Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 4

message: 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)
thread_title:  Descent with modification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  RECENT CHANGES 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opening sentence - Sexual selection 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Religious views 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: C. Darwin, F. Dawrwin Plant Auxin Research

message: 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)
thread_title: Sub-pages

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It still is, fwiw: Blasphemy law in the United Kingdom. 66.92.237.111 20:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed "Vandalism" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Very Nice Article

message: 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)
replies: text:  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.  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  social darwinism (once and for all) 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  ah, ok... that makes sense. Never mind then, let's leave it be Mikkerpikker 10:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links in Works 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Theory vs Fact 

message: 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)
thread_title: Historical Context

message: 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)
thread_title:  FA? 

message: How about replacing the first image (:Image:Charles_Darwin_1881.jpg) with :Image:Charles Darwin by Julia Margaret Cameron.jpg from commons? Reasons:
#It's prettier :)
#It has more color
#Darwin doesn't look so old and weak
#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)
replies: text: great, thanks! Will you/have you uploaded it? Mikkerpikker ... 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just uploaded it right over the other file, since it was the same image. --Fastfission 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New image suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Can't you use tutoring instead? Jclerman 21:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Tuition

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  OCD cat 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802)  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed, which is why Hitler was never a vegetarian either. NTK 00:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vegetarian? No. 

message: 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. --darkliighttalk 11:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was reverted because it streched a low-res image, causing pixelation. Jefffire 11:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Charles Darwin School in Biggin Hill

message: 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)
replies: text: Ta. ...dave souza, talk 13:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for correcting this so quickly. Eadp 15:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: URL correction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where is the Pro/Con section? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just food for thought 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wording question?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Burial Site of William Herschel 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fine with me. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ta, ..dave souza, talk 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footers?

message: 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)
thread_title: Hart's list

message: 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)
thread_title:  Something More.... 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  repeated images, why? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Looks like it was removed? plange 05:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph

message: ? views ? 
Jclerman 11:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  human civilization itself, views our place 

message: quotation needed for an opinion
Jclerman 11:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  considered a cornerstone  

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  I just did a whatlinkshere on our article on nazis 

message: This section was removed by Jrmccall (talk • contribs) 20:37, 29 September 2006  (UTC)</small> 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title: Social Darwinism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Broken infobox... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Charles Darwin]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Handedness? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Get to it 

message: 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)
thread_title: FRS

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