Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Descent with modification

I cannot believe that Descent with modification is never mentioned, that it what Darwin had stated which later on became known has evolution. The phrase Descent with modification truely deserves some mention. (SND)

I agree completely. According to my science textbook, Darwin didn't even use the term evolution until the very end of The Origin of Species. Throughout the whole book, Darwin used the term "descent with modification." TheDapperDan 12:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

RECENT CHANGES

To get this up to featured-article standard, which requires 'brilliant' prose, will require substantial work. I'm going through it, making numerous edits; these include changes to the paragraphing. Unfortunately, where this occurs, the track changes don't work, which means that my edits will need to be compared line-by-line with the previous version.

May I put in a plea that the low-value links to years be left unlinked for readability, and to avoid diluting the high-value, topic-focused links? If people feel strongly about leaving them linked, please try the unlinked version for a while; I'll relink if there's overwhelming support for it. Tony 05:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

My preference has been for linking all dates, probably having been chased for not doing that at one time, but checking Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) note that it says "unless there is a special relevance of the date link, there is no need to link it", so it comes down to preference, I personally don't find it adversely affecting readability, and tend to notice unlinked years more, but YMMV. Sometimes it's useful to see what else was going on during the relevant year, but this isn't something I do often, so am willing to try it your way....dave souza 21:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Dave, have a look at Australia and the United States, both of which are still quite densely linked after the low-value years were delinked. Much nicer, IMHO. I want to direct readers to high-value links; when there's a sea of them, they'll tend to ignore them. Tony 01:49, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The main reason for linking dates is so that preferences will work 11 September 2005; September 11, 2005; 2005 September 11 - this applies also when no year is present, but linking years alone (or year and month) is of little value.--JimWae 02:03, 2005 September 10 (UTC)

Beard?

Shouldn't a pic of Darwin with a beard be in the lead, since that's his most famous image? Borisblue 01:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Improvement?...dave souza 14:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion we should keep the less familiar picture, particularly as there's one with a beard further down the page. After all, why should this article look like every single other article ever written about Darwin? Garik 13:34, 29 April 2006.

I'm with Borisblue on this one. I came to this article to find his birthday, and lo and behold, I found some strange victorian goober looking out at me. I would be willing to compromise and put the drawing from later in the article as the lead, but I'd be willing to bet that most people wouldn't be able to identify Darwin from this picture.

Darwin is associated more with his face in old age (specifically with the beard and brow-ridges) than perhaps almost any other historical figure, with the exception of Einstein. I would almost venture to say that the recognition of the picture is independent of the recognition of his work in natural selection. What if some schoolboy doing a report or something, who has heard the name Darwin but doesn't know who he is, comes to this page and sees the unrecognizeable young Darwin. I think he'd take away less from the article in this instance than if he came here, saw the famous portrait, and said "oh, *that's* who that is."

Also, if the picture at the header which we choose to be the archetypal "Darwin" of this article is not the one with the beard, then the cartoons of Darwin as a monkey (with a beard) don't make as much sense. It was obvious for *these* cartoonists that "Darwin" had a beard, so I think it's perfectly reasonable to switch the portraits.

In regards to your objection, Garik, I think that it's a valid one. We Wikipedians *should* strive to give something extra to our readers above and beyond the regular encyclopedia article, but if we try to "just be different" we run the risk of just producing a "different" article, not a "better" article: one that encompasses all the good of other encyclopedias plus the stuff only WP can offer (whereever possible).

I'm open for debate on the subject, but for now, I think I'll change the photo to a more recognizeable one. I know it may seem cliche to more avant garde users, but I think it's the better choice. GuildNavigator84 04:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture should definatly be of Darwin in later life; with the beard. This is the iconic picture that everyone recognises. I think the current picture is quite confusing.

Ironcorona 10:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence - Sexual selection

The first sentence states "[Darwin].... who achieved lasting fame as originator of the theory of evolution through natural and sexual selection." However sexual selection is a subset of natural selection as it states in that article: "Natural selection can be subdivided into two types: (i) ecological selection, ... and (ii) sexual selection"

I cannot see how this can stand, and the only options to solve this problem would be to either,

• change sentence to ".... through ecological and sexual selection." or
• drop the sexual selection

I would strongly support the latter option. Majts 23:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• There's two ways to look at this: one is through contemporary eyes, which sees sexual selection as a subset of natural selection and not as big as natural selection. The other way is through Darwin's eyes: he saw sexual selection as explicitly different than natural selection and a great achievement in its own right. I'm not sure Darwin himself ever thought of "ecological selection" as explicitly as it is attributed to him here. Anyway, that's just some food for thought. I'm not sure it's right to put sexual and natural selection together as being the things he achieved fame for -- he achieved a disproportionate amount of fame from natural selection in comparison to sexual selection, even though he himself thought they were on the same level of importance. --Fastfission 00:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of whether Darwin may have used the terms differently. Surely contemporary meanings take precedence in an encyclopedia, otherwise we would be writing Darwin's article strictly in 19th Century prose. It can be stated later in the article about how meanings have changed if necessary. Majts 01:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

What I am saying is that it depends on how one wants to phrase it. If we are talking about what Darwin "achieved lasting fame for", there's no need to even mention sexual selection, because it's not the source of his lasting fame. If we are talking about what Darwin originated, in his own terms, we'd want to talk about sexual selection not as something subserviant to natural selection. It depends on our intentions. --Fastfission 01:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily saying it needs to be one way or another. I'm just trying to give the proper context for it. I don't really care on this point. --Fastfission 12:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

As there have been no further commments I am removing "sexual selection" from the opening sentence. Majts 05:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral wording in image captions

I was very tempted to add an "NPOV" notice to the top of this page after briefly skimming through it, but then I saw that the main issues were just with the image captions; the actual article text is quite good. My problem is that a lot of the image text is worded is unencyclopedically redundant or poetic. "a year before the sudden, tragic loss of his mother." would make just as much sense without "tragic" (it would be tragic in any situation, so stating so is redundant and comes across as telling readers how to feel about X event). "The devoted father Charles Darwin" is, again, a bit too fluffy for my taste; aren't most fathers devoted? Not being devoted to your children is more noteworthy, I'd think. If there's a source stating that he was a devoted father (or better yet, detailing some event that would show he's a devoted father to most readers: it's always better to show or demonstrate a judgment call than to just state it), it would make a better addition to the rather short and list-ish "Marriage and children" section. "an eminent sage" also seems a bit much, especially since "eminent" and "pre-eminent" are repeated six times in the article, including thrice in image captions. Also, captions like "Charles Darwin was revered by many as a great thinker" are both POVed and too generic; information about specific ways he influenced later thought would be more useful and informative. Hitler's been revered by many as a great thinker, too; things need to be in their proper context to avoid confusion. -Silence 07:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Excellent points - So be bold and make the appropriate edits, you will have my full support --Majts 19:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Good work on improvements, many thanks and some comments: CD was noted as an unusually devoted father for the Victorian period, but the simpler caption probably works better. Re the image of Darwin looking confused, gloomy and horror-struck for the Religion section being subtly POV, the pic was at the head of the article but following the comment "Beard?" above, a (more positive) bearded image was substituted. The date of the gloomy pic suited his loss of faith in kindly providence, though his disbelief in the Bible (Old Testament) went back at least as far as his Beagle days. Feel free to delete the pic from the religion section if you prefer. By the way, saying "The His Majesty's Ship X" is frowned on grammatically, so I've tried to work round that.....dave souza 20:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

"CD was noted as an unusually devoted father for the Victorian period" - That makes much more sense and is a lot clearer, and I fully endorse adding that information (especially if there's a source for it) to the article text, where there's sufficient room to properly explain it; image captions are necessarily too short for such information.

"The date of the gloomy pic suited his loss of faith in kindly providence," - Speaking of which, nothing in the article text mentioned "providence" in any way, shape or form. All it stated was that he was agnostic rather than atheist, and doubted the Bible's divinity (especially the Old Testament). That's why I changed the image caption there, even though I don't like my version of the caption either. Could we get some details, or at least a brief mentioning, on this apparent period of loss of faith in God within that section?

"Feel free to delete the pic from the religion section if you prefer." - Certainly not. It's a great pic, and is quite appropriate to the section. I'm not one to try to remove the souls from articles to conform strictly to NPOV. But I felt the issue should be mentioned, since some atheists and agnostics may find the implication that Darwin's beliefs directly (rather than indirectly, through societal pressure) led to his haunted, world-weary appearance in that photo offensive. But I can't think of a better place to put that image—I'd consider moving it to "Illness", except that the section's so short we'd have to switch the image to the opposite side of the page, and that would upset my delicate aesthetic page-layout sensibilities by overweighting the right side, and all the other images already work great in their positions—and I certainly can't think of a better image to put in that place, so I'll leave it be.

"By the way, saying "The His Majesty's Ship X" is frowned on grammatically, so I've tried to work round that" - But we aren't saying that, we're saying "The Aych Em Ess X" :) But I see your point. I'd probably have left it be, except that I noticed there were already a couple of instances of "The HMS Beagle" on the Charles Darwin page (consistency!), plus it's confirmed by websites like [1], and if you do a Google search for HMS Beagle, you'll find that a huge number of sites use "The HMS Beagle" (52,300 come up searching for the "The HMS Beagle" in quotes, though I can't compare that to the article-less version). But I have absolutely no preference either way; as long as we're consistent one way or the other on Wikipedia, I'll gladly help enforce that wording. -Silence 20:37, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

CD as devoted daddy: from memory that's strongly emphasised in Desmond and Moore's Darwin, but I'll have to get it out of the library again to check. The loss of faith section could do with a review, will have a go at that and reconsider the caption. From a theism free viewpoint, I felt the pic was more of a POV problem at the lead in: Desmond and Moore indicate that CD was deeply troubled by worries about religious persecution, illness and overwhelmingly the death of his daughter, but it's perhaps just an unflattering photo. < blush > embarrassing about HMS Inconsistency, but having used search it seems OK now. A vague memory surfaces, check: the point is made at the bottom of the Ship prefix page....dave souza 18:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think the 1850s "lost faith" image is inappropriate. It is just a portrait, it is not illustrative of his loss of faith. I also might say that I think the image chosen as the primary one is really quite awful. It is either an awful scan or an awful original -- it does not look like a photograph at all but a not very good painting. Even this one is a better portrait. --Fastfission 19:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Dave that the image is absolutely inappropriate for the top of the page; else I'd have recommended that as a possible alternative. And if it's not illustrative of his loss of faith, then what image would be? I think it's much closer than just about any other image we could think of for that section. But, as long as we think of alternative positions and don't just delete it altogether, I'm fine with making some changes.

We may also want to seriously consider changing the organization of the page in reference to the "related topics" section; shouldn't "illness" be mentioned within the article itself in the appropriately chronological section, wouldn't "views on religion" belong better in a section about his various beliefs, and don't "Eugenics" and "Social Darwinism" belong under "Legacy" along with all a numer of other movements and beliefs or fields of study directly or indirectly inspired by his discoveries and theories? "Related topics" is just such a hideously generic and unhelpful way to categorize things. Perhaps when those sections are reorganized we'll find a much easier solution to the image problem, like simply placing the distraught-looking photo into the newly-expanded 1850s passage somewhere? Or go with my above idea and move it to the newly-repositioned "Illness" (and possibly expanded) paragraph.

"I also might say that I think the image chosen as the primary one is really quite awful." - It's a photo according to its detail (I also found a very nice colorized version.). Remember that most photos from that time were not of a very good quality; see all the other photos on the page, they tend to be rather blurred, undetailed, etc. and have faded with time. Also, I disagree; it could perhaps be improved (personally I've always thought of Darwin as being younger, more like his middle-aged pics, although it's not always a bad thing to defy immediate expectations), but it's also a pretty good image and certainly works at the top. It also could worsen the article if we moved it down without replacing it with another "older" image, because we already have enough images of him later in life lower down in the article. It's well-balanced as is. Which isn't to say that it can't be improved; try some alternate solutions and we'll see how it looks (though I'd discourage the removal of any of the photos currently on the page), but I also think the image distribution is quite good currently. It gives the passages a nice flow and none of the accompaniments are inappropriate (with the possible exception of the religion one). The top image is neither excellent nor terrible; it's just good. I agree that the 1880 one is more interesting; switch them if you want, but you should probably find a larger version of the 1880 one first, since it's obviously too small right now to be the top image. Looking at Google, I found a larger (and more interesting) version of the same image here, though it would definitely need to be lightened up. There are also some other good Darwin images on that page. Ah, here's a pretty good version. -Silence 21:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• My suggestion for the "loss of faith" image is the one we have of Anne Darwin, his daughter whose death supposedly strongly pushed him towards his loss of faith. --Fastfission 22:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Superbly done. That will certainly do. -Silence 23:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Also, I still heavily doubt that either the main image or the "colorized" version is a photograph. They look like paintings to me, when you compare them to the other photographs of his time (most of which are daguerrotypes in all perfectionism). (In fact I think it is a painting by John Maler Collier) I prefer the middle-age pictures though I understand if people want "old man" Darwin pictures because they conjure up the common idea of Darwin. I'll poke around for some better pictures or maybe scan in a few. --Fastfission 22:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I also prefer the middle-aged pictures, but only because I'm much more used to seeing him that way in a variety of references; having almost never seen photos of Darwin as an old man, I'm surprised that that's the "common idea" of him, though if I'm mistaken I won't let my personal experiences affect my preference of images. I still don't have any problem with the current top image, even if it's a painting (which someone should probably check up on, if only because it claims to be a photo on the image page; it shouldn't be hard, it's a fairly common image), and I also won't object to your moving it to a lower portion of the article if you (A) find a suitable replacement, and (B) find a good way to incorporate it elsewhere in the article, since it's a good image. Probably the easiest way to do this would be putting it where the "sage" image is now, and putting a better version of that image on the top, since we agree that it's pretty good. But I won't necessarily object if you think some other image would be more suitable on the top. Doesn't hurt to experiment a bit, anything can be reverted. And I'm sure there are images of Darwin that are much better than any we currently have on the page. -Silence 23:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops, that does indeed look like a painting, though not credited in the book I scanned it from: my error, now corrected in picture info. The beard image may be familiar as it's the one promoted on the banknote. Other pictures much better now..dave souza 00:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Theory

I too almost removed the link when I first saw it, but after reconsidering it, I actually think that linking to theory is a pretty damned good idea. One of the most common arguments against the theory of evolution is that "it's just a theory", which shows that a huge number of laypeople have no understanding at all of what the word "theory" means in science. A lot of confusion can be avoided by linking to a page which makes it very clear what a "theory" is, especially since most of the rest of the article, and of the entire Darwin series of articles, discusses his discoveries using the exact word "theory"; "development of theory", "inception of theory", "publication of theory", etc. I'm opposed to excessive linking (as can be seen by my unlinking a number of redundant or unnecessary links in my edits, and clarifying others), but we must also remember to state the obvious sometimes. Or in this case, link the obvious—even better because it requires no extra text! -Silence 00:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that it places the emphasis on the wrong word. But thinking more about it, and particularly with regards to stating the obvious, you may be right. Fredrik | talk 11:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. BTW I've revamped the religion bit using Desmond's essay on Darwin, Charles from Britannica 04 for into, and removed the inline comment...dave souza 13:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Aren't we talking about a hypothesis rather than a theory? I thought the scientific method limited the use of the word "theory" to those hypotheses that could be falsified. No? - John

Oops...should have read the "Theory" article first. It does specify that "The term theory is occasionally stretched to refer to theoretical speculation that is currently unverifiable." Asked and answered. - John

Religious views

While the whole passage about Old Testament inaccuracies is excellent, it's already quoted in full in Charles Darwin's views on religion with some explanation. A brief statement would be more appropriate here, so I've tried to summarise the main points. Regarding rephrasing of the first paragraph, Desmond states that "on calm days Darwin's plankton-filled tow-net left him wondering why beautiful creatures teemed in the ocean's vastness, where no human could appreciate them." and "But nature had its own evils, and Darwin always remembered with a shudder the parasitic ichneumon wasp, which stored caterpillars to be eaten alive by its grubs. He would later consider this evidence against the beneficent design of nature.", but doesn't relate the first point to Paley's optimistic views. (Brittanica, there's more detail in Desmond and Moore's book). Another point to think about is the Later life and death heading for the earlier section: there's a tendency to dismiss his post-Origin work which this hints at, and something like Further work could put the period more positively...dave souza 23:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

C. Darwin, F. Dawrwin Plant Auxin Research

I think it is very notable that Darwin and his son Francis are credited with the discovery of plant auxins (plant growth hormones). Would there be interest in adding this to the article? -LouieS 05:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe what they actually discovered was that the phototropic stimulus is detected at the tip of the plant. Boysen-Jensen discovered that the signal for phototropism was a chemical passing down from the tip of the coleoptile. It was F. W. Went who first isolated plant auxins. - Nunh-huh 06:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC) (Actually, Darwin's exact conclusion was "when seedlings are freely exposed to unilateral light, some influence is transmitted from the upper to the lower part, causing the latter to bend".) - Nunh-huh 06:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Nov 24, 2005 changes

I have tried to improve this article. I hope it will soon be good enough to be featured. Please will other Wikipedians go through my attempted improvements carefully. I'm only human. Barbara Shack 19:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work to smooth the language (i.e., to put it in English). One problem is the almost hourly vandlism of this page. Can you please:

• 1. Recast my recent redundant edits about the fact that 1802 is the date for Erasmus death, not for Charles.
• 2. Add more quotes validating the statements in the links to the "murphy law" page. Perhaps you can find original Darwin's quotes. Have you looked into the British Library website on Darwin?

Jclerman 20:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Two of the "Murphy Law" pages were easy to deal with. The one citing Humboldt was irrelevant -- all biographies have that information. The quotation relating to Malthus was easy to find -- it was from Descent of Man. I cannot, however, find any reference to the hunting of aborigines for sport. There is a long section on Tasmania in Ch. 19 of Voyage of the Beagle, which certainly describes other unpleasant practices, but never once alludes to that. --Fastfission 20:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I did find something that seems to validate the Tasmania events but not Darwin's mention of them.

It seems that when Darwin visited Tasmania the aborigines where near extintion caused by, according to social historian Clive Turnbull: <<...the activities of these criminals would soon include the "shooting, bashing out brains, burning alive, and slaughter of Aborigines for dogs' meat." >>

See: The Destruction Of The Tasmanian Aborigines by Runoko Rashidi, historian (RRashidi@swbell.net) at:

http://www.africawithin.com/rashidi/destruction_aborigines.htm

Jclerman 22:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Sub-pages

When this article is nominated for Featured Article status, I highly suspect that the main problem that people will use to justify "object" votes will be deficiencies in Charles Darwin's sub-articles. A Featured Article is expected to not only be high-quality in its own writing, but also to be at least be good-quality in all of the text of its series of pages, not just the text on the main page. This article's come a long way, but I think we should start to seriously focus (not that some haven't already "seriously focused", there's been some great work put into the sub-articles too) on the sub-pages to bring them closer to the quality of Charles Darwin itself. Comments, agreements, disagreements? -Silence 22:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Vandalism"

I stated that Darwin was a blasphemer, and to the definition, would that not be correct?

No, because there are many Christians who believe that Darwin's evolution theory is merely an extension of "God's will". Also your labeling of him as a blasphemer is a POV. Olorin28 03:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"No, you are wrong. If you take a poll right now randomly in the world, i doubt that even 5 percent support what you are saying. Your 65 percent is completely made up and false"

"...i doubt that even 5 percent support what you are saying." Isn't that your OWN view that only 5% support my view? You can't use that against the fact that 65% of the world is a religion that DOES believe in creation.

"...If you take a poll right now randomly in the world..."

go ahead, make sure you get EVERYONE.

• A subjective description like "blasphemer" can only be used when attributed ("Pope So-and-so called Darwin a blasphemer"), and in order to get into this article it has to be attributed to a fairly notable person (a pope would do). --Fastfission 03:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ called Darwin a blasphemer.

I also emailed the whitehouse, so if they reply, that would be a pretty notable person.

What? Jesus Christ called Darwin a blasphemer? Darwin wasn't even born when Jesus Christ died. By the way, I am pretty sure that the White House won't reply. It is NOT a religious institute anyway, and it will cause a political furor. Olorin28 13:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

An interesting point, in that Darwin was rightly terrified of being accused of blasphemy because that was a criminal offence in England at the time. He was not officially accused let alone convicted, so the evidence is that he wasn't a blasphemer. A fascinating topic which you'll find out more about if you read the biographical sub-articles. As for world opinion, not everyone lives in the southern states of the U.S.A. ....dave souza 01:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It still is, fwiw: Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom. 66.92.237.111 20:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Good link: evidently a lot less in force now than it was in Darwin's England. If I recall correctly, then it resulted in jail and loss of copyright...dave souza 21:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Very Nice Article

I congradulate everyone for contributing, very good. By the way Darwin lived over 1,800 years after Christ, I think the person meant to say "the bible" refers to Darwin as being a blasphemer.

If so, "the Bible" was shockingly prescient. - Nunh-huh 02:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

1 Corinthians 2:11 - "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." -Silence 07:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

That's the most bizarre use of a bible verse on the way that no man can truly know another person's motivations as that person knows himself (and then going on to say that similarly, we can't know why God does things at times) I have ever seen. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Stick with Darwin

I wouldn't say he was a ‘douche bag’ in fact he was a man with a realistic vision, away from religion which has such primitive beliefs. I would say that in humanity religion has gotten mankind nowhere only to be constantly (if not subconsciously) afraid of going to hell. There is such thing as having personal spirituality like Buddhism, mastering Yoga ect. The problem is that religion is nothing more than a group organization telling you what to believe. We are in the 21st century and despite computers, modern buildings, advanced technology (ie. NASA) about 80% of the world still needs to believe in something neither physically explained nor proven fact.

As to evolution most outsiders to science ignore physical evidence staring them in the face such as how man obviously evolved from lesser forms of animals. Despite Darwin's critics he said that he didn't care if he evolved from apes, he liked all forms of life connected as a whole. I think people are afraid of the idea that animals change and so does man (physically and technologically). Darwin is not to be confused with Albert Einstein, he was simply a man with a sense of exploration.--King of the Dancehall 17:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Wait, were you actually responding to my blatant satire of religious nutjobs as though I was seriously calling Charles Darwin a douchebag? That couldn't be further from the case, I have a deep respect for Darwin and his contributions to our modern understanding of the world, and more than anything his life makes me very sad, knowing how much unnecessary hardship he had to suffer. Very unfortunate.

Also, your definition of religion as "organized religion" conflicts with the more common definition, which Buddhism, and possibly even Unitarian Universalism, qualify for. Additionally, to say that "religion h as gotten mankind nowhere only to be constantly afraid of going to hell" is an obvious overgeneralization based on an Islamo-Christian-centric understanding of the history of world religions, and even when only considering those religions fails to acknowledge any of the possible benefits of religion for various past rulers (much-needed stability through ensuring that all people in the area share a certain ideology, an easy rewards/punishment system to ensure that laws are obeyed, not needing to justify morality to expect people to obey it) and past individuals (emotional support and guidance, ability to deal with a flawed world by focusing on an imaginary world, preservation of hope for a future, "after-life" of happiness for the manyn people who have very little happiness available to them in this life at all).

Religion/spirituality is more of an outdated idea than anything; it doesn't mesh well with globalization, humanism, the scientific revolution, etc., so it's certainly a dying beast now, though still a fascinating one that plays a huge role in our culture and mythology. -Silence 18:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

social darwinism (once and for all)

The expansion of Darwinism to social Darwinism was invented through the works of Herbert Spencer. Herbert Spencer’s “understanding included the Lamarckian theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics and emphasized the direct influence of external agencies on the organism’s development. He denied (as Darwin had argued) that evolution was based on the characteristics and development of the organism itself and on a simple principle of natural selection.”(http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm) Spencer, not Darwin, emphasized the competitive nature of a species and coined the term ‘survival of the fittest.’ Furthermore, Spencer extended his theory into human social behavior and that “specialization led to self-sufficiency and individuation”(http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm) His principles were further mangled to justify to the Nazi ‘breeding program’ and other eugenic forms of oppression. Spencer, not Darwin, defined society as “an aggregate of individuals, and change in society could take place only once individual members of that society had changed and developed. Individuals are ‘primary,’ individual development was ‘egotistic,’ and associations with others largely instrumental and contractual. ” (http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/spencer.htm#H5)

Apart from the point that the term seems to date from 1944 and the American historian Richard Hofstadter, is there any conflict between the above points and the brief description in the article? The comment and references could always be added to Social Darwinism....dave souza 20:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Some people believe that Darwin was an early Nazi because of the way the Nazi's interpreted his books. Can we put this in here, or should we make a new "misconceptions"? But first, we should research if he was a racist, believing that whites were superior. While we're at it, we should clean up the social darwinism page. I'd do it now but its getting late, but that page has what I am talking about, the links between social darwinism and nazism under Criticisms and controversies[2]. It also has a section on Social Darwinism and Race. I want to change this around, but I have not researched it yet. If someone has, please include it.--WhereAmI 07:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This is something under discussion at Darwinism#Darwinism and racism in relation to a source for The Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist which was removed from here on the grounds that "WP is not the place to advertise minor websites of original research". This removal seemed to me to be correct in terms of policy, but the web page gives lots of links and examples which look pretty sound. Both the Social Darwinism and the Darwinism pages need to be revised to cover this subject, but complying with WP:RS and WP:NOR makes it a bit tricky. I'd hoped to contribute to this, but keep getting distracted so if you can tackle it that will be great. ..dave souza, talk 11:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I would hardly call Geoff Price's stuff original research. Besides, it has citations, people can go and check them. The fact is that he makes a compelling argument. - FrancisTyers · 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is a fact and a theory

I've edited the article to remove references to evolution as a "theory." Evolution is not a theory - it is an observation (true or false) that, if true, must somehow be explained. That is, evolution (in Darwin's sense of 'descent with modification') is an explanandum (something that needs to be explained), it is not itself an explanation (an explanans). See Gould's essay "Evolution as fact and theory" at http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html. NOTE: creationists and those who believe in intelligent design (ID) and whatnot should not be upset with this change. ID is a theory (just like it's rival, natural selection) meant to explain evolution.Mikkerpikker 21:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Excerpt from Gould's essay: "In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? ... Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution. He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . . having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." Mikkerpikker 21:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

From Gould's article ,"Well, evolution is a theory. (emphasis Gould's). I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but it seems you are confusing evolution with biodiversity, which is caused by more things than just natural and sexual selection. Genetic drift and gene flow are large contributors to allele frequency change, which is really all evolution is. Evolution is most certainly a theory that explains the biodiversity of life on Earth. I won't revert again until other contributors can have a say. --JPotter 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I also saw that part and I acknowledge it is awkward for what I'm arguing, but it seems Gould means this: 'evolution' in its vernacular usage refers to two different issues, (1) the observation [either inferential via the fossil record or direct with viruses in the lab etc.] that organisms change over time to adapt to their environment which can lead to transmutation of species, and (2) the theory of natural selection which explains why (1) happens. Now, you can believe in (1) without accepting (2) [e.g. some forms of intelligent design & Lamarkianism] and so I think it is vital to distinguish between these two uses. Failure to make the distinction causes much confusion; maybe this slight tangent will help explain what I'm trying to do: a similar problem with fact/theory bedevils the global warming debate. People often fail to realise that the world's average temperature rising is an observation (i.e. a fact) whilst the green house effect is the theory that attempts to account for WHY global warming is occurring. Most people called 'global warming denialists' (e.g. Robert Bailey of Reason.com), however, are no such thing - they accept the fact of global warming but deny green house gases are the (or the sole) cause. (Some prefer the alternative theory that says the sun's output has changed and this causes the temperature rise). It seems to me that once we distinguish between fact and theory we can see why people are so confused - making the distinction allows far more sophisticated discussion. (There are of course people who deny the observation that organisms adapt over time and that the world's average temperature is rising, but they are marginal, most disputes concern theory). Mikkerpikker 15:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In the introduction to Carl Zimmer's book Evolution: The Triumpg of an Idea, Gould writes: “In discussing the truth of evolution, we should make a distinction, as Darwin explicitly did, between the simple fact of evolution – defined as the geneological connection among all earthly organisms, based on their descent from a common ancestor, and the history of any lineage as a process of descent with modification – and theories (like Darwinian natural selection) that have been proposed to explain the causes of evolutionary change.” Mikkerpikker 14:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Congrats to Mikkerpikker on a job well done. The difference between the useage of the word "evolution" to mean the fact and its useage to mean the theory is subtle but important. WAS 4.250 09:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A very good point and I've modified the intro to try to emphasise this distinction. Thanks for the Gould link. ...dave souza 11:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice job on intro, it reads much better that way Mikkerpikker 15:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Evolution is a theory just as gravity is a theory

His Idea

Do you think we are originally from primates?

Doesn't seem extraordinarily unlikely, considering that we're primates now. It's not like they're suggesting that we descended from penguins. -Silence 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls ;-) The OP puts such stupid question on Talk pages regularly. Pavel Vozenilek 03:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

External links in Works

This is minor but is there any specific reason why there are external links under "Works"? Wouldn't it make more sense to list Darwin's publications under Works and then put the external links to electronic copies of these under "External links"?? No big deal, just wondering... Mikkerpikker 15:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there's an electronic link for almost every one of the works, that would mean duplicating the list. Someone's reformatted it so that the links are after the title, rather than linking the title, which probably is easier to read, and certainly avoids confusion with the internally linked works. Works ok for me. ...dave souza 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

ah, ok... that makes sense. Never mind then, let's leave it be Mikkerpikker 10:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Theory vs Fact

I have to agree with what JPotter said in his point that evolution is most certainly a theory and not a fact. To call something a Fact it must be 100% true, and in the case of Science, able to make accuate predictions. This is not the case with Evolution, for we cannot be sure that it describes accurately the natural history of this planet.

The introduction should be changed from Fact to Theory

• The difference between a "theory" and a "fact" has nothing to do with it being true or false. Please read our article on scientific theory. Or alternatively read Stephen J. Gould's nice piece, "Evolution as Fact and Theory". Thanks. --Fastfission 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Gould has misused/reinterpreted the plain word fact. Saying that "evolution is a fact" misleads the reader, who understands the word "fact" according to it's common dictionary meaning. RossNixon 11:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitions from WordWeb 4.0

A piece of information about circumstances that exist or events that have occurred. A statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened. An event known to have happened or something known to have existed. A concept whose truth can be proved. And it also says that "scientific hypotheses are not facts" RossNixon 06:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Science cannot verify information in the Popperian sense. It can only falsify. Thus in science fact refers to something with widespread empirical support, which has survived all meaningful critiques. Indeed, by the wordweb definition there is no such thing as a 'fact' as we know it, since we can only falsify rather then prove. If you feel that science itself cannot prove facts then that is a legitimate epistemological position, but this page is not the place to start such an interpretation. I'd suggest discussing the matter on the science portral to see what they think if you feel strongly about it. --Davril2020 10:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine if evolution did have empirical support. It hasn't. Also, unless Wikipedia is a strictly Scientific Reference, then the word "fact" should be used with it's plain meaning. RossNixon 01:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ross, you can't just keep stomping your foot down by asserting 'evolution isn't a fact' but then providing no evidence. (otherwise we end up with a bit of a problem don't we? U'll say 'tisn't we'll say 'tis!, u'll say 'tisn't!, we'll say 'tis! etc ad infinitum). I honestly don't want to insult you, but you're very seriously misinformed if you believe evolution has no empirical support. A good intro to this is Carl Zimmer's Evolution: the triumph of an idea. Mikkerpikker 02:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Earlier proposed theories of evolution

Clearly Lord Monboddo stated the principles of evolution 75 years earlier. is there any knowledge that darwin read monboddo's work? they both lived in edinburgh for significant lengths of time. Anlace 21:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between "stating the principles" in a vague conjecture, or even a more developed hypothesis, and originating and developing a scientific theory. After publication of The Origin Darwin learnt of two other earlier but obscure statements of the principle of natural selection and acknowledged their precedence as undeveloped ideas: see History of evolutionary thought - you might care to add a paragraph on Monboddo's statements to that article. I've added an acknowledgement of these earlier ideas to the Legacy section.

I've a vague memory of seeing a web page expounding the idea that Darwin had secretly cribbed the idea from Monboddo or someone, but given his open acceptance of the precedence of the other publications and the amount known from his correspondence and writings this seems unlikely. While at Edinburgh he was exposed to the latest ideas in the developing field of Transmutation of species, and attended the lecture on the "Origin of the Species of Animals" by Professor Robert Jameson who is credited with first using the word "evolution" in its modern sense, but the idea that Monboddo's writings were still secretly influential seems improbable. ...dave souza 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• We should really have an article on scientific priority. With every big theory there are a thousand claims that someone else predated it who nobody read and nobody cares about. We can't fill up every Wikipedia article with such things unless they are actually major issues in the historiography of a person (for example, the Newton-Leibniz dispute over who invented the calculus). A wonderful quote on this trend is from Peter Bowler's book:

"Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science: Matthew did suggest a basic idea of selection, but he did nothing to develop it; and he published it in the appendix to a book on the raising of trees for shipbuilding. No one took him seriously, and he played no role in the emergence of Darwism. Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution. Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors." (from Peter Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, 3rd. revised edn. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2003): p. 158.)

• I suspect the same thing can be said about this Lord Monboddo, who I have never heard of before in all of my readings on the history of Darwin. He's not taken seriously by Darwin historians as a real claim to priority, for whatever reason, and shouldn't be placed prominently here. Perhaps a note in the history of evolutionary thought article, at most, if that. The page on him says nothing that sounds like he even had a remotely similar idea to natural selection. --Fastfission 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• i think dave souza's points are excellent and accept the movement of monboddo citation to LEGACY section. as far as fashfission, if you would go to the trouble to read monboddo's works or his biography you would see that he did much more than state the principles of evolution. He applied them to analyze the origin of language among other things. i think his inclusion as a citation is mandatory. further the use of the word 'alleged' is not only not NPOV but is wrong.Anlace 03:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• • If you'd like this to be taken more seriously, then first edit the Monboddo page so that it more clearly reflects his views, and put some real citations in there from multiple sources which show that it is really something worth taking into consideration. The current Monboddo page says:

In his books Burnett wrote about his philosophical views. His main writings include The Origin and Progress of Language that argues that mankind had shed their primeval tails and is related to orangutans. In Antient Metaphysics, Burnett claimed that man is gradually elevating himself from the animal condition to a state in which mind acts independently of the body. He also professed a belief that human babies are born with tails and that midwives cut them off at birth. Contemporary opinion considered his views strange but later commentators have seen him preceding the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin.

• • Men are related to apes is basic evolutionism, not natural selection. Really, if you know so much about the guy, just feel free to explain it to me and point me somewhere where I can see more than one responsible scholar giving him enough credit to be worth our time here. (Also, I don't see why "alleged" isn't completely NPOV. It remains ambivalent. Would you prefer "putative"? "So-called"?) --Fastfission 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Googling around a bit, everything I am able to find on Monboddo on the internet suggests that the "big idea" he had which makes him a "predecessor" is that orangutangs were actually men without language, and thus men were related to apes, and in fact men actually had tails. Now even if we charitably ignore every way in which he differs radically from Darwin here, the best we have in terms of relation to Darwin's thoughts is that men and apes are related. But this was not Darwin's starting point -- it was his ending point after postulating natural selection. To say Darwin's theory is simply that men and apes are related as much misses the point as saying that Freud's theory of dreams was that they had meaning.

I see no evidence that Monboddo had anything like natural selection proposed. Simply observing that humans and apes are morphologically similar does not make one a predecessor to Darwin. Furthermore the fact that he postulated such a different relation between apes and men than Darwin seems to make it extremely unlikely he deserves any real credit along these lines. But I allow you the chance to convince me otherwise. --Fastfission 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Gravity is a theory too...

Sigh, the fist sentence

Currently the first sentence reads:

Charles Robert Darwin (February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882) was a British naturalist who achieved lasting fame by establishing the fact of evolution and proposing the scientific theory that this could be explained through natural and sexual selection.

I honestly quite like it the way it is and think it is perfecly NPOV but I have a feeling keeping it this way will result in a perpetual edit war with the Great Unwashed who do not understand evolution. Perhaps we can soften the "establishing the fact of evolution" part to avoid this? Suggestion:

Charles Robert Darwin (February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882) was a British naturalist who achieved lasting fame by providing the first detailed evidence for the fact of evolution and proposing the scientific theory that this could be explained through natural and sexual selection.

Please let me know what you think of this suggestion... Mikkerpikker 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I realised my proposed change would not satisfy people like User:82.36.166.26 so if we agree a change is needed to avoid a perpetual edit war (and I acknowledge a strong argument exists for the status quo sentence) perhaps the following will do the trick (I've bolded the change):

Charles Robert Darwin (February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882) was a British naturalist who achieved lasting fame by providing the first detailed evidence for the occurrence of evolution and proposing the scientific theory that this could be explained through natural and sexual selection.

Mikkerpikker 22:42, 13 Janu»ary 2006 (UTC)

How about "who achieved lasting fame by providing the first detailed evidence for evolution ..." ?? Seems to tell the same story but more concisely. JackofOz 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a key point about Darwin is that he made 2 important contributions to biology: (1) he convinced many biologists of evolution in the descriptive sense, i.e. he showed 'evolution happens' and (2) he came up with the only viable scientific theory for why evolution happens (viz. natural selection). (Which is why, incidentally, we remember Darwin above Wallace - Wallace did only 2 not 1). I think it is important therefore to mention these two contributions in the intro, your formulation leaves out his theory contribution.... Mikkerpikker 23:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I do prefer the suggestion of jackofoz. Anythings better than saying he "established the fact of evolution" or using the word fact anywhere in the intro. Sounds a bit unpro - A. Simms

A refinement would be to replace "establishing the fact of evolution" with "convincing the scientific community of the existence of evolution"

In some ways "fact" is better than "existence", but this compromise might reduce antagonism. My understanding is that he was certainly not the first to provide detailed evidence, but was the first to assemble a coherent package that convinced the scientific establishment that evolution was indeed a fact. However, he had much more difficulty in persuading even his close friends of natural selection. JackofOz is right in that Darwin was the first to provide an overwhelming mass of detailed evidence, but the wording seems to me to be open to misunderstandings.

Oddly enough, a significant proportion of Creationists and all the IDers I've read accept "microevolution", though most refuse to accept that this can extend to what they term "macroevolution" of "created kinds" - but they're still accepting evolution up to a point. ....dave souza 10:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC) amended dave souza 10:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I never thought my modest idea would be so controversial. However since it has been debated, let me add my 2 cents worth. Referring to "the fact of evolution" or "the occurrence of evolution" presupposes that it is established as fact. I don't know enough about the subject to know either way, but from what I read above, it seems to still be debated. However, there is evidence that suggests it is the case, and Darwin gets much of the credit for coming up with that evidence. My form of words neither presupposes it is a fact, not does it say this evidence proves it to be true. It simply says there is evidence. That is a factual statement. Whether it is the whole truth is another matter. JackofOz 11:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that biological evolution is considered to be a fact by the scientific community, but is debated by religious movements in certain countries. It is not the whole truth in the same way that science is not the whole truth. ....dave souza 11:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Those that actually understand what they're talking about (i.e. the biologists) don't consider it even worthy of debate with the religious mindset - evolution is established, it is a fact, and evidence over the past 200 years has concreted its position even further. However, certain religious groups use pseudo-evidence from holy books, or sources that predate science and are therfore not reliable as sources of factual scientific information, to go against what they call the 'theory' of evolution. Scientists try not to give these people the attention that they crave, and therefore try not to enter into debate with them Evolution is a fact. Saccerzd 14:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just because there is a debate (i.e. some ppl disagreeing) does not mean the truth of evolution in the descriptive sense is doubtful (in the sense of "reasonable" not "hyperbolic"). The Flat Earth Society disputes the shape of the earth but that doesn't mean we can't describe the earth being an approximate sphere as a 'fact'. On my understanding, one cannot reasonably disagree with evolution in the descriptive sense (even if, like, say, Michael Behe you dispute the ability of natural selection to explain the facts of the natural world). Most mainstream ID folk do not dispute evolution in the descriptive sense, they just want 'the hand of God' to play a role in explaining adaption (which - in my opinion - is wrong, but by no means stupid. The same can't be said for those who deny evolution as fact)... Mikkerpikker 14:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

So what about:

Charles Robert Darwin (February 12, 1809 – April 19, 1882) was a British naturalist who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community of the occurrence(/existence) of evolution and proposing the theory that this could be explained through natural and sexual selection.

 ?? Mikkerpikker 14:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Instead of convincing, how about beguiling? (Def: Highly attractive and able to arouse hope or desire). :-) RossNixon 01:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• The proposed first sentence doesn't work, its misleading at best. Darwin certainly formulated and and proposed the theory, but it took a long while for even the scientific community to be convinced, largely based on the efforts of Thomas Huxley and other proponents. Fawcett5 14:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• • There are two issues here. One is "Did evolution occur?" In this Darwin convinced most naturalistic scientists with his work.Then there is "How did evolution occur?" Here Darwin proposed natural selection, but was not at all successful in convincing people that this was the cause of speciation (full convinction of Darwinism would not come around until the 20th century, new evolutionary synthesis, etc.). So it is correct to say that he did convince scientists that evolution of some sort did occur. --Fastfission 15:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps, but for a long time before Darwin there were many convinced Lamarckians etc. that did not doubt some form of evolution. Fawcett5 18:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

While Lamarckism was relatively respectable in France, in the UK (and U.S.A.) the scientific establishment was strongly opposed to these ideas which were associated with Radicalism#Popular agitation and attacks on the social order: see Development of Darwin's theory#Vestiges published as well as British Association: Vestiges and Wilberforce further down that page. Darwin's achievement was to convince the establishment that evolution occurred, but he struggled to persuade them of natural selection. ...dave souza 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe "convinced" is too strong then - what do you suggest?? (removing "fact" has, however, decreased edits by the great unwashed so I think we should keep it that way... Mikkerpikker ... 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• the real issues here are of philosophy and metaphysics...the article has not properly addressed these concepts. scientists certainly have little to debate regarding the mechanical concepts of evolution; however no one who has edited this article has addressed the metaphysical arguments of Aristotle, Monboddo or Einstein. Aristotle has established the prime mover concept which endured in western philosophy for over 19 centuries, Monboddo has furhtered these arguments; Einstein has stated that "God does not play dice with the universe" when asked how to explain how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal could be justified. ID has become a straw man overlooking the more fundamental question of how to resolve God and evolution. ps im a physicist and not a religious zealot :} Anlace 21:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm fairly sure that none of the above has to do with Charles Darwin's life in any tangible form. --Fastfission 21:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Historical Context

I added a section to the talk page for "Intelligent Design" that provides some historical context that might be relevant here. (There the title is "Pre-Darwinian Ripostes," althought it could easily be adapted to help lay the foundations for a section that goes into greater detail as to why Darwin's ideas fit the demands of the time.) We're currently debating what to do with it. If you feel strongly, please add your comments. --JTBurman 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• i feel the darwin article needs a brief synopsis ....more than is there currently which cites Lamarck, monboddo and others who advanced the concepts of evolution...clearly darwin did the work to establish the principles of natural selection. good idea JT to have this as a talk topic here...hope to have you and others weigh in. Anlace 21:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• • There is already a pretty good synopsis in the Charles_Darwin#Development_of_theory section which covers the big influences at the time, and an entire Development of Darwin's theory subarticle. We also have a History of evolutionary thought page which is where more detailed things should go. In either case I'm not sure Monboddo really makes it into the top ten; he doesn't seem to have been very influential in this subject. --Fastfission 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

FA?

I think this an excellent article and it seems to me the only thing preventing it from being featured is lack of references (see WP:WIAFA & WP:V). Is it possible for those who wrote the article or know where to info comes from to add refs? Mikkerpikker ... 11:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

New image suggestion

How about replacing the first image (Image:Charles_Darwin_1881.jpg) with Image:Charles Darwin by Julia Margaret Cameron.jpg from commons? Reasons:

1. It's prettier :)
2. It has more color
3. Darwin doesn't look so old and weak
4. We have very similar pics in the article already (Image:Charles Darwin 1880.jpg; Image:Darwin-Charles-LOC.jpg).

Comments welcome! Mikkerpikker ... 18:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't mind the other one though that particular scan of it is very pixellated. Maybe we can find a better copy of it somewhere? --Fastfission 20:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• OK, I was able to get a slightly better version. Not as large but much more clear. --Fastfission 21:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

great, thanks! Will you/have you uploaded it? Mikkerpikker ... 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I just uploaded it right over the other file, since it was the same image. --Fastfission 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, The image:Charles Darwin 1854.jpg is best because it goes against the stereotype of Darwin as an old man. When he did his most important work, he was in his forties, and had no beard. That is the photo that should be displayed. — Dunc|☺ 21:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but don't you think the canonical image of Darwin is him w/ a beard? Shouldn't the 1st image be one of the best known ones? Mikker ^... 21:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We discussed this before, and that particular picture which is already used under Evolution by natural selection has a worried look that fits well with the caption "fearing both religious and scientific criticism". In my opinion a bearded picture at the top is fine, but if we must promote one of these beardless pictures to the top, my preference is for Image:Charles Darwin by G. Richmond.jpg which shows him at the time he was first putting together his theory. Please continue the search for a better picture. ...dave souza, talk 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The other reason why I don't like the bearded Darwin is that it has religious overtones; Darwin the replacement for God; one "old man with a beard" supplants another. The man himself didn't want that tag, and he wasn't an old man with a beard when he was doing his chief work. — Dunc|☺ 22:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro again, if we dare

I'm probably walking into a landmine on this but here's my proposed introduction:

• Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was a British naturalist who achieved lasting fame by presenting compelling evidence for the occurrence of evolution, and proposing the theory of natural selection to explain the mechanism of evolution.

What I've done: 1. De-emphasize sexual selection. I know, Darwin loved it like a baby, but it's not what gave him lasting fame -- almost all of his contemporaries dismissed it outright without much consideration. 2. He didn't really "convince" the entire community outright, but he did marshall compelling evidence for it and really move it into the realm of serious discussion. This is pretty significant and deserves being mentioned but "convinced" is just historically inaccurate. 3. Removed the "central explanatory paradigm" stuff. I don't think the sentence is necessary and I think that the connection between the modern evolutionary synthesis and the theories Darwin proposed is still a little too far removed to simply say that his theory is now the central paradigm in biology. But I'm completely willing to defer to a biologist on this issue (less so on the others, which are historical issues).

Now, let's try to do this without some big discussion about creationism, eh? ;-) I'm perfectly happy with alternative wordings (I am not much of a wordsmith) but the two things I am trying in particular to correct is 1. too much success/fame being attributed to sexual selection (just not true, in his time; even today it is not taken nearly as seriously as natural/ecological selection) and 2. try to avoid overstating the effect on the community. In fact, the part in the intro in which it says his book established natural selection as the most common scientific explanation is probably the closest to the truth -- which is not the same thing as convincing the scientific community, which implies a somewhat higher degree of effect to my ears. --Fastfission 04:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done. You seem to have defused and successfully resolved that long-running debate about theory/fact. :) --Sammysam 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. ..dave souza, talk 03:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the proposed change unfortunately. My thoughts:

1. Though I agree with FF that sexual selection did not bring Darwin lasting fame, shouldn't we present Darwin's thought and his theories rather than emphasise how current science weighs the relative importance of his theories? Since presumably no one here disputes the fact that Darwin proposed the theory that evolution is to be explained with reference to natural selection and sexual selection, I think both should be presented even if the latter is not as important to modern understandings of evolution. In other words, I completely agree the evolution article should perhaps de-emphasise sexual selection but I don't think we should alter the Darwin article. That said, I don't feel that strongly about this particular issue so I'm completely willing to go with the flow if the other editors of this article think the proposed change is a good one.

2. Though I think FF's change from "convince" to "provide compelling evidence" makes some sense, I have two issues. Firsly, won't this re-ignite the edit war? When I first started out at Wikipedia creationists (and their fellow travellers) were always messing with the first sentence, resulting in a near constant need for reversion. If I remember correctly, I proposed the "convince" terminology for exactly this reason: to avoid conflict. My worry is that those who (however unreasonably) don't think Darwin provided "compelling evidence" will again start an edit war. That said, I have no problem with changing the text as an experiment to see whether my prediction is bourn out by the evidence. Secondly, Darwin made two important contributions: he provided evidence that evolution happened and proposed an explanation for why it happened. I think both should be mentioned.

3. I think the "central explanatory paradigm" sentence should stay, though perhaps it should be re-worded. The point of the sentence is to emphasise that Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution; which is both true and important with respect to judging Darwin. Lastly, (and to be pedantic) I don't think we should have "proposing the theory of natural selection to explain the mechanism of evolution." Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution, not the explanation of the mechanism of evolution. We should therefore either have "proposing the theory that natural selection is the mechanism which causes evolution", or "proposing the theory of natural selection to explain the mechanism of evolution.

Mikker ^... 21:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

1. OK, but we shouldn't say lasting fame then. We'd need some other way to describe what he came up with, because "lasting fame" doesn't actually properly characterize how sexual selection was or is received. We'd have to word it in a way that did not imply that it was convincing or made him famous, because it wasn't either. 2. Yeah, I'm not completely happy with the "compelling evidence" line. I'm looking for something which sums up the fact that he provided enough evidence that the scientific community was compelled to discuss evolution as a serious scientific theory, not necessarily that he convinced them. 3. I still think the jump from Darwin to the modern synthesis is somewhat of a jump, scientifically and historically speaking (I think the "central explanatory paradigm" bit makes it sound like the transition between Darwin and mod syn was smooth, which it wasn't at all). In any case, good comments, and I will think about it a bit more and try to refine it further so it really captures the historical truth of it. --Fastfission 23:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

(1) Good point... I've been trying to think of alternative wordings, will let you know if I come up with anything. (2) On my interpretation of the history, Darwin did convince the scientific community (or at least biologists/naturalists) of the occurrence of evolution, though he wasn't as successful in convincing them of his theory of natural/sexual/artificial selection. How to explain this in 3 sentences? :) (3) How about "This theory now forms the core of the modern synthesis which is considered the central explanatory paradigm in biology"? (That's not quite right, but best I can think of.) Mikker ^... 14:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tuition

Sorry, I don't yet know how to make this it's own section... The article states under EARLY LIFE: When exams began to loom Darwin focused more on his studies and received private tuition from Henslow.

Did he receive private lessons? I doubt he received tuition..but I might be wrong. Anyone? (unsigned comment by 68.249.6.220, moved to foot of page by dave souza, talk 09:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for bringing this up: in the UK tuition = instruction or teaching, but elsewhere it appears to mean what we'd call "tuition fees", so the word has been changed to avoid this misunderstanding. To start a new section type == before and after your title, and please try to put comments at the foot of discussions. To sign a comment type a tilde (~) four times, and it's worth getting yourself a user name to log in. ..dave souza, talk 10:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Can't you use tutoring instead? Jclerman 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not given as an alternative in my dictionary, and I'm unfamiliar with terminology at Cambridge uni, so have changed it to instruction. The original source (Desmond and Moore, Darwin) used the term tuition, but that appears to mean something else in Canada. ...dave souza, talk 21:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OCD cat

Do we have a source to justify that category here? JoshuaZ

Even if we did, it would be highly speculative (as all retrospective psychological labelings are). No way he belongs in this cat. I'm not sure about the "agoraphobic" one either -- another retrospective categorization which is likely very speculative. --Fastfission 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As Charles Darwin's illness notes at some length, agoraphobia of a particular kind is one of the many disputed retrospective diagnoses of the symptoms he recorded. If there's a category for each, he'd disputably be in an awful lot of categories.To cite the conclusions, "The exact nature of Darwin's illness or illnesses remain mysterious at this time. Unless sophisticated molecular probing of his biological remains is allowed, no definitive diagnosis can be reached." Hardly worth a categorisation. ...22:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802)

It is my understanding that Erasmus Darwin (Chales' grandfather) had written a book called Zoonomia in verse of which Origin adds little. IT is also my understanding that the following reference works uphold this view.

• Desmond, A. and Moore, J., Darwin, Penguin Books, London, 1992.
• King-Hele, D., The furtive evolutionist, New Scientist 2390:48–49, 12 April 2003
• King-Hele, D., Erasmus Darwin, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1963
• Colliers Encyclopedia (1994) 7:724,
• The Life of Erasmus Darwin (1880) by Charles Darwin
• Charles Darwin’s Autobiography (edited by Sir Francis Darwin), Henry Schuman, New York
• Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X., Loren Eiseley.

With such an extensive article it is hard to know where such information fits as it may cause local contradictions within the text. These would need to be eased to reflect this "new" information.

Ideas? --Lord Matt 18:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Origin of Species is considerably different than Zoonomia to say the least. The latter is a vague and allegorical poem about life, the former is a dense scientific treatise. How you managed to read all of those sources (esp. Desmond and Moore) and came away with the impression that Origin "adds little" is a bit surprising to me, because I'm fairly sure that none of those likely say that, though I have not read all of those (though I have seen most of them). --Fastfission 00:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, if you are getting your "understanding" from this website (which I imagine you are, since your list of "references" seems taken from their footnotes), you should be aware that Creationist ministries are really, really bad sources for the history of evolution. My recommendation is reading Peter J. Bowler's Evolution: The History of an Idea, which is a far more sensitive and objective approach to describing the history of evolutionary thought, and discusses Erasmus Darwin's work in detail. --Fastfission 00:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarian? No.

There was a discussion a while back in the archive about whether Darwin was vegetarian after someone added that category. I've worked on the vegetarian tag in the past so I did some research. The answer seems to be a definite no. I've read much of the Voyage of the Beagle and he ate various kinds of meat enthusiastically, without mention of any reservations. I have found that later in his life he ate a restricted diet but one that did include meat. I have been unable to find any sources that indicate that Darwin was vegetarian or even close for any period of time. Many of his writings have indicated a humanity and a kinship towards animals (after all, he developed the theory of natural selection), and he has also spoken to the need for reform (although not abolition) of vivisection, so perhaps these passages mislead some people to thinking he was also vegetarian. I think mainly a lot of the "famous vegetarians" lists get copied around and compiled and end up with inaccuracies, just as other "famous X people" lists do. NTK 23:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if his later diet did not include meat, to be forced to eat a non-meat diet for severe reasons of health does not make one a vegetarian in the usual identity-political sense of the term. I of course agree with your conclusions, esp. about the "famous X people" lists which I think are a plague. --Fastfission 00:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why Hitler was never a vegetarian either. NTK 00:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I tried setting up an infobox with some details about Darwin yesterday, but the change was reverted almost straight away, the reason given by Duncharris was "oh dear that is foul". I tried to discuss it with Duncharris but I didn't get anywhere, so I'm bringing the discussion here.

I think infoboxes play an important part in most articles, among other things they act as a quick reference to the casual reader where important information about the person, place, company, etc can be obtained without trawling the article. I also think the infobox would look much better in place of just a floating image. The FA Carl Friedrich Gauss uses the infobox I used for Darwin and a few days ago I placed the same infobox at Nikola Tesla which seems to be going fine. Any feedback would be appreciated. --darkliight^talk 11:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it was reverted because it streched a low-res image, causing pixelation. Jefffire 11:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I dislike infoboxes for biographies and think they don't improve anything, frankly. For companies and other things for which the most pertinent at-a-glance data which cannot be easily put into a non-tabular form it makes sense, but Charles Darwin's name, birth and death dates, achievements, etc. are all present in the first sentence and as such are not hard to find. Knowing where Darwin was born or died is not important enough to warrant being highlighted at the top of an article. Aesthetically I don't think it adds anything, personally. So I agree with Duncharris on this, most likely. --Fastfission 15:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I think of infoboxes in a general sense, but this one was very ugly. But, as FF says - what does an infobox add? In the case of the Gauss one, I'd say it's visually appealing and adds balance to the top of the page. Not in this case, though. Guettarda 15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin School in Biggin Hill

It's not clear that it's notable. The Charles Darwin School in Biggin Hill website doesn't seem to say anything about Charles or why the school got the name, but amusingly the house names of Grant, Lyell, Henslow and Wedgwood sound rather familiar. ..dave souza, talk 21:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles Darwin School was given its name as a result of being the closest 'new' secondary school to Down House. It's about 2 miles away, or thereabouts. I was a pupil there between 1993 and 2000, and when I first attended, the school's logo was the Darwin family crest (it was a shield with their motto underneath it in Latin). All blazer badges were in this form and all school literature (newsletters etc) were sent out with it on. In around 1994-1995 the logo was changed to a stylised version of the letters "C" and "D". My own opinion of this was that it was a retrograde step :-)

The House names are an addition that has only happened in the years since I left.

I agree it is disappointing that the school that takes its name from Darwin does not have a page that summarises what he did, and some information or photos from Down House. 16/November/2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.67.10 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 16 November 2006

Thanks for that info. Shame about the badges, hope they take more of an interest in future. .. dave souza, talk 17:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

URL correction

The URL of the Darwin Correspondence Project, which is linked from this page, has changed, and is now <http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk>. The old URL will continue to work for a while. I am not editing the URL myself, since I work for the Project, and understand that I should not add URLs of organisations I work for. Eadp 11:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ta. ...dave souza, talk 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting this so quickly. Eadp 15:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Pro/Con section?

This link should be included in the Con section...

• Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin’s Theory Discovery Institute February 20, 2006

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.67.20.74 (talk • contribs) .

This is a biography article, not an article about the creation/evolution controversy. JoshuaZ 15:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that this user has been spamming numerous talk pages, including Talk:Evolution#Where_is_the_Pro.2FCon_section.3F, in a clear attempt to push a POV. -Silence 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And the user also seems unaware of Project Steve, which makes the spamming silly at best. They're up to 733 scientists named Steve who concur that "Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.". Since "Steve's" (and "Stephanies" and all other "qualifying" names) represent about 1% of the population, that's equivalent to 73,300 scientists. - Nunh-huh 15:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While this may be true one million lemmings can't be wrong (argumentum ad numeram and all that) --Lord Matt 21:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just food for thought

Darwin was quite a below average student, and unequipped to formulate such a bold theory as he did. He was a naturalist, but lacked the necessary tools (science, mathematics, etc.) to really understand what he was talking about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chicken Soup (talk • contribs) . who clearly doesn't know what he, she or it is talking about. RTFA. ...dave souza, talk 19:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording question?

The phrase "their relatives appeared to Darwin to be "savages," little above animals." is a little awkward, due to the "little above animals" part. From an anthropological standpoint, savages were not considered to be "little above animals", like we see them in common culture and media, but simply less sophisticated, less evolved. In sociocultural evolution and evolutionism, there were considered to be three stages of evolution of society; 1) Savagery, 2) Religious, and 3) Positivist. Therefore I feel like the ending of the sentence was inappropriate. retinarow 4:13, 10 May 2006 (EST)

Good catch. I've filled out The Voyage of the Beagle#Surveying South America with a couple of quotes from the book, including the bit about "the difference between savage and civilised man: it is greater than between a wild and domesticated animal" which that intended to convey, rather inaccurately. In the sentence here I've now quoted Darwin's description of "miserable, degraded savages" he contrasted with Jemmy Button. Ta, ...dave souza, talk 11:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Burial Site of William Herschel

In the fourth paragraph it is stated: "In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence, he was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to William Herschel and Isaac Newton." But, in the article on William Herschel it reports that he (Herschel) was buried in St. Laurence's Church in Upton. Which is correct?

I have added a similar note to the Herschel article's discussion page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.105.44 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks very much for picking that up: the chap he's buried next to is apparently John Herschel, William's son, and that must have got mixed up at some point. I've corrected it and will add this note to the Herschel page too. ..dave souza, talk 08:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Footers?

From a discussion at Talk:Evolution#Footers?, it seems to work pretty well to make See also the last section, so that the infoboxes come under that heading in the index rather than following on from external links. So this is something I'll try changing here, hope there are no objections. ..dave souza, talk 20:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ta, ..dave souza, talk 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hart's list

Thanks to Curtis Clark for reverting a vandal: fwiw this list confirms that Darwin was ranked #16 on Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential figures in history, though they don't credit him with being agnostic. ..dave souza, talk 05:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Something More....

I think that it would greatly help the article if someone were to add a map of the five year voyage of the HMS Beagle. In other words a map of all the ports and locations of intrest that the ship visited during the five year journey.--Pfc Ender 21:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

repeated images, why?

Why repeated images are better? --Jclerman 20:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than reverting by User:Duncharris can somebody explain why two identical images is 'better' than what? I don't care which image you use, but why two identical ones? Please, reply here rather than repeating "see talk". Thanks in advance. --Jclerman 13:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The 1854 photo is better for two reasons: Firstly it shows him when he was at the peak of his work (there is a really horrible POV of this old man looking rather like classical images of God - he was 40 when he published the Origin). Secondly, it is straight-on headshot which shows his features better. I don't mean to repeat the image - it should only be used once. — Dunc|☺ 14:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Then either delete the second identical image used in the same article, or replace it by one of your choice. --Jclerman 14:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fussed for the 1854 image of D doing a popeye impression, but appreciate Dunc's enthusiasm for an image nearer the publication of the Origin. If Cameron's excellent portrait must be relegated its title must reflect its period, and I've edited it accordingly. I've also added a link to the James Moore (biographer) at the external link which has been re-added by an anon: at 06:50, 22 July 2006 BlankVerse added this ext. link, but it must have been lost in subsequent edits: the transcript of the program is pretty interesting. ..dave souza, talk 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding racist language

(I'm new to Wikipedia - so if the length of my comment here is unusual, please forgive me)

Mankind, as we know it, is marked by distinctions, some more immediately apparent than others. Race (= ethnicity?) is a complicated question. Specifically, it is not easy to pinpoint any person's race on the basis of photographs, or literary evidence (the latter especially when derived from a time where race theory was far different than it is now, or did not exist). In some churches in Poland (so I've read in a German book), Jesus was shown with blue eyes. In one American movie (I think it was American anyway), he was shown with black skin. These obviously contradictory representations merely illustrate that race is often a matter of identity, and in the case where peoples mix, often the race of either the mother or the father decides what race the child will identify himself with, or be deemed by his community to belong to. Some years ago I visited a natural history museum in Edinburgh which declared that there were three races of man. Kant said there are four. Others create races at will - in phrases like "our great island race" or "Jewish race" etc.. Hence, I suggest that the concept of race, as used commonly, is not in keeping with honest scientific straightforwardness. It is also accepted that skin colour does not automatically fix a person's race. (there are additional factors such as eye colour, hair, skull shape etc., or so I understand, not being a anthropologist myself)

Now let's return to the line (under discussion here) from the article (on Charles Darwin, on Wikipedia):

"He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest."Italic text

I had earlier changed this to "He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed South American slave who told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest."

This was challenged and reverted.

Today, I changed it again - deleting the word "black".

What does the word "black" here mean? That the person (if something described by just its colour can still be accorded the dignity of human identity) had black skin all over? Or that he belonged to the negroid race? Can we be sure that he indeed was a pure-blooded negroid? Does it make any difference to our perception of him as one who inspired Darwin with stories? I usually avoid using the word "racist" as I think it has meanings beyond what it really should. (similar to democracy, holocaust, Bosnia, terrorist etc.) However, making a reference to his skin colour here is just that - racist. Actually, it's not even racist - it's just petty, and slightly insulting.

What next? In a similar vein, we might have the Wikipedia article on Schopenhauer which states "Schopenhauer, a white Pole, indicated that he was influenced by Kant, a white philosopher, and Buddha, a brown prince." Or the brown crown prince, as he hadn't inherited when he left his father's kingdom behind.

I'm certain there are occasions when a person's skin colour, or race if you will, need to be pointed out. For example, if a certain medical drug causes different reactions based on a person's genetics. Or if a dark skinned person is being photographed - perhaps more light is needed, as compared to when a fair skinned person is the subject. Or commandos with dark skin might be chosen for a covert mission in Ghana, where those with fair skin might stand out. Or in museums of ethnology, where the actual race is defined. And numerous other such situations. But these are far from commonplace.

Everytime we use pejorative words like black, white, brown, kook, eyetie, commie, chink etc. to refer to a human being, we reinforce an image of him which uses his skin colour, race, nationality, religion, political views etc. as his defining attribute. We strip him of his dreams, songs, poetry, ability to make us laugh and think and love - all that makes him human.

86.139.89.42 21:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)SM, UK. 2225h BST, 31 July 2k+6

Um, most people don't consider "black" to be a pejorative word on the level of "chink", so I don't know where you are getting that from. If you are trying to wage a one-man war to change common language, this is not the place to do it. It is a term a far more specific term than "South American" (which has entirely different connotations in English, suggesting that Edmonstone was Hispanic). In the case of Edmonstone it is highly relevant for Darwin that he was black, which you would know if you knew anything about the subject you are talking about. It is likely one of the influences that Darwin insisted on the unity of all human races, which was a position very much at odds with the scientific consensus of his day. It is not racist to note that Darwin—a Victorian, well-monied white male—had early and favorable contacts with people outside of his traditional social strata, especially when such contacts were clearly influential on him (he wrote about Edmonstone in Descent of Man, if I recall).

In short, you do not know enough about this topic to make the sort of ridiculous and frankly offensive generalizations that you are making. You also do not seem to have much of a grasp of what terminology is used to refer to races and ethnic groups these days. Just a few weeks ago the head of the NAACP gave an address in which he used the terms "black folks", "black men", "black community", "black-owned", numerous times and never ironically. He used the term African-American once, in comparison. I dare you to find me the head of any minority-rights group that refers to his or her own people unironically as "commies", "chinks", or "kooks". These are entirely different things as you are clearly out of touch. Edmonstone did not have the luxury of denying that his blackness made him different in Victorian society, keep that in mind. --Fastfission 04:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Fastfission, quite right to pick up on this point. A fuller account from Charles Darwin's education#University of Edinburgh is Darwin wrote home that "I am going to learn to stuff birds, from a blackamoor... he only charges one guinea, for an hour every day for two months". Darwin studied taxidermy with the freed black slave John Edmonstone, hearing his tales of the South American rain-forest of Guiana. This was a young guy in his first year at uni, writing to his sister that his tutor is black and good value. This was an era when slavery was a hot topic, with Darwin's family on the abolitionist side, but pro-slavery campaigners were openly depicting Negro (ex-)slaves such as Edmonstone as subhuman. Darwin is not just treating him with respect as he would any professor, he is getting first hand accounts of South America, the area that would later be the focus of his work as a naturalist. Black people would have been a rare sight in Shrewsbury and Edinburgh at that time, and therefore remarkable, but in Darwin's case colour consciousness clearly did not equate to racism: it was a subject he was to return to in his writings from the Beagle account onwards, and he consistently shows respect. A minor point: this was in 1825 during the reign of George IV, a period commonly called the Regency: Victoria came to the throne after Darwin's return from the Beagle voyage. ...dave souza, talk 08:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

How am I being offensive? I'm asking for people to be treated as human beings and not labelled as colours! But I don't really care about your personal opinion of me, so I won't dwell on it further. Regarding what you mention about the acceptability of the term "black" to refer to a person - that's the NAACP's point of view. Or that of its head. Good for him, or her. However, if I truly am in a minority of one, and everyone else is on board - that's fine with me. My views shall remain the same, but I'm happy to respect the verdict of the masses, and shall abstain from further attempts to remove the reference to Mr. Edmonstone's skin colour.

May I respectfully raise two questions:

1. Are we to specify the race of everyone on wikipedia? Or only that of those called "blacks"?

2. What terms are used for describing those who are neither "white" nor "black"?

172.206.198.175 21:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)SM 2240 BST Friday August 04

The fact that Darwin himself referred to Mr. Edmonstone as a "blackamoor" and that it is well-documented that the experience solidified Darwin's views that all races are equally human and entitled to respect, makes the omission of Mr. Edmonstone's real or perceived race damaging to the integrity of the article. Perhaps the article could say, "a freed slave, described by Darwin as a 'blackamoor', who told him exciting tales of the South American rainforest," but I think more people in the modern world find "blackamoor" offensive than "black".--Curtis Clark 21:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes people's skin colour contributes to their notability: the splendid Mary Seacole is of course notable for being Scottish and every bit as worthy as Florence Nightingale, but in recent years much of the interest in her has been as an inspiring example of (and for) black people. Of course as a mac user I naturally object to PC language ;) ...dave souza, talk 10:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The context here is that we learn something of Darwin’s character. Most of Darwin’s contemporaries would have regarded a black man and a former slave, as at best socially inferior, at worst as sub-human. Certainly within Darwin’s social class and maybe even acquaintances there would have been many who were former slave owners, or families who’s fortune was based on the slave trade. That Darwin was willing to take instruction from a black man and a former slave, and indeed pay for it, shows us something about Darwin. It does not reflect at all on Edmonstone. As for the term being pejorative, I don’t believe that it is regarded as such. If there is a better term for describing the gentleman’s skin colour, fair enough, let’s have it. But ignoring the fact that Edmonstone was black reduces our understanding of Darwin, and does nothing for Edmonstone. --Michael Johnson 12:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I said that the comment was "offensive" because you basically accused other editors of being racists and of putting racist slurs on an article. Whatever your personal feeling about the value of racial/ethnic labels (it is not obvious that pretending that ethnic/racial distinctions do not exist actually imrpoves anything; groups like the NAACP are aware that pretending they are going to be treated just like everyone else, and do not have their own community issues to deal with, is neither a realistic appraisal or a road to improvement), you should not slip into hyperbolistic comments where you say that "white" and "black" are the equivalent to "chink", a highly offensive term, unless you do not want to be taken seriously. --Fastfission 22:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you read an accusation into what was intended to suggest, and I apologize if I was offensive. I believe that words are central to the way we perceive our world in the first place, and (re-)interpret it in the second. You're right - my edits were fuelled as a personal non-state-funded campaign against the usage of the words "black", "white" and many such others to refer to human beings. The techincal racial terms are (obviously) fine. Skin may be black! The extension from skin to person is the sort of linguistic short cut which I object to, for it tends to shape how we think - in addition to the far more intuitive flow of our thinking influencing words we choose. 172.216.225.3 00:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC) SM 0047h BST Sun

I must have missed Michael Johnson's post earlier - hence this late reply. > If there is a better term for describing the gentleman’s skin colour, fair enough, let’s have it. > But ignoring the fact that Edmonstone was black reduces our understanding of Darwin, and does nothing for Edmonstone.

The gentleman's skin colour might well be perfectly described by the word "black". However, I don't think the word describes the gentleman himself. To repeat, I have no hassle with a person's _race_ being pointed out, where relevant (and it has been highlighted as relevant here). The word "negroid" describes a race; "black" does not.

86.139.90.162 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC) SM

Infobox

Do we want an infobox? We've had the discussion before and decided against it, I figured it would be worth raising again since someone has added one to the page without asking. There is no mandate to include infoboxes in articles, it is usually decided on an article-by-article basis.

My biggest problem with infoboxes is that I think they look silly (a subjective, aesthetic judgment, no doubt, but I find trying to fit complex people into little boxes of vital data a silly and ultimately worthless endeavor for an encyclopedia), and that they contain lots of information which is not actually useful to 90% of the people who would read an article, and in any case most of the information is highly redundant (appears elsewhere in the article in easy-to-find places).

As an example of this, the list of Darwin's children appears now twice in the article, and his birth and death dates, along with his nationality and profession and what he is most known for, are now repeated within inches of each other at the top of the article. Most of the other information seems unlikely to be of much interest to the causal reader (his alma mater, his place of birth).

I think the article is fine without it, but I'm willing of course to defer to consensus. --Fastfission 22:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm... I must say that I quite like infoboxes (mainly for subjective, aesthetic reasons) and, I donno, but when I read a bio of a person I am unfamiliar with I like scanning the infobox for a summary and then reading the article. If I am familiar with the person the article deals with I just ignore the box. So it seems to me that having a box isn't "damaging" (you can ignore it easily) but potentially useful. That said, I don't feel particularly strongly either way... Mikker ^(...) 22:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If memory serves me well, I was against the earlier infobox because it looked very intrusive: this one actually seems to go quite well with the lead photograph. While it doesn't appear to add anything that isn't elsewhere in the article, it does give a handy checklist for people who like that sort of thing. Can't say the term alma mater means much in this country, but the university names make it obvious. ...dave souza, talk 00:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was removed? plange 05:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I dislike the box, it is too long.--Peta 12:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Untrue Claim

From the Darwin page:

"Darwin....though he still believed that God was the ultimate lawgiver."

We know this claim is without any merit whatsoever, and wholly counterfactual. Dennett calls the Darwinian paradigm: "Darwin's inversion" (1995:66). That inversion says matter caused Mind which is diametrically contraposition to the Genesis creation model of Mind causing matter. Therefore, no Mind exists to give laws. Descent (1871, chp.3, Conclusion) clearly relates Darwin's heresy.

The above claim needs scholarly support. Since we know none exists, the writer slips in his or her bias based on a psychological need of distancing Darwin from atheism.

Ray Martinez 8-14-06

The sentence in question refers to Darwin's belief before his daughter died, when he was still a theist. After his daughter died, the best description of his views would be agnostic. Seems like the psychological need to move Darwin closer to atheism is more apt here, Mr Martinez. JPotter 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Darwin forsook theism prior to the summer of 1837. Notebook B page 36 contains the first sketch of an evolutionary tree of life (Genesis Deity rejected). In 1838 he admitted to being a Materialist (atheist). Since you ignored other content in initial message and will probably continue to do so, the evasions are indicative of the inability to refute. Since the Bible plainly shows persons who think of themselves as theists (Pharisees) while opposing Christ (and thus the work of God) the identification of Darwin as a theist (while opposing the Bible via his theories) is supported in this light and context. IOW, nothing new...."theists" still think they are as such while opposing God/Christ/Bible.

Ray Martinez 8-14-06

A source is need for what seems to be your untrue claim that "In 1838 he admitted to being a Materialist (atheist).", though I suspect that's your interpretation which is not shared by reputable biographers such as Desmond and Moore. As to Darwin still believing that God was the ultimate lawgiver, as I recall that came from their biography Darwin. The views of Darwin are clearly shown in similar terms in his "Pencil Sketch" of 1842 and "Essay" of 1844. To cite the latter,

It accords with what we know of the laws impressed by the Creator on matter that the production and extinction of forms should, like the birth and death of individuals, be the result of secondary means. It is derogatory that the Creator of countless Universes should have made by individual acts of His will the myriads of creeping parasites and worms, which since the earliest dawn of life have swarmed over the land and in the depths of the ocean."

Of course these views may be consistent with deism as much as theism, but then from your remarks you no doubt think that the Pope comes under your definition of a Pharisee for supporting the theory that you perceive as opposing the Bible. ..dave souza, talk 23:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A mere drawing of the evolutionary tree of life doesn't make Darwin reject the God of Genesis. Which comment was missed? You cite 1871 writing of Darwin, the sentence in question is, again, prior to the death of his daughter when he was still a believer. JPotter 23:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ray, all biographers of Darwin that I have read attribute his full loss of faith to the death of his daughter, Annie, in 1851. Before then he had many doubts about the literal validity of the Bible and of various doctrines, but full rejection did not come until later. If you want to argue that even though Darwin claimed to believe in God, he did not really believe in God, I think you are going a bit outside historical methodology. In any case when he wrote his "Autobiography" he referred to himself as an agnostic, not an atheist. --Fastfission 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

CLAIM: Fastfission: ....all biographers of Darwin that I have read attribute his full loss of faith to the death of his daughter...." In any case when he wrote his "Autobiography" he referred to himself as an agnostic, not an atheist

REPLY: Pure fiction evading the bulk of what we know about Darwin. This type of contributor (anonymous, subjective) ignores what I previously wrote (as did the others) and Darwin's undisputed atheistic paradigm. No educated person, much less any scholar, would attach their real name to such a naieve "claim". But in your defense, Dembski made the same unsupported assertion in Intelligent Design (1999).

How could such an informed person like yourself not have read Dr. Janet Browne ?: DARWIN: "I never gave up Christianity until I was forty years of age" (Power of Place, 2002:484). Darwin turned 40 two years prior to the death of Annie in 1851. If your kind takes everthing at face value (like a claim of agnosticism) then I suggest you stay consistent, but like I said anonymous persons have nothing to lose, even though I do realize this is Wikipedia - a public pedia.

REPLY: Darwin called himself an agnostic in regards to a FIRST CAUSE, which means your little diddy is out of context quote mining, very typical of anonymous persons with nothing to lose. Darwin's arguments and theories say he was an atheist since 1837 (Notebook B:36).

"....the main point of Darwin's book was to remove the Creator from nature" (Browne 2002:95).

"Darwin abandoned Christianity in the two years after his return to England....In part this was caused....by his discovery of the invalidity of the argument from design" (Mayr, Growth of Biological Thought 1982:402).

1879, Darwin responded to an inquiry about his religious views and said: "For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation" (F. Darwin 1905:277).

DARWIN: "Love of the deity effect of organization, oh you materialist!...Why is thought being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity a property of matter?" (Darwin quote from notebook C, written March to June 1838, Browne, Voyaging 1995:373).

In the M notebook (completed in October 1838, Browne 1995:373) Darwin remarks: "To avoid stating how far, I believe, in Materialism...."

In addition, we know that Darwin, after returning home from the Beagle voyage, that is, the years 1836-1839, based on notebook writings had become a [sic] ""materialist" (more or less equivalent to an atheist" (Mayr, One Long Argument 1991:75).

CLAIM: DAVE SOUZA: A source is need for what seems to be your untrue claim that "In 1838 he admitted to being a Materialist (atheist)"

"....your interpretation which is not shared by reputable biographers such as Desmond and Moore."

REPLY: In addition to what is evidenced above, Gould, Ever Since Darwin, (1977:21-27) plainly unfolds Darwin's heretical Materialism with no euphemisms employed. Come on guys....I have only quoted popular scholars....sources that anyone can access.

Context: pre-1839; Desmond & Moore (1991:XVIII): "Clergymen from molluscs! How had he [Darwin] arrived at such damning beliefs? And this was not the worst part. He embraced a terrifying materialism. Only months before he had concluded in his covert notebooks that the human mind, morality, and even belief in God were artefacts of the brain" Then Desmond & Moore quote Darwin's "Love of deity" quote already written above. I could go on and on and on....

I have no intention of editing the page as I would never attach my name to your public grab box. Your lack of confidence in your own worldview and its scientific support tells us everything that we need to know.

Ray Martinez 8-15-06

Don't feed the trolls. JPotter 21:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"This type of contributor (anonymous, subjective) ignores what I previously wrote (as did the others) and Darwin's undisputed atheistic paradigm"—Ray, what's your problem? Did I piss in your Cheerios? I tried to reply in a meaningful and polite fashion, and you instead respond with nothing but a caustic reply. It makes it really unlikely that anyone is going to want to take you seriously when you can't converse about a simple subject like this without being nasty. It makes me feel like you're wasting our time and your own. If you want to participate, and be taken seriously, consider being a little more congenial. At the moment you resemble a troll with the same sort of internet decorum as a Creationist.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering but here's a few points, numbered to make any nasty responses of yours easier:

1. No one has stated that Darwin was whole-heartedly Christian before the 1850s. In fact much the opposite. What we have been saying has been following the lines of the biographers, i.e. Moore and Desmond's Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist: "Annie's cruel death destroyed Charles's tatters of belief in a moral, just universe. Later he woudl say that this period chimed the final death-knell for his Christianity, even if it had been a long, drawn-out process of decay."

2. You seem to be quite happy to confuse account of Darwinism based off of his published version of Origin with applying to all of Darwin's life unequivocally. This is pretty unsound methodology. No one denies that Darwin's Origin was radical and pushed the view of a biological universe which did not require a Creator. This is plainly true and the article states as much. The question you have been raising has been when Darwin fully lost faith, and an evolutionary tree in a notebook does not indicate that.

3. Your argument based on the "40 years of age" bit is tenuous hair-splitting. You're right, Darwin was over 40 when Annie died. He was 42. That's a difference worth making a fuss over? It's a statement that certainly doesn't support your other assertions, in any case.

4. You seem to be putting quite a lot of weight on your own idiosyncratic definition of "Materialism." Lyell was a materialist, but he was no atheist. Ditto with Descartes, the original materialist. If you read it in the very limited Marxist sense, yes, it can by synonymous with atheist, but there is no reason to read it in that sense with Darwin in the slightest. You seem to see no difference between the idea that Darwin thought that not everything on the earth was created in one great act of special creation and him suddenly being an atheist. This is quite silly, as Darwin's brand of materialism was not totally incompatible with theism, as many authors have pointed out.

5. If you want to be persuasive, find unambiguous discussions in Browne or Demond and Moore (Gould and Mayr are not good representatives of Darwin's actual thought, as any historian today knows. Evolutionary biologists make poor historians of evolution). One book on the subject which treats Darwin's religious beliefs in a very sensitive and historical sense is Frank Burch Brown's The Evolution of Darwin's Religious Views, which concludes, in essence, that his theism had many ups and downs, and certainly persisted to some degree even into the 1860s. This is not to say he was religious, much less Christian, as someone with a more subtle understanding of the varieties of religious belief would understand.

You seem to see religious belief as a black-or-white, yes-or-no affair. In my experience this is only true with people on any of the edges—the die-hard fundamentalists and the die-hard atheists, bedfellows in polarization. I don't know which end of this spectrum you're on, but it's clear you are using your own definitions of various terms when thinking about how other people use them. This is not how historians approach actors in the past, however. --Fastfission 01:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Fast:

Your commentary is subjective nonsense caused by the inability to refute. All of my claims are supported.

Onlookers: Simply compare what I wrote with source cites and then read others that have virtually none = the Wikipedia way.

Fast: You may have the last word. Your reverse Fundamentalism cannot be penetrated with evidence.

Ray Martinez 8-15-06

Listen Sunshine, cobbling facts together to make your case without showing a reliable source for that synthesis is original research and not acceptable in Wikipedia. As a handy source to add to the books FF has recommended, try this ..dave souza, talk 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Dave:

I honestly never expected you to defend sourceless subjectivity. But like you said, this is Wikipedia. At least you are consistent. My hat is tipped.

Ray

Opening Paragraph

The paragraph is clear but lacks the drastic scope of Darwin's influence and does fully adress his contribution to human civilization. Do you people realize that without Darwin science may have still been shackled by the ideas of creationism? Not only that but his rejection of the fundamental thinking of human origins was the precursor of almost all modern thought. Ask any scientist, scholar and historian and it is DARWIN who is at the cornerstone of all modern science. Without evolution or the ideas he progressed genetics, paleontology, astronomy, and nearly every other scientific pursuit would still be stuck in the 18th century. That's without even taking into effect the ideas of evolution that lead to the future movements of existentialism and other modern movemets in philosophy and art. His contribution to our understanding of the relationship between all living things not only forever changed science but human civilization itself, and the way humans view our place in the world.

REPEAT: HIS IDEAS CHANGED HUMAN CIVILIZATION! R.E.S.P.E.C.T!

talk 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• No offense is meant but I think you overstate things a bit, and are attributing a lot to Darwin that did not originate with Darwin himself at all (in many ways he was just a catalyst for changes in the relationship between science and society in the late 19th century). I think the more sober approach is more within the realm of our neutral point of view policy as well. I don't quite think that Charles Darwin the individual had quite the effect you are attributing to him on "modern science"—the history of the development of and effects of evolutionary thinking is much more complicated than that from a causal point of view, and while no one wants to undercut Darwin in any way (his work certainly did have many strong effects, as the article discusses), I think those changes went a bit too far. Darwin himself did not live in a bubble—many of the big themes you discuss about science and the way humanity views itself are changes which had been happening over the course of the 19th century, of which Darwin was a notable recipient and re-formulator. --Fastfission 12:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said for Einstein and yet his wiki does him justice and properly address his contribution to the 20th century. Darwin deserves as much. His ideas are more than JUST the cornerstone of biology which they undoubatley are. They have contributed to a fuller understanding of humanity and our place in the world. Could Palentology, anthropolgy etc exist without the idea of evolution put forth in Orgin of Species?

talk 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything close to that sort of hyperbole on the Einstein page. All it says is that he is "widely regarded as the most important scientist of the 20th century and one of the greatest physicists of all time." This is something which is in principle sourceable and attributable, a statement about how someone is regarded by others. In contrast your statements about Darwin attribute a direct causal relationship between Darwin's theories and many very vast social changes. I don't think the hyperbolistic claims are warranted, for one thing, and I don't think they make for a good intro anyway, for another. It is one thing to say that someone came up with a scientific theory on their own (even that is problematic); it is another to say that they single-handedly "changed human civilization," which is going way overboard. --Fastfission 22:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't disagree more fully and don't think you're fully grasping the scope of impact "Origin of Species" had. Let me repeat, Darwin is one of the most influential scientists ever, certainly of the last two centuries. His ideas set forth in "Origin of the Species" affected almost every aspect of society. The acceptance of Darwin's theories undermined religious faith in much of the Western world, profoundly affecting literature, art, and society. Easily accepting the profound influence in biology, anthropology, and sociology, his works "Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals," as well as his article, "A biographical sketch of an infant" had a direct effect on American Functionalism, and without functionalism, it is doubtful there would have been a behavioral psychology. Not to forget the impact of "Social Darwinism" on Ruthless Laissez Faire Capitalism. Furthermore, his concept of slow-acting population dynamics, the most important part of his theories, has been applied by scientists such as Edelman and Burnet to other fields.

If you want so-called "principle sources" that attribute "The Origin of Species" and the theory of evolution in particular as one of histories most influential ideas ever, that's easy. Ever heard of James D. Watson, the Nobel laureate and pioneer who discovered the thing we call genes? I suggest you watch this interview with fellow scientist and Harvard professor, Edward Osborne Wilson http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6927851714963534233 in which they agree that Darwin's book, "The Origin of the Species," was the first work to explain nature and man's place in the universe. Basically calling it "easily the most important work of the last two centuries"

David Quammen in his book ORIGINS OF A RELUCTANT GENIUS says: "The ideas he espoused in "The Origin of Species" in 1859 were "profoundly original, and dangerous, and thrilling," Quammen writes, making "Origin" not only one of the most important books about science in the last several centuries, but one of the most important books - period."

And Professor Ellwood in his book THE INFLUENCE OF DARWIN ON SOCIOLOGY, says: "When one reflects upon the immense influence which Darwin's work has had on practically all lines of human thought, and especially on the biological, psychological, and social sciences, one is forced to conclude that Fiske's estimate must be revised, and that Darwin must be given the seat of highest honor as the most fructifying thinker which the nineteenth century produced, not only in England, but in the whole world. And the social significance of Darwin's teachings is even yet only beginning to be apprehended."

ERNST MAYR is one of the towering figures in the history of evolutionary biology and he said "Darwin's accomplishments were so many and so diverse that it is useful to distinguish three fields to which he made major contributions: evolutionary biology; the philosophy of science; and the modern (thought)zeitgeist." For more on Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought: http://www.biologie.uni-hamburg.de/b-online/e36_2/darwin_influence.htm

Newsweek calls "Origin of Species" the MOST influential book ever published: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10118787/site/newsweek/

If you want to do some reading, I recommend just to see how MANY other fields Darwin penetrated then try any of these:

"Influence of Darwin on Philosophy and Other Essays" (by John Dewey)

"Darwin's influence on Freud : a Tale of Two Sciences" (by Lucille B Ritvo)

I think a new opening is needed to address his wide influence and give him is proper respect like the Einstein, Newton pages. talk 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention his work on barnacles and earthworms :) . Jefffire 09:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if your comment was meant seriously, but in my case--quite seriously--I have been meaning to add sections on these works since I saw the page. DGG 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Social Darwinism" existed before Darwinism did, just as one little example of the historical difficulties we're talking about here. Mayr, Wilson, and Watson are of course good biologists but neither were good social historians. I'm not sure whether Darwin's influence on Freud really establishes what you are trying to assert, though it is true he influenced Freud at a lot. Again, I'm not trying to say that Darwin didn't have an influence. Indeed our article very carefully outlines what the influence was. But to be hyperbolistic about his influence and its history is the wrong approach. I think out entry certainly gives him "proper respect" like the Einstein and Newton pages, both of which are pretty sedate compared to the changes you are recommending. If you are truly interested in Darwin's influence as a historical fact and not as simply a mythos, I recommend sticking to books written by historians and not geneticists. Browne's Power of Place is an excellent read and very carefully shows exactly in which ways Darwin was a man of his (changing) times, the ways in which he was actually behind the times, and the ways in which his work proved an opportunity by others to push other agendas which are now attributed to Darwin but had little origin in him. In any case, nobody is arguing against influence of Darwin—just against hyperbolistic, hagiographic, and ultimately empty descriptions of it. If you wanted to contribute along these lines, I recommend starting NOT by trying to re-write the intro, but maybe adding a few sentences to the "legacy" section, and see where we can go from there. --Fastfission 12:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you want to know his work, read his books.;) I usually recommend starting with

Descent of Man. "Origin" starts out very slowly, & "Voyage is best after you already know the later signif. of the trip to him. DGG 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I much prefer Desmond and Moore biography, but regardless, if you think Darwin was "behind the times" as you say then I feel like we're never possibly going to be on the same page. Regardless, I feel like I've cited so-called "principle sources"(Nobel laureate) so how about I just make some suggestions to rewording the intro so that it FULLY represents Darwin's scope and influence in ALL fields and get users feedback:

As reference Newton's wiki intro states: "...is generally regarded as one of the greatest scientists and mathematicians in history."

Einstein's wiki intro: "...widely regarded as the most important scientist of the 20th century and one of the greatest physicists of all time."

Shakespears' wiki intro: "... playwright widely regarded as the greatest writer of the English language, as well as one of the greatest in Western literature, and the world's pre-eminent dramatist."

How about(bold are changes):

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist who is widely regarded as one of the most influential scientific thinkers of the 19th Century. His ideas about the history and diversity of life - including the evolutionary origin of humankind--contributed to major changes in the sciences, philosophy, social thought and religious belief. His work successfully produced considerable evidence that species originated through evolutionary change, at the same time proposing the scientific theory that natural selection is the mechanism by which such change occurs. This theory is now considered a cornerstone of modern science. His contribution to our understanding of the relationship between all living things has forever changed the way scientists and human civilization itself, views our place in the world

So unless you're saying every-other wiki article needs to be changed to accommodate "hagiography" then we're in for a long haul. talk 07:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Darwin was so much a part of the modern world that it isn't easy to separate out the strands. It's like the influence of Aristotle on philosophy. To start wiith, you do not mean Darwin, you mean Darwin's works, as read and interpreted at the time, and since, and the subsequent effect of the interpretations, and so on.DGG 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

human civilization itself, views our place

? views ?

Jclerman 11:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

considered a cornerstone

quotation needed for an opinion

Jclerman 11:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

for general terms of placement like these, although you can always find a quote, it really doesn't matter. It's meant as a rough starting point, and it really says: "for details see below. He's worth reading about." DGG 07:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I just did a whatlinkshere on our article on nazis

Why did it send me here? to this talk page?--64.12.116.68 14:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Because there's a link here on this talk page that links there. Is that confusing in some way? - Nunh-huh 14:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Try using the "find" feature of your browser to search for the word "Nazism" and you'll see where it is on the page. --Fastfission 16:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Social Darwinism

This section was removed by Jrmccall (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC) with the comment Removed irrelevant -- and redundant -- section; added ref to - →See Also. There's an argument for saying it's off topic, but on the other hand a brief summary section here makes it clear for people who don't know that. Comments? ..dave souza, talk 20:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think it is useful, in particular because it is one of the things people most often associated with Darwin. It is worth noting that the term came long after Darwin and applied to ideas which existed before Darwin himself, and that Darwin wasn't much of a Social Darwinist. But if you are going to scrap the Social Darwinism section you ought to scratch the Eugenics section too; it is in the same boat. --Fastfission 20:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(Wow! This is an active page...) Social Darwinism is certainly interesting, but it has a prodigious page all its own. Shouldn't we be trying to streamline things? One of the problems with having the same thing, more or less, in two places, is that (should anyone ever do any) citing of authorities is made clumsier — as the reference, too, has to be reproduced in both spots... I personally feel we should write less and cite more — especially in a dangerous area like this, where a person's politics can sometimes trump his/her scholarship. And yes, Eugenics should certainly go. Remember, this is basically a biography of Charles Darwin, rather than a potpourri of topics suggested by his work. — Jrmccall 22:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Having had another look at the two sections, I think they do a pretty good job of briefly covering the points relating to Darwin and his reputation while referring to the main articles for other aspects and references: note that in Wikipedia:Summary style#Citations and external links it's not appropriate to cite authorities in a paragraph summarising aspects of a detailed main article. As you'll have noticed, this is the main article about Darwin with links to articles covering his detailed biography, and as a main article should outline significant points. There's a case for changing the Main article links to the Detai template, giving For more details on this topic, see. Any objections to that change? ...dave souza, talk 18:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken infobox...

The infobox seems to be broken (see birth and death dates). I don't know how to fix it, will someone else please? Shot... Mikker ^(...) 00:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you tried this, but to get at templates edit the article (or any section) and scroll down to the bottom under the edit summary and save page buttons etc, and links to the templates are listed under "Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page:". Clicking on the link brings up the template which can be edited, and has its talk page: Template talk:Infobox Biography#Broken? shows that a few others reported the problem about the same time as you, but it looks ok now (on Safari). ...dave souza, talk 06:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Charles Darwin

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 18:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Handedness?

It's a minor point to most, but I'm personally interested in the relationship between neurological characteristics and genius, and I would like to know if there is evidence of the handedness of Darwin (left, right, ambidextrous), and if so what is that evidence.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.133.226 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 21 October 2006

Well, he's often included on lists of left-handed writers. Whether that's accurate, and on the basis of what evidence, I can't say. - Nunh-huh 21:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationality

I'm changing his nationality in the side bar to British, since it's more accurate. I don't think English is an official nationality and the flag beside it is the union jack; the flag of the United Kingdom. Ironcorona 01:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the point made by Ironcorona, British is more accurate as he spent significant time in Scotland, too, avoiding studying medicine and collecting barnacles instead. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Get to it

While the current feature is very in-depth and I admire the research and writing invested, I think it could be greatly enhanced if it were structured a bit differently. In its current form, this feature seems to be written more for scholars than the average person. Wikipedia is for EVERYONE, right? Personally, I'd like to see this feature follow a more accessible format that distinguishes between, e.g., "In a Nutshell" (summary) and "in-depth notes for scholars" (details for those who want them).

In other words, not everyone wants to sift through every aspect of the Darwin's life to get the essential stuff. Often times people access Wikipedia for a very quick "primer." In its current form, this feature is not conducive to that type of accessibility and efficient access. Seems to me the first couple paragraphs of the feature should read something like this (some info paraphrased from lucidcafe.com):

In a Nutshell

Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809 in Shrewsbury, England. He was a British naturalist who became famous for his theories of evolution and natural selection. Like several scientists before him, Darwin believed all the life on earth evolved (developed gradually) over millions of years from a few common ancestors. Darwin is credited for these theories: 1) evolution did occur; 2) evolutionary change was gradual, requiring thousands to millions of years; 3) the primary mechanism for evolution was a process called natural selection; and 4) the millions of species alive today arose from a single original life form through a branching process called "speciation."

Furthermore, Darwin's "theory of evolutionary" selection holds that variation within species occurs randomly and that the survival or extinction of each organism is determined by that organism's ability to adapt to its environment. He set these theories forth in his book called, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) or "The Origin of Species" for short. After publication of Origin of Species, Darwin continued to write on botany, geology, and zoology until his death in 1882. He is buried in Westminster Abbey."

In Depth

Blah blah blah blah blah

I would like to know what others think of this format.

Mark

The format is what we have already, in accordance with WP:LEAD. The proposed content is less accurate and informative than the present lead. ...dave souza, talk 22:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

FRS

I've removed "was made a Fellow of the Royal Society," from the lead as it was positioned to imply that this followed from publication of The Origin. Desmond and Moore note that Darwin was elected FRS on 24 January 1839, long before he revealed his thoughts about transmutation. ...dave souza, talk 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotect Requested

With the levels of vandalism directed at this article, I've requested semiprotection. CMacMillan 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)