Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 6

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

message: How about a crop of this: ? It's non-satanic-looking, and just slightly after Origin. Adam Cuerden talk 14:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that my wording is somehow being mocked, but I think people must admit the current photo is much better.  Thanks for all the work on the picture Adam.  WLU 15:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely no intention to mock your wording, but unfortunately "at age 51" is rather inappropriately USian. I've tried rephrasing it in a way that gives a coherent sentence for those unable to see the picture, which by the way looks fine to me. .. dave souza, talk 17:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Good work done by Photoshop Elements' wee scaling algorithm, glad it succeeded. .. dave souza, talk 23:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new opening picture 

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

text: Take the point about the Darwin Online bibliography, though it's perhaps a bit complex for easy reference. It would certainly be linked and used as a source. There are plenty of other lists in :Category:Bibliographies by author. .. dave souza, talk 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since we can link to the Wiki articles on them, a list of his works is appropriate as a seperate page at the least. For convenience, we can add links directly as well. Adam Cuerden talk 13:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a violation of NOT in this instance; as Dave points out there are many bibliographies. It is an issue of article size; and this article is too long. All of his major works are already mentioned by name in the text, and in the infobox. Removing the works makes the page 4kb shorter and a screen shorter for anyone who was printing the article. --Peta 03:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And list only the books, removing references to articles/letters/etc?  That makes sense.  Also, the Darwin Online link is in the article twice - once in works, once in external links. Is this on purpose? WLU 12:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Darwin" infobox at the foot of the page already contains a list of the main works – any books with articles about them can be added there, as I've done with the Movement of Plants, Autobiography and Correspondence. The joint publication with Wallace of On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection appeared under two different halves of that title, so I've made both show the full title, and in the Works list  I've added the title used for Darwin's section, Extract from an unpublished Work on Species. .. dave souza, talk 16:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Works

message: I just wanted to comment that some dumbass put "Journey on the Bagel: did it taste good?" Could somebody please take that off (including the dumbass line he added)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.110.254 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2007 
:Looks like it's been reverted; this article gets a lot of vandalism, so stuff like that doesn't go unnoticed too long. Opabinia regalis 05:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

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

message: I'm re-posting this from further up the page. I've left my original entry as it was as it had been responded to, and I'm unsure of the etiquette surrounding the deletion of other people's comments. Anyway:
:Re: the opening sentence:
:Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an eminent English naturalist[I] who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community that species develop over time from a common origin.
:This formulation strikes me as incredibly awkward and stilted, maybe worse. It makes it sound like Darwin pulled some kind of confidence trick on the scientific community. Also, given the initial failure of natural selection (rather than evolution per se) to win many scientific converts, it's somewhat inaccurate.
I can see how this formulation arose, and perhaps in such an open forum as Wikipedia any accurate treatment of Darwin's contribution stands to be dismissed as POV by some people; but really, this should mention natural selection or evolution. How many entries on scientists start by stating what they're famous for, not what they actually did.
I don't have enough faith in the elegance or economy of my prose to alter this myself, but I was hoping to draw the line to attention of someone who could improve it. Jamrifis 11:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening sentence

message: My comment applies to many Wiki pages other than the this one.  I believe that images, even those whose copyrights have expired, should be credited to their creators, and should not be edited or cropped.  I am an amateur portrait painter and an avid admirer of realistic portraiture.  It seems to me contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia that images of photographs and paintings are routinely displayed without credit to the artist, often having been edited by another hand.  There is a fine full length oil portrait of Charles Darwin by John Collier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Collier_(artist) (Google for "Darwin John Collier".) I presume it passes the copyright tests, because it was painted in the 1880's. I suggest that a complete image of that painting be put at the top of this section.  Jive Dadson 05:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do assume that a digital copy of the original is available to editors. You are right that artists, when known, should be acknowedged. Of course you are as capable as anyone else of doing that edit, probably more so in that you seem to have a good knowledge of the artists concerned. --Michael Johnson 05:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never uploaded and linked an image. I guess I'm a little lazy.  I can find several jpgs of the painting on the web. Is any faithful jpg of a painting done in the 1880's fair game? Jive Dadson 07:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't uploaded a picture until recently, and found it quite easy. There are instructions, and it is easier (and better) to load it into WikiCommons. Go to the help section - it is all there. As for what particular image is acceptable, I'm no expert on copyright law, sorry. Once again there is infomation in the help section on this. --Michael Johnson 00:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An accurate photograph of a 2-dimensional work adds no creative information to the original work, so the copyright of the original applies. So there's absolutely no problem for an 1880 painting. (For the curious, this was pretty well cemented in U.S. law in the Bridgeman v. Corel decision.) - Nunh-huh 01:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image attribution and editing 

message: :The following section was added in several edits up to 11:35, 17 February 2007 by 151.30.132.232 – it seems a worthy contribution in principle, but rather extended for this article. Should there be a brief mention of this point at a suitable place in the article?  It must also be questioned to what extent he was a forerunner of modern ideas of breeding – this had been underway for some time, and Darwin took his ideas from breeders such as Yarrell and the pigeon fanciers. .. dave souza, talk 11:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And not only Plants & Animals. His works on botany are mentioned in the article, barely, however I understand the book on Coral Reefs is still regarded as a standard text but not mentioned at all. The Journal was also a best seller at the time, setting Darwin up for his subsequent career. Evolution, quite naturally, crowds out much of the rest of Darwins career. However even if "Origin" had never been written he would still have been noted as a biologst of importance. How you fit that into the article I have no idea. --Michael Johnson 13:50, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would probably work well to move the list of works to a separate article, as discussed above, and incorporate brief mentions of the most significant at appropriate places in the biography. Will try to tackle it sometime soonish, but rather bogged down in other articles at the moment. .. dave souza, talk 18:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phase 1 complete, will try to amend biography when possible. .. dave souza, talk 21:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's all the main books given a mention, Apart from  van Wyhe suggesting Variation didn't sell very well, haven't found much to say about it: the best thing would be for someone to produce a well sourced, if brief, Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication article. In the Works section the statement "even without publication of his works on evolution would have had a considerable reputation as..." hopefully covers Michael's request. ... dave souza, talk 21:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A.S., it would help if you registered and signed on. No-one is suppressing your edit. However there are restraints on the length of this article. It has been suggested that a new article on the book be started, and you could contribute to that. --Michael Johnson 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, if A. S. stands for Antonio Saltini, you should take careful note of the requirements of Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing yourself. It would be good to find other opinions on the work from more widely recognised biographers... dave souza, talk 11:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The variation of domestic plants and animals

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

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

message: * I added this section.  This was not meant to include every suggestion of Darwin in fiction but only those of major importance.  I believe Irving Stone's excellent biographical novel qualifies. User:Sweetmoose6 (06:21, 10 March 2007)
::Thanks for the info, I've incorporated it into "Commemoration" to include it without giving it undue significance. While the novel is no doubt excellent, it appears from Amazon to be out of print, and have had limited success – see also fantasticfiction .. dave souza, talk 09:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Darwin in fiction

message: I see the citation section is too long, so I use the template  instead to separate it into 2 columns (like the instruction). Why don't I see any effect? Can anyone explain to me? Apple••w••o••r••m•• 16:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, it's not working anywhere at the moment. It's not working on another page I edit, Classes in World of Warcraft. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 18:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see two columns in both. Apple, your change actually moved from 3 to 2 columns (making it longer), but your comment sounds like you saw only one. The column feature, as far as I understand, works only in Mozilla-based browsers, and definitely not in IE. For the time being, I'll put it back to 3. Opabinia regalis 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh is that what it is? I usually use FF, but am on IE as I'm on another computer... weird. Sigh, IE is so rubbish. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  says columns require CSS3, which IE doesn't even try to do as far as I know. I also have a slightly old version of Firefox on another computer that can't do columns either, so it seems like a fairly recent thing. Opabinia regalis 02:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone explain to me the difference between citations and references? I see many of the citation links lead to the reference links. For example, a lot of citations are from Desmond and Moore 1991. Why shouldn't we merge them to guide the readers to one general reference, rather than concretely pointing out the pages? Also, when should we put a footnote to citations or references?  Apple••w••o••r••m•• 16:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation list 

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

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

message: I added the worm image mext to the charicature.Should I move it lower and make it bigger so the text isn't so narrow? I personally think it looks fine.Meson man 22:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice image, it dates from December 1881 judging by this google search so would have been published about four months before Darwin's death, at the end of the year in which he published The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms which may just have influenced the title ;) Logically, it goes in the last section on Darwin's life. .. dave souza, talk 12:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Worm image

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

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

message: It would be best to remove the semi-protection before the article is featured tomorrow. It should only be restored if there are excessive levels of anonymous vandalism. Otherwise, we should let the world and its aunt try and improve this article (which, I hasten to add, is very good). Carcharoth 09:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This type of article will get a lot of vandalism.  Of course, a lot of people are going to take the links to a number of the Evolution articles and do the same.Orangemarlin 00:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love how people think that posting contrary, documented facts is "vandalism." Hysterical! You libs!!! Ymous 15:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" -Stephen Colbert ... --Xer0 19:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection needs removing before tomorrow 

message: Dave and Adam, someone will have to revert or upload the following images (because we cannot protect them on Commons) and then protect them before tomorrow, to avoid inanities:
*:Image:HMS Beagle by Conrad Martens.jpg
*:Image:Voyage of the Beagle.jpg
*:Image:Emma Darwin.jpg
*:Image:Charles Darwin aged 51.jpg
*:Image:Darwin ape.jpg
*:Image:Charles Darwin by Julia Margaret Cameron.jpg
*:Image:Man is But a Worm.jpg
*:Image:Charles and William Darwin.jpg
*:Image:Charles Darwin 1880.jpg
*:Image:Charles Darwin 1881.jpg
I've protected all the templates and local images already, so only the above remain to be done. Is somebody going to be around to lift protection on this article at midnight? We should probably keep it until then.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's the Martens pic done and I'll continue with the others – please let me know of any blunders. Will lift protection before midnight BST, one hour before UTC, unless someone has a better idea. Thanks for the help, .. dave souza, talk 16:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upload and protect 

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

message: Shouldn't there be a mention of World War II? Darwinism was the entire basis for Nazism, and in turn, the cause of the war. Last I checked, WWII was a major event in the history of the world.
:Hi 71.80.2.218 (1) You can get a username, so we can discuss this. (2) It is customary to sign your posts (4 X "~" at the end), so all will know who to talk to. Now, per your question: social Darwinism (and eugenics) are mentioned in the article but they are really peripheral to Darwin's works. Darwin did not "invent" these ideas - they grew out later as misinterpretations and misapplications of natural selection and  mendelian genetics. Also, if eugenics is to be mentioned, the sterilisation of "less desirable" individuals in the UK, the US, Canada and many other countries as well as the Third Reich would have to be mentioned. Not really within the scope of this article. If you wish to contact me, you can do so here, or on my talk page.  Esseh 04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and Darwinism was not the entire basis for Nazism. Eugenics, taken to its extremes, was merely one aspect of Nazism.  Esseh 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: And neither was Darwinism the cause of the war. If unconvinced, you can always go ahead and try to have the statement "the cause of WWII was Darwinism" incorporated into the WWII article. Naphra 05:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Mis-portrayal of Darwin as a Racist. The Nazis had ideas of "racial degeneration" based on De Gobineau's pre-Darwinian writings, which went completely contrary to Darwin's ideas as he was convinced that hybridisation improved organisms and inbreeding was a bad thing. .... dave souza, talk 06:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I cut a couple of links from FitzRoy and Herchal as they had already been linked earlier in the article. I think this is the correct interpretation of Wiki policy, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'm pretty sure there are several more examples of this in the article which other Eds might keep an eye out for. Epeeist smudge 10:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been my practice to re-link important names when they first appear in a new section, so that a reader going straight to that section isn't puzzled: will have a look at guidelines in the fullness of time. .. dave souza, talk 10:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK I have just had another look at the policy- not as clear cut as i thought, but lots of other examples, England, Cambridge etc. which really don't need repeating and in general the article looks rather overlinked to me. Realise you are a busy man today, but a judicious look at some time in the future might help. Epeeist smudge 10:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to link again later in the article. As a rule of thumb, if you have to scan the article looking for the previous link, then the reader will as well, so the later instance should be linked. Resetting the "already linked" meter when a new section starts is also a good rule to follow. Wikipedia guidelines are often just wrong, so if the article's readability is improved by linking again WP:IAR applies. Carcharoth 10:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is, in fact common practice to re-wikilink later in the article if the previous link is some way up. As a rule of thumb, if the same link appears more than once in one section, the later appearances should be unlinked. If it's in a different section, it depends on the distance between the two occurrences whether repeat links are acceptable. HTH, Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: A truly brilliant article.  Congratulations on well-deserved FA status.  Lexo 11:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to second that! Amazing work, especially considering the nonsense you must wade through to get this done. I don't think I'd have the patience for it. Freshacconci 12:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a great collaborative effort, and the work of everyone on it is much appreciated. Thanks to all, .. dave souza, talk 15:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to add my appreciation of this article as well; truly excellent work, a model of Wikipedia at its best. Joe King 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (in reply to a comment that was removed) You do know that censoring is allowed in private websites. You need to read up on the Bill of Rights, this is not a public forum. 128.227.57.24 16:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, so my post was censored by an anoymous, unregistered user. Wikipedia is not a private website. Well as I was saying, I think the entire article and theory is garbage. Oh, am I not allow to comment because I"m not following the left wing company line? Ymous 20:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: No mention of Darwin's statement that the human eye mde him doubt his own theory.  Aparently he thought a great, geat deal of the complexity of the eye. 
Should be included.
Zantaggerung 15:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no mention of it because it's a canard. The eye never caused Darwin to doubt his theory; he provides an example of the eye in The Origin of Species to show that even something that seems amazingly complex could still have developed by incremental steps from simpler structures. -Silence 17:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's an creationist or ID (intelligent design) red herring, and commonly used by them. Esseh 06:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it's a good point, Zantaggerung, but this article is perma-protected by those who livelihoods are supported by spreading unfounded scientific myths. We can't have anyone spreading any facts or differentiating opinions here. Ymous 20:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I make no comment as to the scientific veracity of evolution.  However, what we are dealing with is an element of biographical fact and not of science.  It should be easy enough for you to go check The Origin of Species and verify that, in fact, Darwin does bring up the eye as a potential objection to the theory AND THEN he then carefully argues why the eye does not invalidate evolution by natural selection (see Chapter VI, the section Organs of extreme perfection and complication.)  Note that this is much in line with Darwin's point-counterpoint style of writing.  Silly rabbit 20:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: eye

message: In the introductory paragraph, I recommend changing: "that all species have evolved over time from a few forms..." to "that all species have descended, with modification, over time from a few forms...". I believe this is more in line with Darwin's writings. Furthermore, it helps remove some of the implications in the word "evolve" i.e. progress towards complexity.
Thank-you for your consideration.
Ajhouse 16:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's a very good point. As you'll know, evolution should not imply progress, though that's a common  misunderstanding, and he avoided the term evolution in the first issue of The Origin, though his closing words are "from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."  My aim to to carefully review the intro in a few days time, and that's a point to take into consideration. .. dave souza, talk 16:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we know. This is all discussed above. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops, sorry. Misread. My bad. Naphra 17:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  change "evolved" to "descended, with modification," 

message: There seems to be a deliberate error placed on this page by a prankster. Although the HTML seems correct, the actual text reads as follows:
His 1859 book On the Origin of Species established evolution by common descent as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. He examined human evolution and sexual selection in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, followed by The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. His research on plants was published in a series of books, and in his final book, he examined earthworms and their effect on soil.[6]
In recognition of Darwin's pre-eminence, he was buried in My mom's pants, close to John Lennon and Aaron Carter.[7]
Viewed at 19th Apr 2007, at 18:29GMT
Clearly this is a joke, and someone more technically savvy than me needs to investigate it.
89.243.93.86 17:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No longer there, if it ever was. TimVickers 19:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prankster 

message: In the introductory paragraph it states that Darwin "proposed and provided evidence for the scientific theory that all species have evolved over time from a few forms."  This is misleading, because while evolution is now an accepted theory, when he proposed it, it was just a hypothesis. A theory is a scientific explanation which has been repeatedly tested and throughly vetted and has become widely accepted by the scientific community. The opening paragraph, as it is currently phrased, implies that evolution became a theory just by virtue of the fact that Darwin proposed it. That is not the way that these things work. I would change the paragraph to state that Darwin "proposed and provided evidence for the hypothesis that all species have evolved over time from a few forms.  His hypothesis, with some modifications, has now been accepted a theory by the scientific community." Kmorford 17:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hypothesis is typical 20th century usage. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the current sentence implies that his theory was a theory before it had even been verified; it simply states, correctly, that he proposed (what would become) a certain scientific theory. It doesn't specify a timeframe, so any inference about such is based on unwarranted assumptions. Going into detail on the hypothesis/theory distinction is unnecessary for an article like Charles Darwin; it would be like changing Isaac Newton's lead section to read "In optics, he invented the reflecting telescope and developed a hypothesis of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into a visible spectrum, which has now been accepted as a theory by the scientific community. Newton notably argued that light is composed of particles. He also formulated ideas about cooling with later became the empirical law of cooling, studied the speed of sound, and proposed a hypothesis about the origin of stars, which has now been accepted as a theory by the scientific community." Pretty damned awkward and uninformative; and hundreds of other articles on scientists would need to be changed in the same way. -Silence 18:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind that theory is also appropriate because it was referred to as a theory in his day ("Dear Darwin, [...] your theory").  Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's less important, as we don't need to adopt 19th-century English to talk about the 19th century. Our reader base is alive today, not 150 years ago. -Silence 18:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory vs hypothesis 

message: I removed the following because it's not clear to me that we want to go into this level of detail here, or leave a blank quote without discussion (it was also badly formatted and messed up the whole second part of the article). The quote is accurate, from the first edition of the Descent; I didn't check later editions:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.. . .  The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla..
Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Savages and gorillas 

message: Well, that was an interesting day. Quite a few revisions to review, but a few days wikibreak is now in order. Over the 24 hours there were about 330 edits, coming at one minute intervals for a while and prodding an admin to semiprotect it for a period. However, it seems that Darwin isn't as controversial as we thought – on the day before, Wii had around 910 edits, despite being semiprotected for a time. Still, United States Marine Corps the day before got only around 255 edits (all by my rough count from the history tabs) so Darwin did get some attention! Anyway, thanks to everyone who contributed to the article over the years and who helped to keep the goths and vandals at bay. Much appreciated, .. dave souza, talk 11:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a shame that protocol for featured articles doesn't include some semi-protect automatically from unregistered editors. While this may discourage some new editors it seems like a worthwhile precaution given the nature of Wikipedia. Mister Fax 18:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been said so many times, by so many people, but unfortunately, Raul is against it, and what Raul says, goes, apparently. That is, until people stop believing that what Raul says, goes. Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to ask Raul if it's still true that what Raul says, goes - he might have changed his mind. TimVickers 23:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who the hell is "Raul" (without links/directives/links-to-the-discussion/whatever), and were does one go to change this? (On the other hand, I vociferously decried the opening sentence to this article on the day it was the FA, and maybe "Raul" is right...). Maybe what we need to do is: (a) protect a page on "FA-day" (UTC=00:00), and (b) simultaneously open a special "WTF-this-is-wrong-and-MUST-be-changed" page for input on that day. IMHO, this would (1) protect the page on that day (and maybe for a few days/weeks after) from the inevitable vandalism it attracts, (2) allow new input from those of us who have never before perused the article (due to other commitments/busywork), and (3) separate the new comments out from the general chaff (no insult intended) of of "pre-FA-day" discussion. Any comments/suggestions/recommendations-to-go-to-the-infernal re:this suggestion are, of course, welcome (but keep an open mind and a sense of humour, eh!). Esseh 06:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Raul654 who is "featured article director", apparently for life. You'll probably find a link to the relevant section somewhere on his talk page or in the archive, as this issue gets brought up regularly. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Plus reversion of vandalism takes editors away from adding actual content. And whereas registered vandals may be blocked indefinitely after continued vandalism, anons almost never are, so it's pointless to do more than just revert their vandalism.--Curtis Clark 03:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Fully in favour of protecting featured articles from decay. Anonymous edits are typically unstructured titbits which they can always add into the talk page. It takes so much trouble to restructure content to make it featured that it really is counterproductive and despiriting for key  contributors. Shyamal 04:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies for so inadvertantly disturbing the fecal matter on this. It appears to have turned into a vote, and this is surely not what I intended, nor is it the place to vote on protection/non-protection of FAs. I still think that non-registered IPs should be prohibited from editing FAs on the day of appearance (and maybe for 1 week after), but no more than that. BUT this is not the place for the discussion, I think. Someone let me know when and where that discussion does start, and I'll put my ¢¢ in there - but this is a quality article and needs discussion of content, not policy. MHO - Esseh 05:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks, everyone

message: The lead (or lede) has been stable for a while as:
This emerged from the front page day, and while it lost to some extent the fact / theory point, was tricky to improve on. Then Hardyw changed it to the following:
This highlighted the point that the earlier version seemed to hint that Darwin's evolutionary ideas were not accepted till the '30s, and so I've modified this again to emphasise this and point out at the outset that Darwin was eminent before publishing the Origin...
Note that evolution was generally accepted as a fact, even by many evangelicals and conservative Christialns, until the "upsurge of fundamentalist religious fervor" in the 1920s.cite – see history of creationism. .. dave souza, talk 09:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Once more into the lead, dear friends

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

message: I didn't know darwin was a porn star. I didn't even know they had porn back then. Down by the picture of him as a kid it says so. I'd edit it but it is very confusing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.216.73.161 (talk) 08:53, 11 July 2007
:Thanks for pointing out yet another piece of witless vandalism. Someone at Birmingham City Council Education Network, Orphange Road, Erdington, has been very naughty, so their block has been renewed. Won't anyone think of the orphans? .... dave souza, talk 09:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural selection saw to their parents. Shame it was too late...--THobern 21:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  porn star? 

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

message: The infobox has now been edited to add Academic advisor  Adam Sedgwick. This is better than Doctoral advisor, as Darwin only went for a BA. However, I'm a bit puzzled as to what an "Academic advisor" is, and it's not a point I've noticed in Darwin's biographies. The main advisor in the latter years of the course appears to have been John Stevens Henslow, though I'm not sure if this was formal in any way. After graduating in January 1831, Darwin attended Sedgwick's Spring season course in geology, then went with him as an assistant/student on a fortnight's expedition to Wales in August 1831. Is that an Academic advisor? ... dave souza, talk 10:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reminder, I've removed Sedgwick (again, this was discussed and removed earlier). If anyone, Henslow would be a more logical choice, but as you say, it's rather anachronistic. .. dave souza, talk 15:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Academic advisor?

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

message: Although I highly regard Darwin as an excellent scientist and very intelligent and caring man, i cant help but wonder about his evolutionary theory. True, he did not officially state that the theory was in fact, a true 'theory' (if that makes any sense). But it evolved into a new way of thinking in which many adapted and also in which schools have been teaching. So first off, i wonder...if this information is a THEORY, why can we not also publicly teach Christianity or any other religeon in schools without causing offense. Apparantly they are 'theories' to, and the part of society which rebels against religeon speaks out while belivers in a divine being are not heard when they object to evolutionary theories. In believe in christianity and evolution doesnt effect my belief in the bible at all. Whether god planned for evolution to take place or not is entirely his own secret in which us, as human beings, are not capable of finding out. I doubt the evolutionary theory based on the fact that, if it were actually true.....why do monkeys still roam the earth today? if we evolved from monkeys, then monkeys should not exist. We also havent been morphing into something else over the centuries so what prove really, is there on the theory of evolution? Darwins theory with birds and dinosaurs seems logical due to similar traits existing between the species....but how could a creature that BIG becme so small, and how did it get feathers? how does evoution really work? There is no proof, although it seems perfectly and understandibly logical.....but then again, when you look at the bible, it is perfectly logical too. 
On a more personal note, i hope not to offend anyone with varying beliefs, i am not religous, i belive in the truth (however untruthful others may see it as). i am proud of my hertitage and respect those who believe otherwise and I know I could probably recieve more enlightenment on this subject with anyones help. -C.L.O.I.16  —Preceding unsigned comment added by C.L.O.I.16 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, sorry you've found it confusing. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines require discussion here to be about improving the article, but you'll probably find the Introduction to evolution page useful, and may find many of your questions answered at Objections to evolution. The idea that if we evolved from monkeys, then monkeys should not exist, is rather common – but what evolution actually means is that both we and monkeys had a common ancestor, which probably looked more like a monkey than like us. Similarly, Christianity developed from Judaism, but Jews still exist! Also, there were dinosaurs of many different sizes, and some had feathers for insulation or display. Your question's like asking how an elephant could evolve into a mouse, but they're both mammals and both have a common ancestor from way back. Many religious people have no problem with evolution, holding beliefs which have been described as "Theistic evolution". However, others feel that their beliefs contradict evolution, and the resulting Creation-evolution controversy causes a lot of confusion, so hope that helps. .. dave souza, talk 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Confusion 

message: This article is great. So thoroughly referenced, with tastefull and informative pictures and a joy to read, too. Kudos to all who helped achieve this! --Ronja 13:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciated. .. ... dave souza, talk 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazing article, thank you all 

message: That the article lead said that D and Wallace published "early" (and this characterization of the publishing was repeated in a caption) disturbed me enough to re-check the timeline and then study a thesaurus. After all, D had been developing his theory for twenty years, so "early" did not quite cut it, in my opinion. Hope the "then swift" version finds your approval. --Ronja 13:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think that's an improvement, will try reviewing the sentences to see if a better way can be found of concisely expressing the point that Darwin wasn't ready yet to publish, despite having put his sketch of the theory together fourteen years earlier. .. dave souza, talk 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was so glad to see this newest version. Now it really conveys the whole message clearly and succinctly - great penmanship! --Ronja 07:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead/opening + caption: early -> swift 

message: Agnosticism is not a religion. The word should not be included in the infobox under Religion. Darwin belonged to no religion (in the strict sense of the word) in his later life. --Xer0 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "None" isn't a religion either, and Darwin's views were nuanced: have a look at Charles Darwin#Religious views, ref Darwin 1887, p. 304, and Charles Darwin's views on religion. You will note that he was "never an atheist", which could be implied from "none", so his own description that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind" is appropriate. .. dave souza, talk 23:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But as I said, agnosticism is a philosophical viewpoint. Religion is a group of common beliefs and practices (see religion). He is describing his state of mind, what he thinks. He did not have a religion but he was not atheist. Hence, Religion: None. You can say he was agnostic about his Religious Views. Maybe the infobox should say Religious Views. --Xer0 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Xer0, and point out that the Wiki article on agnosticism further establishes that Agnosticism is not a religion. I think an establishment of agnosticism is appropriate enough when made in the article later on, but that is just my opinion. -EarthRise33 15:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agnosticism is not a religion 

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

message: I have had a brief look at the discussion on this issue from the archives, and it misses this early contribution to the subject from the great American orator Robert_G._Ingersoll:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/ingerlinc.htm
So, this "coincidence" has been the subject of attention well before Stephen Jay Gould et al. (BTW the following article on the Ingersoll page is worth a read too)
Also, given the moves afoot to establish Feb 12th as a day to celebrate Lincoln and Darwin:
http://www.jimschmidt.com/mainpages/page3.htm
http://www.darwinday.org/englishL/newsviews/darlin.html
http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2007/01/18/is_it_lincoln_day_or_darwin_day
http://darwinianconservatism.blogspot.com/2006/02/abraham-lincoln-and-charles-darwin.html
...it seems to me that the time has come to re-instate this fact by the back door, i.e. tidy up the Darwin Day entry and include some discussion of some people's desire for joint Darwin-Lincoln Day celebrations, then include a link to the Darwin Day entry from the CD main page, perhaps in the "See also section". Agree or disagree?
Mpallen (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please, PLEASE no. This is truly a can of worms... and it has been settled. Please read *all* the archives to see what I'm talking about. Mikker (...) 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Darwin and Lincoln share a common birth date: time to re-visit the issue after the edit war