame for the idea. However, natural selection wasn't much accepted till the modern synthesis. The current intro goes back to Mikker's concern to distinguish the facts of evolution from the theories, nat sel included. In my opinion these nuances are worthwhile at the outset of the article. .. dave souza, talk 11:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point on the issue, but I do think i needs changed, If only because it is clumsy. I just thought that the opening sentence should focus more on his work, since the sentence implied that 'gradually convincing' the scientific community was what Darwin was famous for, not natural selection. However, since It's not really a huge issue for me, I'll demurr to you, since your explanation works.--NeoNerd 11:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you'll note I've tried to make it less clumsy – comments welcome! In my opinion Darwin is still famed for evolution in general, rather than the more specific theory of natural selection, but other viewpoints or suggestions will be welcome. .. dave souza, talk 11:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Links to DarwinOnline
On 20:21, 16 March 2007, user:BehnamFarid "Added link to: The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online --- this is the second time". the link already appears under Works – it it worth including in the External links section? .. dave souza, talk 11:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There must be some misunderstanding here (I am user:BehnamFarid); what I meant by "this is the second time" is that the first time that I added the link to the Darwin page it was deleted by DLX, mistaking it as a link which previously had been included with the purpose of advertising Viagra and the like. Please consult my (heated) exchanges with DLX on this subject. And please do not remove the link added by me (and if you have done so already, please restore my addition) because it will turn me again into an angry individual --- the link that I have added is by far the best and most professional page dedicated to Darwin (it is also run by professionals and academics).


 * --BF 13:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The link is excellent, and it's already in the article at Works as well as in List of works by Charles Darwin, and many of the references are to pages from the site. Anyone else have comments on this point? .. dave souza, talk 14:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Difficult to judge, External links says that "Links should be kept to a minimum", and that external links sections should only include links that "provide additional info beyond that provided by citation/reference links". On the other hand, a casual user wanting to find links to Darwin's works would likely expect such a resource to be in the external links section. --Jon186 14:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Issues of Editing
Yes, concerning the issue of the Charles Darwin Article there seems to not be an "Edit This Page" option nor is there any information concerning a lock on the article's editing blocking newly registered or non-registered users. Is there a reason behind this? I personally haven't seen signs of vandalism any time recently and there is quite a bit more that could be added to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justtheinformation (talk • contribs) 04:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
 * The wee padlock icon hadn't been added, so I've sorted that. There hasn't been so much vandalism since the semi-protection was applied, so that seems to be working – the page is well watched and there's an argument for avoiding such protection unless really necessary, but it's probably a good idea to keep the semi-protection till after this has featured on the main page.
 * Indeed there is quite a bit more that could be added to the article, as this has been subjected to a lot of work to pare it down to essentials, and is still well over the recommended maximum size so is slow to load as well as being quite a long read. There are sub-articles for each period of Darwin's life, so think of adding further info there. If you feel something really must be added to this article, it would be appreciated if you could discuss it on the talk page first. Thanks for your interest, .. dave souza, talk 08:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Worm image
I added the worm image mext to the charicature.Should I move it lower and make it bigger so the text isn't so narrow? I personally think it looks fine.Meson man 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant next not mext, sorry.Meson man 22:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice image, it dates from December 1881 judging by this google search so would have been published about four months before Darwin's death, at the end of the year in which he published The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms which may just have influenced the title ;) Logically, it goes in the last section on Darwin's life. .. dave souza, talk 12:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Misspelling in "Voyage of the Beagle.jpg"
On the map Sydney in Australia is mispelt. 59.101.191.165 06:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks. That should be fixed now. .. dave souza, talk 11:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Eminent?
With the witty comment ("famed as the eminent"? blah), Marskell chucked the "eminent" out of the first line: I can see the logic of simplifying it, however the reason for having it was to cover van Wyhe's comment here that "Darwin, as an unquestionably respectable authority in elite science, publicly threw his weight on the side of evolution... [his] name is so linked with evolution because he was the high-status insider who made evolution acceptable, even respectable." Perhaps too much to hint at with one word in the intro – any other comments? .... dave souza, talk 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'd bet more on Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog") as the one who fought to make evolution by natural selection acceptable. You might want to see my somewhat outraged comments below... Esseh 01:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Academic advisor?
I know I should go and raise this at the infobox (Template:Infobox Scientist), but I still groan inwardly whenever I see pre-20th century scientists with an "academic advisor" listed in their infobox. I understand the importance of academic geneaology and lineage, but the phrasing here is terrible. "Academic advisor" is a very modern term, and should not be applied to pre-20th century scientists. Darwin did study geology at university under Adam Sedgwick, and also corresponded with him, but there are others that should be mentioned as well. I see no reason why Sedgwick should be mentioned in the infobox over others such as John Stevens Henslow, Charles Lyell and Richard Owen. So there are two separate issues here, one for this talk page, and one for the infobox talk page: What do people think? Carcharoth 09:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Is it possible to list those who influenced Darwin, or the "lineage" he was part of, in the infobox, or should this complex subject be left for the article and excluded from the infobox?
 * (2) What is a better phrasing than "academic advisor"? Using Sedgwick as an example, is something like "mentor" better, or (in my opinion) is there no simple phrase to describe Sedgwick's scientific lineage and relationship to Darwin?
 * Darwin had a large number of significant influences. Listing them all in an infobox would defeat the purpose of such a box. Therefore, they are mentioned in the text rather than the infobox. Darwin was never enrolled to study for a doctorate (leaving aside the fact that he was briefly enrolled to study medicine, but only at what we would now consider undergraduate level). If you have seen references to "Dr. Darwin", they most likely refer to his father, who was a physician. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I realise all that (having read the Desmond and Moore biography). I'm puzzled by your references to "Dr Darwin", as I never said I'd seen references to this or any doctorate. All I said was that Darwin studied geology with Sedgwick, basing that on the article, and I quote: "To prepare himself, Darwin joined the geology course of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick then, in the summer, went with him to assist in mapping strata in Wales." Of course, Darwin was really meant to be studying to become a clergyman (having given up his previous medical studies in Edinburgh), but as we know he spent his time in Cambridge shooting, riding and chasing after beetles!
 * My view is that Sedgwick should be removed entirely from the infobox, as just listing him gives him undue prominence. Unless anyone gives a good reason for Sedgwick to be listed there, I will remove him. The article text does a good job of describing those who Darwin worked and studied with. Simplifying it in the infobox is misleading. Carcharoth 09:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed Sedgwick. Any disagreements, please discuss here. Carcharoth 09:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I explained about his not having a doctorate because we had a previous query about who his PhD supervisor was. Just in case you were wondering about the same thing. Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, that explains it. Thanks for taking the time to explain. Carcharoth 10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection needs removing before tomorrow
It would be best to remove the semi-protection before the article is featured tomorrow. It should only be restored if there are excessive levels of anonymous vandalism. Otherwise, we should let the world and its aunt try and improve this article (which, I hasten to add, is very good). Carcharoth 09:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This type of article will get a lot of vandalism. Of course, a lot of people are going to take the links to a number of the Evolution articles and do the same.Orangemarlin 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I love how people think that posting contrary, documented facts is "vandalism." Hysterical! You libs!!! Ymous 15:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert ... --Xer0 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Upload and protect
Dave and Adam, someone will have to revert or upload the following images (because we cannot protect them on Commons) and then protect them before tomorrow, to avoid inanities:
 * Image:HMS Beagle by Conrad Martens.jpg
 * Image:Voyage of the Beagle.jpg
 * Image:Emma Darwin.jpg
 * Image:Charles Darwin aged 51.jpg
 * Image:Darwin ape.jpg
 * Image:Charles Darwin by Julia Margaret Cameron.jpg
 * Image:Man is But a Worm.jpg
 * Image:Charles and William Darwin.jpg
 * Image:Charles Darwin 1880.jpg
 * Image:Charles Darwin 1881.jpg

I've protected all the templates and local images already, so only the above remain to be done. Is somebody going to be around to lift protection on this article at midnight? We should probably keep it until then.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, that's the Martens pic done and I'll continue with the others – please let me know of any blunders. Will lift protection before midnight BST, one hour before UTC, unless someone has a better idea. Thanks for the help, .. dave souza, talk 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

E Bloody Gads and little fishes!!
For a featured article on Darwin to begin: Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) is famed as the English naturalist[I] who convinced the scientific community by his writings and a mass of evidence that species develop over time in a process of evolution.[1] is shameful. Darwin did not convince the scientific community that evolution happened. Many scientists were already convinced of the mutability of species. Aristotle, Lamarck and Lyell, to name just a few had already speculated that evolution occurred, and Aristotle and Lamarck had already proposed (flawed, in hindsight) mechanisms.

What they did not know is how evolution occurred. Darwin's big claim to fame is emphatically not in convincing the scientific community that evolution occurred. It emphatically was in demonstrating the mechanism whereby it occurred (natural selection). Many scientists of Darwin's day already strongly suspected that evolution occurred, but they couldn't explain how - the search for a mechanism was on. This is evidenced by the fact that Wallace came up with the same mechanism at the same time as Darwin (indeed, were it not for Wallace, Darwin would have delayed publication even longer!) Shame on us all for perpetuating one of the biggest myths about Darwin in a featured article! Surely we can do better. Esseh 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If anyone would like references for the above, just ask. Esseh 01:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I am certain the editors of this article agree with you (after all, Lamarck and Lyell are mentioned in the article, though Aristotle isn't). I suspect this is a case where the wording was tweaked to try and convey a precise and nuanced meaning (namely that the precise mechanism was not apparent until much later with the modern synthesis of evolution), and unwittingly, the wording became convoluted enough to mislead people, as it has for you. I agree the wording needs to be changed, and I suggest something like: "Darwin is famous for proposing the concept of natural selection as a mechanism for the evolution of species, and for compiling a wide range of evidence for this mechanism." and then expand from there. Carcharoth 01:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Silence just changed the wording of the opening sentence so that it is much clearer and more accurate. I am pleased. Note also, that I wasn't "just bold" enough to change it myself. I believe boldness must be tempered with some (small) modicum of restraint and respect for others. Talk pages are a different matter, though. I do see that my l'il tirade appears to have triggered a lot of changes - most for the better, and nobody seems to have minded me removing "Darwin's fossilised bones" (to an ossuary?) from the article. As I told Silence, I will calm myself down, and tomorrow read over the article for other little (or large) stupidities. (No insult intended - stupidities usually happen inadvertently.) Oh, and Aristotle was the originator of the infamous "Ladder of Life" idea that was prevalent in Darwin's time, and is still believed by many today. (Everything progresses from "lower" to "higher".) Anyway, peace to all... but get it right, eh? Esseh 04:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't even visit this Talk page until I'd already made the edits in question. Great minds think alike? I've been meaning to make some changes here for a while, and when I noticed that this article was on the main page already, I decided now was as good a time as any. -Silence 04:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hope I've not upset this, have tweaked it again. The English establishment including Huxley thought species changed through a series of creations rather than evolutionism, as the reference by van Wyhe shows Darwin's prestigious support for evolution tipped the balance, but even he wasn't fully convinced by natural selection, and Lamarckism flourished until the 1930s. ..... dave souza, talk 05:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See Silence has reverted. By the way, the "ladder of life" as an evolutionary concept was favoured by Grant and the French school, Darwin rejected it. Darwin became famous for making evolution respectable, not for natural selection though post 1930s he's remembered for the latter. Will debate this again another day.. dave souza, talk 05:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How is the vague idea that Darwin "made evolution respectable" verifiable? Regardless of how he was viewed at the time, with historical hindsight it's clear that Darwin was not unique in accepting evolutionary change at the time, nor was he even necessarily decisive in spreading acceptance of the occurrence of such change. What differentiates him from other thinkers (e.g., Lamarck) are the specific aspects of evolutionary theory which he proposed, and therefore it's of the most value to readers if we are clear on that point early on; if we want to be more precise in noting his early and later impact in the article body, that's fine, but there's not really enough room in the lead section.
 * However, I've made an attempt at completely rewriting the first paragraph to avoid all these issues with both versions, and to be completely explicit regarding some points that are only hinted at. It's a major rewrite, so feel free to pick it apart!:
 * Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist who proposed and provided evidence for the theory that all species have evolved over time from a common ancestor through the process of natural selection. This theory was fully accepted by the scientific community in the 1930s, forming much of the basis of modern evolutionary theory. In modified form, Darwin's theory remains a cornerstone of biology, providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life. -Silence 06:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks better to me. .. dave souza, talk 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, that does look much better. And I see it has stuck as well. BTW, regarding Lamarckism surviving into the 1903s, I read about Paul Kammerer the other day. Interesting story. Carcharoth 09:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image redundancy
The same image is used twice in this article: once at the top of the article, and once in Charles Darwin. One of these two should be replaced immediately; the top image, in particular, provides no information not otherwise provided. -Silence 03:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Interpretations
Shouldn't there be a mention of World War II? Darwinism was the entire basis for Nazism, and in turn, the cause of the war. Last I checked, WWII was a major event in the history of the world.


 * Hi 71.80.2.218 (1) You can get a username, so we can discuss this. (2) It is customary to sign your posts (4 X "~" at the end), so all will know who to talk to. Now, per your question: social Darwinism (and eugenics) are mentioned in the article but they are really peripheral to Darwin's works. Darwin did not "invent" these ideas - they grew out later as misinterpretations and misapplications of natural selection and mendelian genetics. Also, if eugenics is to be mentioned, the sterilisation of "less desirable" individuals in the UK, the US, Canada and many other countries as well as the Third Reich would have to be mentioned. Not really within the scope of this article. If you wish to contact me, you can do so here, or on my talk page.  Esseh 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and Darwinism was not the entire basis for Nazism. Eugenics, taken to its extremes, was merely one aspect of Nazism. Esseh 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And neither was Darwinism the cause of the war. If unconvinced, you can always go ahead and try to have the statement "the cause of WWII was Darwinism" incorporated into the WWII article. Naphra 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist. The Nazis had ideas of "racial degeneration" based on De Gobineau's pre-Darwinian writings, which went completely contrary to Darwin's ideas as he was convinced that hybridisation improved organisms and inbreeding was a bad thing. .... dave souza, talk 06:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dave, Right! and combined with more "modern" ideas of eugenics, supplied by Galton and... (er... what was the American's name?) Hence, Nazism applied the "negative eugenics" of extermination that everyone remembers (death camps), but also the "positive eugenics" of promoting (and sometimes forcing) mating of "favoured" individuals (that almost no one remembers). Esseh 06:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * And wrong... Darwin actually had big problems with hybridization. Natural selection meant that there had to be variations within any interbreeding population, but hybridization (as Darwin understood it - a variation on the blending theory of inheritance) would ultimately cause homogeneity within a population. Darwin, unaware of Mendel's findings, wrestled with the conundrum 'til his dying day! Esseh 06:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but Darwin (who had personal reasons for fearing inbreeding) did plant experiments to find which were most vigourous, and in Descent of Man wrote of people of mixed racial background doing better that the pure aborigines. As an amateur I've probably muddled up the terms ... dave souza, talk 07:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

 * Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist who convinced the scientific community with his writings and a mass of evidence that species evolve over time through the process of natural selection.

I find this too weak an assertion; Darwin didn't convince the scientific community only but also great many members of the general public. I propose "... an English naturalist who showed with his writings and a mass of evidence that species evolve ...", or something to that effect, to avoid bolstering any perceptions that the Darwinian theory of evolution has no scientific merit but that Darwin merely succeeded in convincing the scientific community. Naphra 05:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Darwin convinced the scientific community..." has connotations of Darwin "putting one over" on the scientists, of using rhetoric or otherwise cajoling them into believing his nonsense. Gravity is a much less scientifically plausible theory than evolution, yet we don't have Newton's article saying that Newton merely "convinced the scientific community that gravity exists". However, I didn't make the change myself because I'm not quite sure of the best way to reword it. (One thing we shouldn't change is that we don't address public perception of the theory, which is much more complicated than scientific acceptance of it.) -Silence 05:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It might work better to replace "convinced" with "showed". As van Wyhe notes, the public was ahead of the English scientific establishment in giving credence to evolution rather than various ideas of a series of miraculous creations, until Darwin's eminent intervention and evidence gradually convinced most scientists that evolution took place, though the mechanism remained a matter for debate. ... dave souza, talk 05:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cite for info:
 * Gradually Darwin concluded that organisms were infinitely variable, and that the supposed limits or barriers to species was a belief without foundation. In modern terms we would say that Darwin came to accept that life evolves. The conventional view of the time was that species had been created where they are now found, in accordance with the environment. Few men of science then held to the view that there had been only a single species creation event. The fossil evidence seemed to show very many creations had occurred in different geological strata. ..........
 * Although Darwin convinced most of the scientific community that descent with modification, or evolution, was true, many rejected natural selection as the primary causal factor. Darwin was not the first to propose that life evolves... We know that a wide popular literature... had already shocked and converted vast popular audiences to belief in the power of natural laws to control the development of nature and society. 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.
 * Darwin, as an unquestionably respectable authority in elite science, publicly threw his weight on the side of evolution, and soon young allies like Hooker, T. H. Huxley, and John Tyndall publicly threw their own weight towards the same position. Darwin's name is so linked with evolution because he was the high-status insider who made evolution acceptable, even respectable. Most of his contemporaries did not particularly like Darwin's primary mechanism of natural selection. Very often in subsequent years evolution was accepted but natural selection was not. In fact, a generation of biologists regarded Darwin as correct in uncovering the evolution of life but mistaken in stressing natural selection. Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s.

From A biographical sketch by John van Wyhe. The new lead understates Darwin's impact in the late 19th century, but most people are probably well aware of that. .. dave souza, talk 06:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC) also info about theories of that time... dave souza, talk 07:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dave and all - see above. Yes, the "modern synthesis" of natural selection and genetics was the ultimate kicker that made all plausible, but Darwin was NOT the first to espouse evolution. He did not have to "throw his weight" on the side of the debate - he simply showed HOW it was possible (the mechanism - natural selection). The simple elegance of natural selection was the kicker. Huxley (and others) became his "bulldogs" because Darwin himself was reticent to vehemently (voiciferously, loudly, obnoxiously... whatever) defend the theory, because he understood the dissention it sowed (and was troubled by it). Rather, he applied himself to gathering and publishing more evidence, and allowed others to do the "fighting". If I might be so bold, Silence's opening sentence now reads: Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist who convinced the scientific community with his writings and a mass of evidence that species evolve over time through the process of natural selection. Could become:"C.R.D. (dates) was an English natural historian and scientist who first proposed that species could change over time (evolve) by means of natural selection. Although the concept of species evolving was not new, the novel mechanism of natural selection, as proposed by Darwin, eventually became the cornerstone of all modern biological thought." (Quote Van Valen (1973) here) (and all this might have changed, due to an edit conflict... grrrr...) Esseh 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately he wasn't the first to propose it: he gave a list of predecessors as a foreword to later editions of The Origin. Van Wyhe is a reliable source, and his brief account seems to me to be fully supported by recent biographers. .. dave souza, talk 07:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, Silence's current version has "an English naturalist[I] who proposed and provided evidence for the theory that all species have evolved". This unfortunately loses the evolution as theory and fact split that we were trying to achieve, but has advantages over earlier versions. .. dave souza, talk 07:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What split are you referring to? I've read the "theory and fact" article (and I also wrote sections on it for Talk:Evolution/FAQ and Objections to evolution), and I don't see the relevance here. The process of evolution is a fact; the theory of evolution is a theory; the theories of common descent and natural selection are theories; etc. -Silence 08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Originally we had "species change over time in a process of evolution", describing the fact(s) before going on to describe "natural selection" as a theory – perhaps a bit clumsy, but that was the best our earlier discussion achieved imo. .. dave souza, talk 08:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, Sam's asked for a cite for the acceptance in the 1930s. We could move Van Wyhe's ref along a sentence to cover it with "Natural selection's canonisation had to wait until the modern synthesis of Darwinism with Mendelian genetics in the 1930s." unless someone had a better cite. .. dave souza, talk 08:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have the word "theory" in the opening paragraph linking to evolution as theory and fact, rather than theory? At the moment, if people click on theory, they may end up confused over what meaning of theory is being used here. Linking to the other article will at least give the right context. Carcharoth 10:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that seems to me a good idea so have implemented it. We'll review this opening once the dust settles. .. dave souza, talk 12:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Spectre of Creationism
Although I hate to raise this spectre, the sentence in the intro saying that his theories were generally accepted in the 1930s wilfully ignores that that acceptence is no longer as universal as it was. I'm not a proponent of creationism, and it's mention on the article in Darwin itself should be minimal at most, but since the article raises the issue of acceptence, shouldn't it at least mention the counter argument? Epeeist smudge
 * Are you referring to this sentence?
 * This theory was fully accepted by the scientific community in the 1930s, forming much of the basis of modern evolutionary theory
 * It is quite accurate as the theory in indeed fully accepted by the scientific community to this day. Check out the wikipedia article on evolution Nil Einne 07:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a lie. There are many scientists that do not fully accept this theroy to this day. To say that it is a complete falsehood.Ymous 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The number of biologists who don't accept it is miniscule. Jhobson1 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a note - Ymous has been indef blocked for widespread trolling.  Citi Cat   ♫ 17:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Creation science may be errant nonsense, but surely some of it's champions would claim to be part of the "scientific community" Epeeist smudge 08:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, Wikibias rears its ugly head. Evolution to the degree indicated here is errant nonsense. Evolution is nothing more than the Church of Darwin.Ymous 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * See intelligent design – Judge Jones concluded that the "overwhelming majority" of scientists accept evolution. .. dave souza, talk 08:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should we care that they claim to be scientists if we know that it's not science, not even junk science.--Svetovid 09:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * More Wikibias. It is science. Who are you to determine that it is not?Ymous 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The scientific community determines it's not when it makes no positive, testable, falsifiable propositions. If it's not testable/falsifiable, it's not science. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 15:35Z


 * By your own definition then it is science. The science community does not include only those who you deem appropriate. If I want to do a study on how cars driving down the road affect the rotation of the earth, or if bird feathers have a negative effect on the ability of concrete to dry, then I can. I don't need anyone's validation to say I'm a scientist. You may think my theories are crazy, but they are my theories. Consensus <> truth. Ymous 15:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Until a hypothesis (not a theory) is testable/falsifiable, it's impossible for others in the scientific community to test/confirm these results. This is how progress is made. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 16:09Z
 * Yes, you can claim whatever you can. You won't be taken seriously by scientists unless this claim can be proven by real science.--Svetovid 22:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus <> Truth. I think what you mean is that I won't be taken seriously until I can show the scientific community that there's are government grant dollars to be had by all, much like what's going on with Global Warming. Which was false in 1900, true in 1920, false in 1970, and now true again in 2007. Ymous 20:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Creationists can certainly be scientists, but their religious views (e.g., creationism) are no more relevant to their professions as scientists than their hair color is; no modern peer-reviewed scientific publication has ever endorsed creationism as opposed to evolution, and scientific consensus is determined through publications more than through the personal views of scientists. Besides, the number of creationists involved in the field of biology is vanishingly small&mdash;less than .01%. -Silence 08:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Source of your %? Oh, that's right, leftist liberal scientists can make up statistics on the spot and be vehemently supported by all their fellow believers.Ymous 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to read WP:AGF. As it is, you only seem to be rampaging. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 15:45Z


 * Not rampaging. It's called "Pointing Out Lies". Silence states creationists are less than 0.01% of the community. I want to see the study that lists every scientist on the planet earth, their field of study, and their notarized affidavit that says they don't believe in Creationism. Then I want to see a total count, and the appropriate 0.01% result. Or are those who advance the left wing agenda exempt from offering verifiable proof?Ymous 15:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What does politics have to do with biology? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 16:15Z

Sorry, bit of an edit clash there. I'm not going to push the point. Excellent article by the way ladies and gents. Congratulations to all involved. Epeeist smudge 08:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is baised. Saying anything is "fully accepted" is logically and factually inaccurate. There are always dissenters.Ymous 15:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Source? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-19 15:46Z
 * There are people who believe that the earth is flat, but they are generally ignored by geographers. Jhobson1 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Funny, you didn't post that "citation needed" under Silence's post. There's my proof that you're biased. Oh, and here's the proof:

"Pierre-Paul Grassé, a well-known French zoologist and critic of Darwinism, has these words to say in "Evolution and Natural Selection," a chapter of his book The Evolution of Living Organisms.

The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years]."

Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.

Danish scientist W. L. Johannsen:

The variations upon which Darwin and Wallace placed their emphasis cannot be selectively pushed beyond a certain point, that such variability does not contain the secret of 'indefinite departure'."

So go put citation needed on his post, or remove it and apologize for being biased. Ymous 15:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a very sound argument. Rather than provide evidence, he provides a logical argument that is more of a linguistic trick than anything. "Order" is a vague word, and his argument only sounds convincing if one remains ignorant of this vaguery. The earthquake example is a false analogy that oversimplifies the situation. A creature is born with a biological mutation, but still survives; the creature interacts with the world utilizing this mutation; if he doesn't get killed, he passes the mutation down; if successive generations are not killed, a sentient being (such as a human) might look back at that and see the mutation as a "benefit". The false analogy arises because they first say that genetic mutations are rare (ie, minute), but their example is of something that's not minute, but the exact opposite (a large destructive force); the earthquake is like a billion genetic mutations all happening at once to a single creature, which will definitely render that creature a puddle of goo. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2007-04-19 16:25Z


 * Three 'quotes' do not prove that large numbers of scientists are creationists, or that there is a real controversy over evolution in science. This is a standard creationist ploy to try and give themselves more credibility. Go find a peer-reviewed article based on scientific creationism, if you can.EvilOverlordX 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I never said that they were. I theorize most scientists are card-carrying member's of Darwin's church. I theorize that they are more interested in disproving God that proving evolution. My proof? This entire article. Any sort of claim made by anyone who believes at Intelligent Design is true get shot down by a handful of heavy-handed admins. No dissent facts here! Where have I heard that before? Ymous 20:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Darwin's Church" is a phrase used by creationists to claim that Darwinism is just as much faith-based as creationism. This claim is, of course, a complete and utter falsehood.  If creationists can't be truthful in their "arguments", then they should be ignored.  Jhobson1 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an article about Darwin, and secondarily his theories. If you want to contribute to articles about intelligent design or creationism or pastafarianism, please go edit those articles directly. And by the way, I think the word you want is "speculate" rather than "theorize." Debivort 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Ymous, if ID had any factual basis at all, it would have no trouble finding its way into peer-reviewed journals. The reason it doesn't is because it is in the same category as astrology and alchemy.EvilOverlordX 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets refocus here. This is not about Ymous's inability to comprehend scientific principles, or


 * That's a personal attack Ymous 20:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't split up other users' comments. Debivort 20:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Silence's vaguely cited statistic. A quick Google search produces numerous articles about the domination of evolution acceptance in the biological fields, if for no other reason than you can not get hired in the fields if you don't accept it. I am not posting to debate this point so do your own homework before you come on Wikipedia and start mudslinging. This thread was started by a non-proponent of creationism. The real question is if "fully" accepted is too strong of a word. Absolute statements are hard to prove scientifically, because as Ymous correctly pointed out, you would have to survey every single scientist. Statistical extrapolations do not prove absolutes. I suggest the statement be changed to "This theory was fully accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community."

As for introducing the "counter argument" here, as suggested by Epeeist, I feel it is more appropriate for the evolution Wikipedia page. PS: Claiming lies and bias just because you believe otherwise is not constructive. Please try to add to the debate without resulting to personal attacks. Personal attacks only weaken your argument because they suggest weakness in your defense that you are avoiding by changing the subject to challenge someones authority. Well, no one has authority on Wikipedia except those who can defend their positions. So if you feel there is bias, maybe you should reexamine you ability to defend you beliefs. Sorry, for my probably useless tirade. Dkriegls 23:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Saying something is believed by a community is different from saying it is accepted by every last member of this community. As an example, I think we would all agree that the community we belong to "fully accepts" that murder is wrong. However, there will be a few members of the community that do not believe this. If we were to say "everybody in this community accepts" this is a distinct meaning from a statement about the general beliefs of one particular community, which are an average of the beliefs of its members. TimVickers 23:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that "fully accept" and "belief" are the same thing. I would agree that US society believes murder is wrong, yet many of us endorse murder as appropriate punishment for murder. This would mean all of us do not "fully accept" that murder is wrong. Regardless of this analogy, and for discussion about a scientific article, we should focus on the fact the synonyms for "fully" include; absolutely, totally, and entirely. Dkriegls 01:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, but my point is that saying that a community accepts a fact is a statement distinct in meaning from saying that all the members of the community accept this fact. TimVickers 01:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but to qualify with the word "fully" suggests complete acceptance without exception.Dkriegls 05:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's one possible interpretation, and not so far from the truth. Is this better? TimVickers 05:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think your revision is awesome. Kudos for you! Ya, I am lame but I like to encourage good work. I think the statement now makes a clear and accurate statement about the current and historical course of evolution theory. Lets see if this satisfies the other editors. Dkriegls 03:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've watched all of this for a while, so now I'm going to wade in with my 2¢-worth. "Widely accepted" is much better than "believe". Belief implies faith - a religious concept. In the realm of science, the term is used loosely to mean that the evidence, to date, is very convincing. It does not, and should not, imply the dogmatism that comes with true "belief". As evidence changes, the theory is (and must be) modified, if not disproven. Hence, the "modern synthesis", saltatory evolution, the mostly-discredited "hopeful monster" hypothesis, and other variations on natural selection. If disproven, a theory must be rejected (see the theory of spontaneous generation and numerous others), usually by being replaced by a more plausible hypothesis. Thus, natural selection gradually replaced Lamarckism - the evidence did not bear the latter out. True "believers" will not change their beliefs, no matter what the evidence.
 * Second, it is true that not everyone accepts the idea of evolution by natural selection. These are mostly "believers", but there are some others. Lamarckism held on well into the 1950's in the USSR (see Lysenko), mostly for political reasons, and there are still some who believe it, as there are many others who believed in some "driving force" making everything want to become "better" and climb higher on the "ladder of life" - basically an Aristotelian view.
 * The first of my points merits, perhaps, a bit of re-wording. As for the second, a couple of sentences acknowledging the wide acceptance within the scientific community. (Period) Or with a very brief mention that some groups have other views. This is not the article to be long-windedly discussing evolution, natural selection, creationism, Lysenkoism, intelligent design, etc. (note these are all valid links!) or any other theory/hypothesis/belief (in descending order of credibility). It's a biography. (OK 2.75¢ worth...) Esseh 05:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed the into sentence to "This theory became widely accepted by" to add emphasis to it vast acceptance. However, as per Esseh's comment, I only found one use of "belief" in the article that was not actually in reference to a religious belief. I will fix the one and review the others again. Maybe Esseh could highlight the use of belief that is misused. Dkriegls 17:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dkriegls (and everyone else), thanks, and good work. This article is a good read. I did a couple of minor tweaks just now (capitalising generic names and changing the "f-word" - "facts" for "detailed obserations", but nothing major. This is an article to be proud of. (dangling participle and all!) Esseh 19:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks all, the tweaks are appreciated. However "hypothesized" didn't seem quite the right word (apart from "hypothesized" being the appropriate spelling here) so I've changed the Beagle use to "then believed" as it's referring to the beliefs of his friends then, who were clergymen naturalists, and to Lyell and Owen who both based their approaches on what would today be called creationist ideas. Later on, Huxley was more open to ape ancestry, and was convinced of it by his work as an anatomist. In the eugenics section "thought" seemed more appropriate, as this was an ethical belief of Darwin and Galton rather than a hypothesis. .. dave souza, talk 20:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dave, that's cool. Belief is a legitimate word, and informally used by scientists when referring to specific hypotheses and theories - but often misinterpreted by the general public. That's the only place I object to the word. As for "I believe I'll have a beer now" - no problem (and I believe I will)! Or using belief for speculation that's not yet formalised (placed in formal?) - that's a "gut feeling", and belief is OK. It's not evidence-based. I believe that's enough for now ;)... Esseh 01:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. PLEASE never, never use the f-word ("fact") when referring to anything scientific. There are no "facts", only observations, interpretations, hypotheses and theories. Theory is the best you'll ever get in science. (And I dislike "laws", as well - the "Law" of gravity is wrong - just another disproven theory...). This is not for you, Dave, but for all. Esseh 01:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, 'fact' (as in, a statement that can be shown to be true or false) is entirely appropriate in science. People seem to confuse this in a similar manner to they way they misunderstand the scientific use of the word theory.EvilOverlordX 15:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Amen! (said with a wink)...Nice edits everyone. Dkriegls 21:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You may say "the 'Law' of gravity is wrong", but no one is going to expect to see objects not fall to the ground. A better statement is that Newton's Law of Gravity has been modified by Einstein.  Under most conditions, people still use Newton's Laws of Motion, because the Einsteinian corrections are less than the margin of error for speeds less than an appreciable fraction of the speed of light (and the math is simpler). Jhobson1 16:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Links
I cut a couple of links from FitzRoy and Herchal as they had already been linked earlier in the article. I think this is the correct interpretation of Wiki policy, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure there are several more examples of this in the article which other Eds might keep an eye out for. Epeeist smudge 10:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been my practice to re-link important names when they first appear in a new section, so that a reader going straight to that section isn't puzzled: will have a look at guidelines in the fullness of time. .. dave souza, talk 10:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I have just had another look at the policy- not as clear cut as i thought, but lots of other examples, England, Cambridge etc. which really don't need repeating and in general the article looks rather overlinked to me. Realise you are a busy man today, but a judicious look at some time in the future might help. Epeeist smudge 10:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to link again later in the article. As a rule of thumb, if you have to scan the article looking for the previous link, then the reader will as well, so the later instance should be linked. Resetting the "already linked" meter when a new section starts is also a good rule to follow. Wikipedia guidelines are often just wrong, so if the article's readability is improved by linking again WP:IAR applies. Carcharoth 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is, in fact common practice to re-wikilink later in the article if the previous link is some way up. As a rule of thumb, if the same link appears more than once in one section, the later appearances should be unlinked. If it's in a different section, it depends on the distance between the two occurrences whether repeat links are acceptable. HTH, Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations
A truly brilliant article. Congratulations on well-deserved FA status. Lexo 11:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to second that! Amazing work, especially considering the nonsense you must wade through to get this done. I don't think I'd have the patience for it. Freshacconci 12:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been a great collaborative effort, and the work of everyone on it is much appreciated. Thanks to all, .. dave souza, talk 15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to add my appreciation of this article as well; truly excellent work, a model of Wikipedia at its best. Joe King 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * (in reply to a comment that was removed) You do know that censoring is allowed in private websites. You need to read up on the Bill of Rights, this is not a public forum. 128.227.57.24 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, so my post was censored by an anoymous, unregistered user. Wikipedia is not a private website. Well as I was saying, I think the entire article and theory is garbage. Oh, am I not allow to comment because I"m not following the left wing company line? Ymous 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whose Bill of Rights should I be reading? I didn't see the removed comment - I just wanted to add my congratulations, too. Despite my sometimes strident arguments ... er... discussions, I also think this is a quality article. Esseh 01:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

eye
No mention of Darwin's statement that the human eye mde him doubt his own theory. Aparently he thought a great, geat deal of the complexity of the eye. Should be included. Zantaggerung 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no mention of it because it's a canard. The eye never caused Darwin to doubt his theory; he provides an example of the eye in The Origin of Species to show that even something that seems amazingly complex could still have developed by incremental steps from simpler structures. -Silence 17:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's an creationist or ID (intelligent design) red herring, and commonly used by them. Esseh 06:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's a good point, Zantaggerung, but this article is perma-protected by those who livelihoods are supported by spreading unfounded scientific myths. We can't have anyone spreading any facts or differentiating opinions here. Ymous 20:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I make no comment as to the scientific veracity of evolution. However, what we are dealing with is an element of biographical fact and not of science.  It should be easy enough for you to go check The Origin of Species and verify that, in fact, Darwin does bring up the eye as a potential objection to the theory AND THEN he then carefully argues why the eye does not invalidate evolution by natural selection (see Chapter VI, the section Organs of extreme perfection and complication.)  Note that this is much in line with Darwin's point-counterpoint style of writing.  Silly rabbit 20:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

change "evolved" to "descended, with modification,"
In the introductory paragraph, I recommend changing: "that all species have evolved over time from a few forms..." to "that all species have descended, with modification, over time from a few forms...". I believe this is more in line with Darwin's writings. Furthermore, it helps remove some of the implications in the word "evolve" i.e. progress towards complexity. Thank-you for your consideration. Ajhouse 16:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a very good point. As you'll know, evolution should not imply progress, though that's a common misunderstanding, and he avoided the term evolution in the first issue of The Origin, though his closing words are "from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."  My aim to to carefully review the intro in a few days time, and that's a point to take into consideration. .. dave souza, talk 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think "evolved" has any such meaning. It is indeed a common misunderstanding, but to replace a single accurate word with a long set of less precise words would be unwise. TimVickers 16:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We should be less ambiguous and more accessible. Using "descended, with modification" instead of "evolve" serves both those purposes. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2007-04-19 17:03Z


 * "Descended, with modification" is a much worse term than "evolve" in this context, because (1) it is the more roundabout way of stating the simple fact, (2) it minimizes and pushes under the rug the central importance of evolution to his theory, and (3) it is even less clear a term to most laypeople; to most people, "descended" means "went lower" and "modification" is something that's deliberately imposed, not something that just occurs. "Evolved" is an infinitely better choice in this context, though I don't see any reason not to mention "descent with modification" as Darwin's preferred term lower in the article. A 21st-century article should use 21st-century terminology, where appropriate, even when describing 19th-century thinkers. The way to remove the implications of "evolution" are to use it correctly, not to abandon all use of it altogether!!! That would just be surrendering it to its implications. -Silence 17:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Descended, with modification" is, AFAIK, what Darwin used himself instead of "evolution". As, say, Lamarckianism is evolution as well, descent with modification is less ambiguous. Naphra 17:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just checked (quickly, though) from the Origin of Species at gutenberg.org, "descent with modification" is what Darwin used several times in reference to Darwinian evolution, and "evolution" in reference to any gradual change in species (as in, say, Lamarckism). I'm all for "descendedn, with modification". Naphra 17:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, we know. This is all discussed above. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry. Misread. My bad. Naphra 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lamarckism is descent with modification too; the modification is just caused by adaptations acquired over the course of an organism's life. I don't see how switching a commonly-used word out for a phrase laypeople won't recognize would be an improvement; we don't even have an article on "descent with modification", so we'd be forced to leave it unlinked or to provide a buried "easter egg" link to evolution (something strongly discouraged at WP:PIPE). We don't use "descent with modification" in lieu of "evolution" on other articles, and the rest of the first paragraph describes his importance to modern (rather than 19th-century) science, so why introduce so many inconsistencies and simultaneously "give in" to the unfortunate connotations of evolution? Wikipedia should not be a place for trying to change the scientific terminology (even for trying to "change it back" to some preferred early form); we should follow common usage in modern English wherever possible. I know Darwin himself didn't use the term "evolution" as much as "descent with modification", but the sentence in question is describing how he changed the field of biology, not listing his various terminological idiosyncracies. Failing to mention evolution in the first paragraph of Charles Darwin is absurd, and mentioning both evolution and "descent with modification" would be superfluous (the lead section's already a bit too long). -Silence 18:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Prankster
There seems to be a deliberate error placed on this page by a prankster. Although the HTML seems correct, the actual text reads as follows:

His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. 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.[6]

In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence, he was buried in My mom's pants, close to John Lennon and Aaron Carter.[7]

Viewed at 19th Apr 2007, at 18:29GMT

Clearly this is a joke, and someone more technically savvy than me needs to investigate it.

89.243.93.86 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No longer there, if it ever was. TimVickers 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Theory vs hypothesis
In the introductory paragraph it states that Darwin "proposed and provided evidence for the scientific theory that all species have evolved over time from a few forms." This is misleading, because while evolution is now an accepted theory, when he proposed it, it was just a hypothesis. A theory is a scientific explanation which has been repeatedly tested and throughly vetted and has become widely accepted by the scientific community. The opening paragraph, as it is currently phrased, implies that evolution became a theory just by virtue of the fact that Darwin proposed it. That is not the way that these things work. I would change the paragraph to state that Darwin "proposed and provided evidence for the hypothesis that all species have evolved over time from a few forms. His hypothesis, with some modifications, has now been accepted a theory by the scientific community." Kmorford 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hypothesis is typical 20th century usage. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the current sentence implies that his theory was a theory before it had even been verified; it simply states, correctly, that he proposed (what would become) a certain scientific theory. It doesn't specify a timeframe, so any inference about such is based on unwarranted assumptions. Going into detail on the hypothesis/theory distinction is unnecessary for an article like Charles Darwin; it would be like changing Isaac Newton's lead section to read "In optics, he invented the reflecting telescope and developed a hypothesis of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into a visible spectrum, which has now been accepted as a theory by the scientific community. Newton notably argued that light is composed of particles. He also formulated ideas about cooling with later became the empirical law of cooling, studied the speed of sound, and proposed a hypothesis about the origin of stars, which has now been accepted as a theory by the scientific community." Pretty damned awkward and uninformative; and hundreds of other articles on scientists would need to be changed in the same way. -Silence 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that theory is also appropriate because it was referred to as a theory in his day ("Dear Darwin, [...] your theory"). Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's less important, as we don't need to adopt 19th-century English to talk about the 19th century. Our reader base is alive today, not 150 years ago. -Silence 18:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Savages and gorillas
I removed the following because it's not clear to me that we want to go into this level of detail here, or leave a blank quote without discussion (it was also badly formatted and messed up the whole second part of the article). The quote is accurate, from the first edition of the Descent; I didn't check later editions:

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.. . . The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized 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."

Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone
Well, that was an interesting day. Quite a few revisions to review, but a few days wikibreak is now in order. Over the 24 hours there were about 330 edits, coming at one minute intervals for a while and prodding an admin to semiprotect it for a period. However, it seems that Darwin isn't as controversial as we thought – on the day before, Wii had around 910 edits, despite being semiprotected for a time. Still, United States Marine Corps the day before got only around 255 edits (all by my rough count from the history tabs) so Darwin did get some attention! Anyway, thanks to everyone who contributed to the article over the years and who helped to keep the goths and vandals at bay. Much appreciated, .. dave souza, talk 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a shame that protocol for featured articles doesn't include some semi-protect automatically from unregistered editors. While this may discourage some new editors it seems like a worthwhile precaution given the nature of Wikipedia. Mister Fax 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been said so many times, by so many people, but unfortunately, Raul is against it, and what Raul says, goes, apparently. That is, until people stop believing that what Raul says, goes. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * We need to ask Raul if it's still true that what Raul says, goes - he might have changed his mind. TimVickers 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Who the hell is "Raul" (without links/directives/links-to-the-discussion/whatever), and were does one go to change this? (On the other hand, I vociferously decried the opening sentence to this article on the day it was the FA, and maybe "Raul" is right...). Maybe what we need to do is: (a) protect a page on "FA-day" (UTC=00:00), and (b) simultaneously open a special "WTF-this-is-wrong-and-MUST-be-changed" page for input on that day. IMHO, this would (1) protect the page on that day (and maybe for a few days/weeks after) from the inevitable vandalism it attracts, (2) allow new input from those of us who have never before perused the article (due to other commitments/busywork), and (3) separate the new comments out from the general chaff (no insult intended) of of "pre-FA-day" discussion. Any comments/suggestions/recommendations-to-go-to-the-infernal re:this suggestion are, of course, welcome (but keep an open mind and a sense of humour, eh!). Esseh 06:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Raul654 who is "featured article director", apparently for life. You'll probably find a link to the relevant section somewhere on his talk page or in the archive, as this issue gets brought up regularly. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is in the best interest of Wikipedia to never (or at least very rarely) have featured articles semi-protected. It attracts more editors; this permanent benefit is more than worth the minor inconvenience of the purely temporary problem of vandalism. It is admirable and truly remarkable that Wikipedia is wililng to look bad by having vandalism on its featured articles, for the sake of the greater good of attracting new editors and emphasizing the "open" nature of the site; changing that would be sacrificing practical value for the sake of public image, and in my eyes this would be the death-knell of Wikipedia's value as a resource. If you want to make 'stable' versions, go assist in one of the "Version X" projects; the FA project is specifically not for creating static, 100% stable articles, but rather for improving articles and highlighting success stories. -Silence 04:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your point of view. Other people's may differ. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The open nature of Wikipedia is supported when a visitor initially posts and is encouraged to create a login name. Having a feature article oscillate between spurious edits seems to lessen, not enhance, the credibility of the entire encyclopedia. Critics of Wikipedia have mentioned this specific issue, such as on NPR and other news outlets. Mister Fax 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus reversion of vandalism takes editors away from adding actual content. And whereas registered vandals may be blocked indefinitely after continued vandalism, anons almost never are, so it's pointless to do more than just revert their vandalism.--Curtis Clark 03:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fully in favour of protecting featured articles from decay. Anonymous edits are typically unstructured titbits which they can always add into the talk page. It takes so much trouble to restructure content to make it featured that it really is counterproductive and despiriting for key contributors. Shyamal 04:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for so inadvertantly disturbing the fecal matter on this. It appears to have turned into a vote, and this is surely not what I intended, nor is it the place to vote on protection/non-protection of FAs. I still think that non-registered IPs should be prohibited from editing FAs on the day of appearance (and maybe for 1 week after), but no more than that. BUT this is not the place for the discussion, I think. Someone let me know when and where that discussion does start, and I'll put my ¢¢ in there - but this is a quality article and needs discussion of content, not policy. MHO - Esseh 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Once more into the lead, dear friends
The lead (or lede) has been stable for a while as: "Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist[I] who proposed and provided evidence for the scientific theory that all species have evolved over time from one or a few common ancestors through the process of natural selection.[1] This theory became widely accepted by the scientific community in the 1930s,[1] and now forms the basis of modern evolutionary theory. In modified form, Darwin's theory remains a cornerstone of biology, as it provides a unifying explanation for the diversity of life.[2]"

This emerged from the front page day, and while it lost to some extent the fact / theory point, was tricky to improve on. Then Hardyw changed it to the following: "Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English scientist[I] who proposed that, and provided evidence for, the view that natural selection is the means by which the evolution of species, including man, takes place. This theory entails that all species have evolved over time from one or a few common ancestors.[1] Darwin's theory became widely accepted immeidately upon publication, so persuasive was the vast amount of evidence he adduced in its favor. The theory was later eclipsed for some years towards the end of the 19th century and the begininng of the 20th by focus on the concept of a gene and the role of genes in the development of organisms, of which Darwin knew nothing when his own books were published. But the scientific community in the 1930s,[1], under the leadership of Ernst Mayr, revived Darwinism and merged it with genetic theory, creating what is know as the "modern evolutionary synthesis." In this form, Darwin's theory remains a cornerstone of biology, as it provides a unifying explanation for the diversity of life.[2]"

This highlighted the point that the earlier version seemed to hint that Darwin's evolutionary ideas were not accepted till the '30s, and so I've modified this again to emphasise this and point out at the outset that Darwin was eminent before publishing the Origin... "Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was already eminent as an English naturalist[I] when he proposed and provided evidence for the theory that all species have evolved over time from one or a few common ancestors through the process of natural selection.[1] The fact that evolution occurs became accepted by the scientific community and the general public in his lifetime, while his theory of natural selection came to be widely seen as the primary explanation of the process of evolution in the 1930s,[1] and now forms the basis of modern evolutionary theory. In modified form, Darwin's theory remains a cornerstone of biology, as it provides a unifying explanation for the diversity of life.[2]"

Note that evolution was generally accepted as a fact, even by many evangelicals and conservative Christialns, until the "upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor" in the 1920s.cite – see history of creationism. .. dave souza, talk 09:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC) tactfully tweaked 11:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On the inherited effects of use and disuse
I need some clarification on Mr. Darwin's views 'on this head'. I've read Origin and I'm working my way through Descent at the moment. From what I've read of Descent, it only seems to confirm my view that Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characters. It seems a mere matter of fact to me, but this was disputed at the Vestigiality article. I've tried to contact people about it at the evolutionary biology project and I've emailed a professor of evolutionary biology on the matter, but I haven't had any luck getting a response from either, and not being acquainted with any Darwin scholars myself this page seems the best place to turn to for comment. I've removed my assertion that Darwin believed selection was a blend of both natural selection and the inheritance of acquired characters, but I now feel fairly certain I was right here. Could someone drop by and comment on the matter? I'll watch this page for a while for replies here as well. Richard001 10:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is supported by some sources I've got, have commented at Talk:Vestigiality and will aim to amend The Origin – it also comes up in Descent, as you say, and Variation. .. dave souza, talk 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

porn star?
I didn't know darwin was a porn star. I didn't even know they had porn back then. Down by the picture of him as a kid it says so. I'd edit it but it is very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Thanks for pointing out yet another piece of witless vandalism. Someone at Birmingham City Council Education Network, Orphange Road, Erdington, has been very naughty, so their block has been renewed. Won't anyone think of the orphans? .... dave souza, talk 09:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Natural selection saw to their parents. Shame it was too late...--THobern 21:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by THobern (talk • contribs).

Publication of the theory...
Starts off with 'By spring 1856 D was investigating how species spread' Spread??? Maybe, but if that was all no-one would remember him!

Third sentence about THH: modified since he was not an ally in 1856, just an acquaintance.

Did Lyell read Wallace's paper in 1856? The paper was: On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species [dated Feb. 1855, Sarawak, Borneo]. Annals and Mag. of Natural History 16 (2nd s.): 184-196 (Sept. 1855: no. 93, 2nd s.) Known as the Sarawak paper, this supported evolution & raised the issue of species splitting. Now, the thing is, if published in Sept 1855 surely Lyell would have read it in 1855... Do we know what went on?

Next few sentences suggest that one minute D was writing a sketch, next the big book... This very long paragraph is going all over the place. We're lucky D knew what he was doing!! -- but do we?

Suggest rewrite of para 1. Para 2 is pretty woolly as well; the joint publication had three parts; Extract from a Darwin notebook with the idea of nat sel; text of a letter to Asa Gray outlining idea of nat sel; Wallace paper, which was: On the tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type (dated Feb. 1858, Ternate; being the third part of 'On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection' by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.) J. Proc. Linnean Soc: Zoology 3(9): 53-62 (45-62) (20 Aug. 1858). Known as the Ternate paper, this announced his discovery of natural selection.

And at the risk of annoying everyone, may I point out that offering to publish wherever W. wanted is not consistant with asking H&L to do what they thought best since the post would have taken five months to reach Wallace and a reply would have taken five months back!! (Wallace had more or less given carte blanche to D; W also wrote to Bates at the same time, letter being delivered virtually same day as D got his letter).

Macdonald-ross 15:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First comments: this paragraph was developed initially with reference to Desmond & Moore. More info. is now available online, and it should be possible to refine statements. However, the article's already rather long and it's important to try to keep it concise. As his life and letters p 53 notes, at least since the Spring of 1855 he'd been trying to prove that eggs, seeds etc. could cross oceans to explain the distribution of species without the need for miraculous "centres of creation". If that was all, perhaps he'd be remembered as a geographer and collector who'd written of the voyage of the Beagle.
 * It's very hard to find when Lyell told Darwin of Wallace's paper: p 67 has D recalling "Early in 1856 Lyell advised me to write out my views pretty fully". I'll rephrase that sentence to reflect this.
 * On May 3 [page 69] he writes "If I publish anything it must be a very thin and little volume, giving a sketch of my views and difficulties... " – later he changed his mind to work on the massive work that was never completed.
 * The linked articles on Wallace and the joint presentation go into more detail: the correspondence is in the life and letters, and don't forget that he was distraught, with illness in his family and children dying of scarlet fever in the village. Look forward to your suggestions for concise rephrasing, .. dave souza, talk 16:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Emma Darwin: "rather messy"?
Formerly read "His charming, intelligent and rather messy cousin Emma Wedgwood ..." - While Emma Wedgewood in girlhood may have merited her nickname of "Little Miss Slip-Slop", by 1837 and her late twenties she might perhaps be more fairly characterized by her love of music and theater. -- Writtenonsand 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems a reasonable change. Her untidiness was perhaps rather charming, avoiding the impression of "high culture", and in later years she seems to have been pretty relaxed about tidying, while Charles was very organised. However, at that time her cultural activities were more significant, as you say. .. dave souza, talk 09:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Academic advisor?
The infobox has now been edited to add Academic advisor Adam Sedgwick. This is better than Doctoral advisor, as Darwin only went for a BA. However, I'm a bit puzzled as to what an "Academic advisor" is, and it's not a point I've noticed in Darwin's biographies. The main advisor in the latter years of the course appears to have been John Stevens Henslow, though I'm not sure if this was formal in any way. After graduating in January 1831, Darwin attended Sedgwick's Spring season course in geology, then went with him as an assistant/student on a fortnight's expedition to Wales in August 1831. Is that an Academic advisor? ... dave souza, talk 10:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that for the 18th and 19thCs we need something softer and more fluid than PhD supervisors and academic advisors. Terms such as guides, mentors or tutors come to mind. George Bentham had tutors, Darwin had mentors, Michael Faraday had ?hmm... a master? Huxley had at least one mentor. Herbert Spencer had friends! Henslow and Darwin is a good case; H was a tutor and guide. Adam Sedgwick is tricky; tutor on field trips, mostly (but not, in my opinion, an academic advisor). Of course, some people did actually have PhD supervisors: Fritz Muller and John Tyndall, for instance. Macdonald-ross 14:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder, I've removed Sedgwick (again, this was discussed and removed earlier). If anyone, Henslow would be a more logical choice, but as you say, it's rather anachronistic. .. dave souza, talk 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Lady Hope
Does anyone else think that the Lady Hope reference should be moved to the section dealing with his death rather than the section dealing with his religion? I would have thought an association with the events of his death would be more pertinent than an association with his fabricated conversion to Methodism by one Lady Hope. -EarthRise33 00:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In Confusion
Although I highly regard Darwin as an excellent scientist and very intelligent and caring man, i cant help but wonder about his evolutionary theory. True, he did not officially state that the theory was in fact, a true 'theory' (if that makes any sense). But it evolved into a new way of thinking in which many adapted and also in which schools have been teaching. So first off, i wonder...if this information is a THEORY, why can we not also publicly teach Christianity or any other religeon in schools without causing offense. Apparantly they are 'theories' to, and the part of society which rebels against religeon speaks out while belivers in a divine being are not heard when they object to evolutionary theories. In believe in christianity and evolution doesnt effect my belief in the bible at all. Whether god planned for evolution to take place or not is entirely his own secret in which us, as human beings, are not capable of finding out. I doubt the evolutionary theory based on the fact that, if it were actually true.....why do monkeys still roam the earth today? if we evolved from monkeys, then monkeys should not exist. We also havent been morphing into something else over the centuries so what prove really, is there on the theory of evolution? Darwins theory with birds and dinosaurs seems logical due to similar traits existing between the species....but how could a creature that BIG becme so small, and how did it get feathers? how does evoution really work? There is no proof, although it seems perfectly and understandibly logical.....but then again, when you look at the bible, it is perfectly logical too. On a more personal note, i hope not to offend anyone with varying beliefs, i am not religous, i belive in the truth (however untruthful others may see it as). i am proud of my hertitage and respect those who believe otherwise and I know I could probably recieve more enlightenment on this subject with anyones help. -C.L.O.I.16 —Preceding unsigned comment added by C.L.O.I.16 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry you've found it confusing. Talk page guidelines require discussion here to be about improving the article, but you'll probably find the Introduction to evolution page useful, and may find many of your questions answered at Objections to evolution. The idea that if we evolved from monkeys, then monkeys should not exist, is rather common – but what evolution actually means is that both we and monkeys had a common ancestor, which probably looked more like a monkey than like us. Similarly, Christianity developed from Judaism, but Jews still exist! Also, there were dinosaurs of many different sizes, and some had feathers for insulation or display. Your question's like asking how an elephant could evolve into a mouse, but they're both mammals and both have a common ancestor from way back. Many religious people have no problem with evolution, holding beliefs which have been described as "Theistic evolution". However, others feel that their beliefs contradict evolution, and the resulting Creation-evolution controversy causes a lot of confusion, so hope that helps. .. dave souza, talk 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. it does help. It puzzles me to see some articles which support critisizing a certain religeon, way of life or vice versa. I think that ignorance is what got me thinking on this topic, as I have been reading articles that have a severe lack of evidence to back up their statements. I appreciate the intelligent answer and basically was just looking for a different outlook and opinion on my questions. --C.L.O.I.16 20:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazing article, thank you all
This article is great. So thoroughly referenced, with tastefull and informative pictures and a joy to read, too. Kudos to all who helped achieve this! --Ronja 13:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Much appreciated. .. ... dave souza, talk 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead/opening + caption: early -> swift
That the article lead said that D and Wallace published "early" (and this characterization of the publishing was repeated in a caption) disturbed me enough to re-check the timeline and then study a thesaurus. After all, D had been developing his theory for twenty years, so "early" did not quite cut it, in my opinion. Hope the "then swift" version finds your approval. --Ronja 13:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think that's an improvement, will try reviewing the sentences to see if a better way can be found of concisely expressing the point that Darwin wasn't ready yet to publish, despite having put his sketch of the theory together fourteen years earlier. .. dave souza, talk 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was so glad to see this newest version. Now it really conveys the whole message clearly and succinctly - great penmanship! --Ronja 07:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agnosticism is not a religion
Agnosticism is not a religion. The word should not be included in the infobox under Religion. Darwin belonged to no religion (in the strict sense of the word) in his later life. --Xer0 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "None" isn't a religion either, and Darwin's views were nuanced: have a look at Charles Darwin, ref Darwin 1887, p. 304, and Charles Darwin's views on religion. You will note that he was "never an atheist", which could be implied from "none", so his own description that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind" is appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * But as I said, agnosticism is a philosophical viewpoint. Religion is a group of common beliefs and practices (see religion). He is describing his state of mind, what he thinks. He did not have a religion but he was not atheist. Hence, Religion: None. You can say he was agnostic about his Religious Views. Maybe the infobox should say Religious Views. --Xer0 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with Xer0, and point out that the Wiki article on agnosticism further establishes that Agnosticism is not a religion. I think an establishment of agnosticism is appropriate enough when made in the article later on, but that is just my opinion. -EarthRise33 15:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Darwin and the science of ecology

 * This addition about ecology looks well written and referenced, though a dubious statement about focus on competition. However, the article's already been trimmed its size while keeping essentials, and it's inappropriate to add detailed treatment of things Darwin was not. It could form the basis of a new article, though even linking it from here needs some thought, as there's no link to ecology in the article. Perhaps a link from "see also" would be suitable, but any thoughts? .. dave souza, talk 22:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It is often held that the roots of scientific ecology may be traced back to Darwin. This contention may look convincing at first glance inasmuch as On the Origin of Species is full of observations and proposed mechanisms that clearly fit within the boundaries of modern ecology (e.g. the cat-to-clover chain – an ecological cascade) and because the term ecology was coined in 1866 by a strong proponent of Darwinism, Ernst Haeckel. However, Darwin never used the word in his writings after this year, not even in his most “ecological” writings such as the foreword to the English edition of Hermann Müller’s The Fertilization of Flowers (1883) or in his own treatise of earthworms and mull formation in forest soils (Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms, 1881). Moreover, the pioneers founding ecology as a scientific discipline, such as Eugen Warming, A. F. W. Schimper, Gaston Bonnier, F.A. Forel, S.A. Forbes and Karl Möbius, made almost no reference to Darwin’s ideas in their works. This was clearly not out of ignorance or because the works of Darwin were not widespread, but because ecology from the beginning was concerned with the relationship between organism morphology and physiology on one side and environment on the other, mainly abiotic environment, hence environmental selection. Darwin’s concept of natural selection on the other hand focussed solely on competition. Despite most portrayals of Darwin conveying him as a non-aggressive recluse who let others fight his battles, Darwin remained all his life a man nearly obsessed with the ideas of competition, struggle and conquest – with all forms of human contact as confrontation.

Looking further, this seems to be virtually a duplicate of History of ecology, which is a much more appropriate place for it. Also, perhaps that needs a mention that Haeckel's Darwinismus promoted "Lamarckian" inheritance of acquired characteristics rather than natural selection. Something to tidy up. .. dave souza, talk 22:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Darwin and Lincoln share a common birth date: time to re-visit the issue after the edit war
I have had a brief look at the discussion on this issue from the archives, and it misses this early contribution to the subject from the great American orator Robert_G._Ingersoll:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/ingerlinc.htm

So, this "coincidence" has been the subject of attention well before Stephen Jay Gould et al. (BTW the following article on the Ingersoll page is worth a read too)

Also, given the moves afoot to establish Feb 12th as a day to celebrate Lincoln and Darwin:

http://www.jimschmidt.com/mainpages/page3.htm

http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/newsviews/darlin.html

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2007/01/18/is_it_lincoln_day_or_darwin_day

http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/02/abraham-lincoln-and-charles-darwin.html

...it seems to me that the time has come to re-instate this fact by the back door, i.e. tidy up the Darwin Day entry and include some discussion of some people's desire for joint Darwin-Lincoln Day celebrations, then include a link to the Darwin Day entry from the CD main page, perhaps in the "See also section". Agree or disagree? Mpallen (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, please, PLEASE no. This is truly a can of worms... and it has been settled. Please read *all* the archives to see what I'm talking about. Mi kk er (...) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you folks have such a bee in your bonnet about this. Last I checked, the Darwin Day website had a page about the Darwin/Lincoln common birthdate -- but you won't even let that be mentioned in the "Darwin Day" article. Sigh. 22:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krakatoa (talk • contribs)