Talk:Carl Linnaeus/Archive 1

message: The link to the Swedish article at Wikipedia is as follows. It's rather incumbent on the 'en' faction to fall in line with this.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Linné
:And we should write all our articles in Swedish. (In addition to that, all Wikipedians will be required to change their underwear every half-hour.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of Name Controversy 

message: Great to have images. However is the image really in the public domain.
[http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/ihmfact.html Fact Sheet
Images from the History of Medicine (IHM)] says
The Images from the History of Medicine (IHM) database is a catalog of the prints and photographs collection of the National Library of Medicine (NLM). The purpose of the database is to assist users in finding illustrative material for private study, scholarship, and research. The NLM does not own the copyright to the images in the database, nor do we charge access or permission fees for their use. We do request, however, that published images include the credit line "Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine." 
Since the NLM does not own the copyright to the images, it is the responsibility of anyone using the database, or ordering reproductions based on information in it, to ensure that the use of this material is in compliance with the U. S. Copyright law (Title 17, United States Code). 
If the image in the article is in fact PD we need a more precise reference.
-- Di Stroppo
I looked at the "Copyright and privacy notice" page, where it says:
Copyright Status: Most information at this site is in the public domain. Unless otherwise stated, these documents may be freely distributed and used for non-commercial, scientific, educational or personal purposes. However, you may encounter documents or portions of documents contributed by private companies or organizations. Other parties may retain all rights to publish or reproduce these documents. Commercial use of the documents on this site may be protected under U.S. and foreign copyright laws.
If you list the images of someone, it can say "you need permission from xyz" or something. I didn't use these. I think that's good enough? --Magnus Manske
An unused public domain image of Linnaeus is found at :Image:Linnaeus01.jpg. --Strangerer (Talk) 11:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: :" The group "mammalia" are named for their breasts because he wanted to encourage women to breast-feed their infants. "
Didn't I see this on Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense? What's the scoop? - Montréalais
:I moved the remark to the notes section. Can the original poster come up with a reference for the quote? Even if Linnaeus campaigned against wet nursing, then there's still no reason to believe he picked the breasts as a charcter to name the mammals for because he felt strong about it. This whole article needs a lot more references.Wikiklaas 02:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took some time to study the history of this page. I see that the remark was in the original posting, which appeared to be a conversion from another source, but without references to the sources. I think it's time to shake up things somewhat here and shed the bits that are not documented. - Wikiklaas 20:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a paper specifically treating this subject (Schiebinger, L. (1993) "Why Mammals are Called Mammals: Gender Politics in Eighteenth-Century Natural History" The American Historical Review Vol. 98 (2). p. 382-411). It seems that this term indeed was coined to encourage breast-feeding when Linnaeus allied with Niels Rosen in a company against wet-nursing and tried to persuade the women of the well-to-do classes to feed their babies on their own. At the very least, the validity of the conclusions of this paper wasn't ever questioned by other historians of science. Alexei Kouprianov 16:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammals 

message: Source for my edit: Lucy's Legacy by Allison Jolly, page 70. Cyan 02:29, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Source 

message: Could someone please put a redirect from Linné and von Linné here? I had trouble finding Linnaeus, wasn't expecting the latin name for a Swedish guy.
You can do so yourself. Simply create the appropriate red links (as I have done above), then place the text "#redirect Carolus Linnaeus" in the edit box and save. -- Cyan 00:05, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect: another name related issue 

message: Someone should write what creatures did Linnaeus classify. Did he classify bacteria? How did he classify them?
Frankly I don't know. However they were only "found" by Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632 - 1723) - but I understand he did little about his "find". Carl von Linné's life (1707 - 1778) overlapped with his and I wonder whether he knew of Anton's discovery? He may not have even known of bacteria! Osborne 08:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Can someone provide numbers on how many animals/plants etc Linnaeus himself classified? Phaust 07:15, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 12,100 in the 10th edition, probably more in the 1766 edition jimfbleak 16:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know about the number of annimals Linnaeus named. According to W.T. Stearn, in his introduction to the Ray Society Facsimile edition of Species Plantarum (1957), p. 156 (The Species-Concept of Linnaeus), Linnaeus named 7700 species of plants. Nota Bene: it reads named, not 'described', not even 'classified'. Linnaeus was the first to use binomials consistently, throughout his work, at least as of the first edition of Species plantarum (1753), which is why so many names are attributed to him (as of 1905 it is officially the starting point for nomenclature, so even binomials that were published before and repeated by Linnaeus, are now attributed to him). He did not discover or first describe that many species. His aime was to create a world-wide flora and he used books of many botanists to take his species from. Linnaeus himself estimated the total number of plant species on earth to be around 10,000, so in his own vision he nearly finished the work in his lifetime. Wikiklaas 17:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of taxa Linnaeus classified 

message: The image is probably the title page of the book, and not the cover, right? The caption should be changed, if so. --Cam 01:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Cover of Systema Naturae" 

message: In the article, it is stated that the year of ennoblement is 1757. Where is the source for that year? In the introduction to the Facsimile edition of Species Plantarum (Ray Society, 1957), William Stearn writes it's 1761 (p. 14). Or did it take the special committee 4 years to grant him his title after the King ennobled Linnaeus? If there won't be a source for that date, I'll change the year in the article. Wikiklaas 17:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was ennobled by the king in 1757, but it apparently needed confirmation by the Council of State (Riksrådet), which for some reason happened only in 1762 (not 1761), according to the article on Linnaeus in Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (the Swedish counterpart of the ODNB) by Gunnar Eriksson, one of the leading Swedish historians of science. Note that this is the so-called Age of Freedom in Swedish history when the king had very little power. up◦land 18:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Although Gunnar Eriksson is a leading historian of science i doubt that is right in detail in this case, myself being a Swedish history interested LL.M. The right to enoble has in Sweden been in the Regents personal fons honorum as long as it was praticed. It has never needed the approval or consent of any other body of the government. However, to be a proper Swedish noble, with full prerogatives, one would need introduction at the Swedish House of Knights. It often took some time from the moment where the enobled got the letters patent from the Regent until the introduction took place at the House of Knights. This was due to different factors. Mainly, the House of Knights demanded a substantial fee for the introduction. Not everybody could afford or wanted to pay this at once. At other times, when the nobility thought that the Regent had practised enoblement in to large scale, they were also reluctant to make new introductions, althoug they in theory had no power to block them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.181.248.5 (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This is very usefull and to-the-point information. Indeed I already read about the 'Frihetstid' (1719-1772) but I did not realise the consequences. Thank you Uppland. - Wikiklaas 20:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ennoblement 

message: I received this notice on the Taxacom email list; I am not associated with it in any way, and in fact would like to take it but don't have the time. I'm hoping one of the other editors would be interested, and bring back more information for this article.--Curtis Clark 05:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet-based Linnaeus course 

message: Hello,
A project Linné 2007 was launched on french Wikipédia (here). Would this is somebody be interested to set up the same thing on english Wikipédia ? We can work together...--Valérie75 16:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linné 2007 project 

message: No, this is not a good article. The biography is far too short, has almost nothing about his journeys, nothing on his influence over his students and how he used them for collecting exotic specimens, and far too much about his name (most of which is trivial for anyone slightly acquainted with Swedish onomastics of the period). The "other accomplishments" is a bulleted list of trivia that should either be deleted or worked into the article. Oh, and it has practically no references. up◦land 15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And of course most Wikipedia readers are well-versed in Swedish onomastics. 
 The section on his taxonomy is very thin, though, especially with respect to his essentialism and his strict adherence to separate creation of species (implicitly rejecting spontaneous generation, for example). Perhaps, if fleshed out, it would warrant an article of its own.--Curtis Clark 16:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article? 

message: This is how the article, as of September 27, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:
1. It is well written. In this respect:
:(a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
::The prose is a bit choppy in the biography section, with several two-line paragraph consisting of a single or two simple sentences, while it suddenly becomes very thick in following sections. I would generally advise editing the text into logically composed 4 to 6-line paragraphs, which makes reading much easier and helps structurize the content.
::In general, I am impressed with the formal English and elaborate sentences, that make reading more enjoyable. However, in some places it seems a bit overdone, while others apparently slipped the copyeditor's attention. A few examples of dubious choice of words in an otherwise superb text:
::* "He tried to make something of the botanical garden there" - isn't that a bit too informal and general?
::* In the same section, two paragraphs below, two consecutive sentences begin with "this", and the whole paragraph reads seems a bit clumsy with regard to style.
::* "Here he earned his one and only academic degree, it being in Medicine" - very sophisticated, but wouldn't it be more reader-friendly to just say "(...), in Medicine"?
::There are more examples of phrases that seem either overly sophisticated at the expense of accessibility, or simply quite poor in style. I would ask a good editor to see about that and perhaps do some copyediting to ensure that the article reads really well.
:(b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
::The second paragraph of the lead section has nothing to do with summarizing the article, it could become a separate subsection in the article devoted to the influence of Linneus on contemporaries or "cultural references" or something else. And when you remove this paragraph, the lead section becomes far too short for such a long article and important subject.
::The existence of the, rather large, top-level section devoted to "mankind" with no assertion of Linneus' thoughts' influence in that field is a bit controversial. Moreover, shouldn't there be a more general section describing Linneus' approach, including his view on the Christian theory of creation, and other principles? Then, the mankind section could go there. 
::The biography lists at least a few more works than listed in the "bibliography". The description of Systema Naturae is almost the same size as the article the section heading (rather than Template:Main, which would probably be a more appropriate solution) links to, while the other book is dismissed with just two sentences. I would personally argue that the importance and development of those works should be explained in the biography section.
::My general impression is that it might be better to organize the content chronologically, explaining how Linneus' theory was developed and how it evolved, along with information on how the reception of those works, and Linneus' recognition in the world, developed.
::I also have to agree with the "merge" tag on the "Taxonomy" sections (nota bene - articles with unresolved merge/split tags should not be submitted for GA anyway), as this section is quite long and detailed given that there is a separate article dealing with the topic.
:(c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style including the list guideline:
::I am not an expert on the MoS guidelines, but the "see also" note should be made using Template:See. I am also not sure whether it can be applied to categories (although a link like that would seem logical).
:(d) necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided.
::Some words/phrases neither wikilinked nor explained - quarto, treatise, Sexual System (it might not be apparent what it is about to the "common reader"). Overall, the article does not seem abundant in wikilinks, which I believe can be expected of a Good Article, especially on a subject like that.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
:(a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
::Discussed below.
:(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required;
::Overall, I appreciate very generous use of inline citations in the name and biography sections, although when I see so many paragraphs referenced, I wonder why can't the others be. The other sections, however, go by without citations, and there is also one embedded link appearing out of the blue. I am afraid the inline citations need to be used in all sections, in a fashion similar as in the biography section, and especially with regard to the "mankind" theories and all claims of Linneus "thoroughness" and other virtues. I would also suggest standardizing the formatting of references using Wikipedia:Citation templates.
::In the lead section, "father of modern taxonomy/ecology" should be referenced to some source.
:(c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;
::I believe they are.
:(d) it contains no elements of original research.
::Until referenced, the fragment on Linneus theory being "skewed" in favor of Europeans and its influence (the style suggests it is used until today!) seems OR. 
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect :
:(a) it addresses all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);
::See also above, the section on structure
::Before writing this section, I consulted my paper encyclopedia, and there seems to be quite more to Linneus than the article would suggest. For example, although it is briefly mentioned in the image caption, there is no word on Linneus being the director of Uppsala's botanical garden. But, more importantly, there issue of Linneus ideology vs. other prevalent views at his time (creationism?) is not tackled, and neither is his further influence in this area.
::The section on taxonomy does not summarize Linneus work, but rather goes on to expand on how it is organized today. I believe the most important points of Linneus work should be highlighted, and their influence briefly discussed (both within taxonomy and outside its boundaries). I did not find an exact description of the method Linneus used to classify species (I guess this is quite important).
::There is little said about the reception of Linneus' works over time, he had to gain his fame and acclaim gradually, as well as have some opponents. Moreover, if the report of travels were published in Swedish for the general public, did they have any meaningful effect on anything?
:(b) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia).
::With other sections so underdeveloped, the one on Linneus name seems overly long, but I guess this will be easily be rectified once the other sections get expanded.
4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
:(a) viewpoints are represented fairly and without bias;
::Actually, they are underrepresented - Linneus' views had to clash with opposing theories, and the mere mention of the letter to Archbishop is not enough. On the other hand, assertions of how wonderful a scientist and scholar Linneus was would do with some references (although I am not insinuating they are not well-grounded in facts).
:(b) all significant points of view are fairly presented, but not asserted, particularly where there are or have been conflicting views on the topic.
::As above.
5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content.
::No edit wars evident in the article's short history, vandalism seems random. I have just skimmed the talk page, but since the last entry dates back to 1 September, there seem to be no unresolved debates.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. In this respect:
:(a) the images are tagged and have succinct and descriptive captions;
::I would link to Lapp from the relevant caption, and the map has a dubious description as to the origins of the image and the free use claim. 
:(b) a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status.
::Well, it does not :D
In view of all that, I have to fail the nomination. Overall, the article is clearly not developed enough to be considered for a GA nomination, currently consisting of patches of information, failing on complying with important encyclopedic criteria and, apparently, not comprising the entirety of information that could be gathered at this level of detail. 
I hope, however, that it will be developed further, as it is a very important article for Wikipedia. If I were to point to a good example to follow, it would be the current FA Candidate Charles Darwin. Even if that article also has its deficiencies, and perhaps the Linneus article could never contain that much content, the general structure and presentation of content can be a good inspiration for the editors here. I would also like to note that, given the importance of the topic, there would be very little difference between a Good Article and Featured Article on the subject, so I would consider pursuing FA directly without wasting time on the GA tag (which is irrelevant for FA reviewers anyway). Bravada, talk - 01:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review 

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 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of Carolus Linnaeus]] 

message: What exactly was he referring to when he created the kingdom of Minerals? I thought that he was referring to micro-orgamisms, or was he talking about actual minerals? Some help would be nice, as it isn't entirely clear from the article. --Havermayer 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minerals means minerals (stones, soils, etc.). Can not be clearer. Microorganisms were classified as genus Chaos (within the Animal kingdom, if I remember correctly). Alexei Kouprianov 07:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minerals? 

message: There is considerable vandalism about him being "the gayest man alive" etc. Obviously should be removed and I would suggest locking the page to prevent any further alterations —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.82.115.193 (talk) 05:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: A few editors have been changing the birthday around. Does anyone have a citation for what the correct birthday is? JoshuaZ 14:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct date is May 23 (Am sitting in Uppsala right now, and there will be big celebrations tomorrow here). --MoRsE 13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Happy birthday Linnaeus! Sheep81 04:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthday? 

message: At the University of Uppsala Linne met Peter Artedi and they became very good friends, shuldn't he at least be mentiond? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethna (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Artedi 

message: In the section on Mankind, there is a [citation needed] link next to the claim "Native Americans were reddish, stubborn and easily angered. Africans were black, relaxed and negligent. Asians were sallow, avaricious and easily distracted. Europeans were white, gentle and inventive."
On 8th June 2007 I provided the reference to Systema Naturae where these descriptions were made using the following markup:
Linnaeus, Carl. Systema Naturae (1767), p. 29
This page is available at http://books.google.com/books?id=Ix0AAAAAQAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PPA29,M1 if you want to check the contents.
For an unknown reason these changes were undone by KP Botany.
I don't want to get into a revision war, but I believe that this citation is accurate, can someone please advise whether I should reapply my edit, or explain to me why this reference is not appropriate.
Bob.firth 06:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is the citation appropriate, it's necessary; the translation, although technically accurate, does not make it immediately clear that Linnaeus was assigning the races to the four humors.--Curtis Clark 14:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-added the citation. Many people don't understand Latin so a citation to an English language text would be better, but appropriate citations are never wrong. / Fred-J 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation for difference between races 

message: NExt to his name, it says he was born on the 13th of May. However, later in the article it says that he was born on the 23rd. So which is true or more accepted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kite24 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: as far as i know the correct day is 23rd of may, you can also find it on the same article of other languages on wikipedia (expect arabic where it is written 32 may :) ). Khaled Khalil (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was he really born? 

message: Removed the following:
:Linnaeus is widely regarded by contemporary scholars as "The Father of Scientific Racism".  The charge is that, through his works he bound observable differences in 'race' with uncorroborated discriminatory stereotypes that precisely elevated the European 'race' above the "darker" races.  It also made divisions that were biologically and taxonomically unsound, leading (some speculate) to the institution of scientific racism, which persists today.
It is weasely worded ..widely regarded by contemporary scholars... and (some speculate), in addition the link provided is to a student essay - rather lacking as a reliable source. Vsmith 23:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Father of Scientific Racism" 

message: sorry, but why does it say that he is one of the fathers of ecology when it doesn't even talk about him on the history of ecology page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.206.88.127 (talk) 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ecology 

message: In a translated quote from Linnaeus in the article is the following sentence: But I desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general differerence between men and simians from the principles of Natural History. differerence? Should this be 'difference', or is something else meant? Arthena(talk) 20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a typo, yup :)  Thanks for catching that! -- Limulus (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'differerence' in Quote 

message: Why is this article tagged as being part of WikiProject Christianity?  I don't see the relationship.  Lacking some reasonable explanation, I'm going to remove the project template from this page.  -- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just lumped it in with the other project boxes and gave him a low rating as he was just a practicing, as opposed to "contributing" Christian. EditorInTheRye (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Christianity -- why? 

message: This has been bothering me for a while. Where is the "abdominal skin" that's supposed to be showing? All I see is a puffy shirt. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There really is a tiny patch of pink skin showing -- always pointed out by guides. Wilson44691 (talk) 08:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would sooner call that shading that happens to be pink. You'll notice that the same color is repeated in all the folds of the shirt. The most I see of skin is a minuscule sliver of a line that represents the seam. Or do you mean the patch close to where his jacket closes around his chest? Maybe I'm just unobservant. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wedding portrait = 

message: *I read a book that said that so much Latin was spoken in Linnaeus's childhood household that he learned Latin as his first mother-tongue, and later Swedish. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  His first language 

message: Several anonymous editors (or perhaps it's just one; I haven't gone back to look at the diffs) have replaced the .png signature with an .svg, and I have routinely reverted it. A .png is effectively a photographic representation of his signature. An .svg, because it simplifies the outline, is in effect a forgery. There are lots of places where .svgs are more appropriate than .pngs, and certainly someone could make a font of his writing (linnaeus.otf?), but a picture of his signature needs to be a picture.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  .svg signature 

message: The current article (as of the writing of THIS comment) begins: "Carl Linnaeus (Carl Linné, Latinized as Carolus Linnaeus, also known after his ennoblement as Carl von Linné ..."    
I do not believe this is true or accurate.  "Latinized" implies (to me) that the man had a "true" name which was rendered in Latin as something else.  I am neither a scholar nor an academic.  I am certainly not an encyclopedist.  However, Linnaeus is one of my great interests in life.  
I believe that only the name "Carolus" is a Latinization (of Carl).  His surname is actually Latin.  He was a Swede with a Latin name.
"In Linnæus' time, most Swedes had no surnames. Linnæus' grandfather was named Ingemar Bengtsson (son of Bengt), according to Scandinavian tradition. Linnaeus' father was known as Nils Ingemarsson (son of Ingemar)."  This is a fairly typical system of patronymic surnames that could be found all over at various times through history.  Anyway... most Swedes had no surnames.  Some did, most particularly the nobility.  Times were changing... rapidly and drastically.  And as they did, some traditionally "noble" institutions became available to more people. However, bureaucracies are slow.  In Linnæus' time one didn't need to be noble to go to school but one did need a surname to register... and Linnæus' father matriculated at the University of Lund.  Therefore, Nils Ingemarssson (son of Ingemar Bengtsson (son of someone named Bengt SOMETHING)) needed to give himself a surname.  "In the academic world, Latin was the language of choice, so when Linnæus' father went to the University of Lund, he coined himself a Latin surname: Linnæus, referring to a large linden (lime) tree on the family property, Linnagård (linn being an archaic form of Swedish lind, the linden)."
 
Nils' name was now Nils Ingemarsson Linnæus.  And when he had a son in 1707 and gave his son the name Carl.   
So, in 1707, Nils named his son Carl Linnæus... not Carl Nilsson... and not Carl Linné.
 
Carl Linné, Latinized as Carolus Linnaeus  <- I don't think this is true.  Anyway, I won't change this article because I am not qualified.  But... if the powers that be believe my point to be valid, I hope someone will change it. 70.131.34.227 (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  His names 

message: German Wikipadia has a template (:de:Vorlage:LCL) which is used on over 100 biographies of persons who communicated with Linnaeus. I've translated it, see Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit for an example. As for the syntax:  yields:  (first name is automatically taken from the article name, makes not much sense on Linne's own article). -- Matthead  Discuß   15:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correspondence archive template 

message: "Linnaeus is regarded by some contemporary humanities scholars as "The Father of Scientific racism". The charge is that, through his works he bound observable differences in 'race' with uncorroborated discriminatory stereotypes that precisely elevated the European 'race' above the "darker" races. It also made divisions that were biologically and taxonomically unsound, leading (some speculate) to the institution of scientific racism, which persists today.[17]"
Does this really belong under this heading?  It seems a bit non sequitur to me, just reading it.  Surely it belongs in a "moderns interpretations", "controversy" or some such heading??? Huw Powell (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linnaean taxonomy 

message: now what is wrong with removing the two sentence part in the lead about Linnaeus name? The exact same thing is stated in one or two long sentences just a section down (too long in my opinion). again, WP:LEAD and all that...
Fred-J 14:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  hum 

message: The image :File:100 kronor swedish.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I switched the image to :File:Svenska hundrakronorssedlar.JPG which is CC-licensed -- Limulus (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with File:100 kronor swedish.jpg 

message: What evidence did he base his findings on?
Please help
:)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.255.65 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Linnaeus... Please help me!!! 

message: There is a misspelling in the coat of arms inset: feathuring instead of featuring. --Offchance (talk) 13:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms