Logicus to Guettarda: Surely you are wrong yet again Guettarda, because the current article demonstrably gives an answer to this question, thus bringing that question firmly and even centrally within its scope. For the article clearly makes claims on the ‘’dating’’ and also ostensibly on the ‘’rationale’’ of the alleged Darwinian revolution. Thus it brings such issues as the rationality and rationale of scientific revolutions and the nature of scientific method very firmly and centrally within its scope, as indeed all histories of science do. For on the one hand it claims the theory that evolution is mainly caused by natural selection was not widely accepted until the 1930s (dating), but on the other hand also claims that Darwin presented compelling evidence for that theory (rationale). The remaining mystery this POV Wikipedia history of science therefore raises for any evidential theory of the logic of scientific revolutions and scientific method such as Wikipedia presents elsewhere in its articles is why it took at least some 80 years for Darwin’s theory to be widely accepted if the evidence Darwin presented for it was indeed compelling.  

 In conclusion, if questions like this really are outside the scope of this article as you and your Wiki pals may undemocratically elect to define the scope of Wiki history of science articles, then the article must surely relinquish (i.e. delete) making any claims on the dating and rationale of that alleged revolution as it currently does in order to achieve a NPOV on such issues. 

 This is of course exactly what my original proposed edit of the first sentence at was designed to achieve. But it was reverted by Souza in an apparent act of Tendentious editing that satisfies the following Wiki criterion of such: 

 ::You delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first. 

 :::There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[1] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.