Talk:Charles Lyell

message: Please add a link to <http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/>, which is editing and publishing all of the correspondence of Charles Darwin. Charles Lyell was a significant correspondent of Darwin. Eadp 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add external link 

message: Dr Steven Plunkett (Talk) | (contribs) added this "Image source" section heading and the following line to the article at 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image source 

message: The article has Lyell as a Knight of the Order of the Thistle (shortened to KT), but these two sources have him as a Knight Bachelor (shortened to Kt), 
are there any sources that disagree with this? Mikenorton (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for asking the question. Lyell is not in the list of Thistles for 1848 or any other year as far as I can see. So it seems almost certain that he should be listed as Kt. Bt. (there is no doubt about the baronetcy). A check of his entry in the Dictionary of National Biography (which I do not have handy at present) should be the clincher, but I am now persuaded by your refs, and by the fact that KT was not on his funeral notice (Letters of CL, vol 2). Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Concise DNB gives Kt. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem any doubt now , but I just found this,  if any more proof were required (p 347 N.B. 81 MB file!). Mikenorton (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knighthood 

message: 'Sent down' means rusticated. Evidence? None quoted. Concise DNB gives MA, Exeter College, 1821. If no evidence for rustication, out it comes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, with text plus ref. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sent down? 

message: As of this writing, some of the titles in the list of Lyell's books have an author/editor name, but others do not.  (Yes, I know I'm the culprit.)  I've considered putting each title into a Wikipedia "cite" template.  Is this worth doing, or will it simply lead to "link rot" and a sea of blue text?  I'm not sure that I have enough bibliographical information to complete a "cite" template in each case.  Suggestions will be appreciated. - Astrochemist (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no particular benefit in using the cite template here, because the references are completely satisfactory as is. The arrangement of 'Principles' editions looks a bit scrappy, though; needs tidying. For the reader, the links to on-line text versions is useful, and they are placed in two difference positions. Will amend. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books and links 

message: I notice that in the Evolution section Lyell is quoted as writing "If I had stated... the possibility of the introduction or origination of fresh species being a natural, in contradisctinction to a miraculous process, I should have raised a host of prejudices against me...." 
It may depend on the date, but this could well be a reference to the letter which Sir John Herschel wrote to Lyell on 20 February 1836, praising his Principles of Geology as a work which would bring "a complete revolution in [its] subject, by altering entirely the point of view in which it must thenceforward be contemplated." and opening a way for bold speculation on "that mystery of mysteries, the replacement of extinct species by others. Many will doubtless think your speculations too bold, but it is as well to face the difficulty at once. For my own part, I cannot but think it an inadequate conception of the Creator, to assume it as granted that his combinations are exhausted upon any one of the theatres of their former exercise, though in this, as in all his other works, we are led, by all analogy, to suppose that he operates through a series of  intermediate causes, and that in consequence the origination of fresh species, could it ever come under our cognizance, would be found to be a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process..."., 
Desmond & Moore suggest that there was wide discussion of this letter in London early in 1837, but when it appeared in print in  it was read by Darwin as novel and welcome support for the theory he had by then conceived. 
In any event, it's a notable comment on Lyell's book and worth looking into. . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The letter you mention in your first para was Lyell to William Whewell, March 7, 1837. I should have put this in the f/note, and have now added it. The sentence leading into the quote is "In regard to the last subject [ie 'changes from one set of animal & vegetable species to another'], you remember what Herschel said in his letter to me. If I had said as plainly as he has done...&c". So you are quite right to link Herschel's and Lyell's letters together. The letter to Whewell is long, five pages in print, and follows the principle that Lyell was much more forthcoming in letters than he was in his books. Both Herschel and Whewell had clearly picked up that more was implied by gradualism than Lyell had openly spoken about in the Principles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Herschel's letter

message: I just reverted a change to 'Scottish', as this article has been stable with 'British' for some time. That makes sense to me, given he spent most of his life (including much of his childhood) in England. However, I would be interested in hearing other views. Mikenorton (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes no difference how much time he spent in your country. He was a Scotsman, and it's as simple as that. You lot are always trying to rob Scotland of its achievements and culture by trying to pass off Scots as English. I have removed the spurious Anglo/Scot stubb and replaced it with the Scottish geologists stubb as appropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.240.137 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not suggesting that his nationality be described as 'English', just that 'British' is a better description, but let's wait for other opinions. Mikenorton (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: I found the lead section of this article to be a little bit scarce with information about Charles Lyell. I rely on the lead section of any article to summarize the article's key points. Specifically, in a biography, I want to know why this person is significant and what they are known for. The lead section in this article only skims the surface of what is covered in the article. I would suggest adding information about his contributions to evolution, geological surveys, and stratigraphy. The section on stratigraphy begins by stating this was Lyell's most important specific work; however, it is not even mentioned in the lead section. 
Another recommendation I have for this article is perhaps to add information about his praise as well as any criticism he may have received. As uniformitarianism is a stark contrast to catastrophism, there must have been some critics of his viewpoint. I would like to read more about the reception his works received when they were first published and how those viewpoints may have changed over time. 
Overall, I think this is a great article with a lot of pertinent information!
-- Lizziewalters (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation 

message: I would like to offer suggestions to the lead article. Overall it hit on some key points but it did not highlight all the summarizing information that it could have given the updates this article has had over time. I agree with Lizewalters that the lead session needs to mention something about stratigraphy but could also benefit from additional information from the biography section, as well as, the evolution section. The lead mentions uniformitarianism but then only gives a short definition of what this actually is and if a user just read this I fear that it could be interpreted a few ways. A way to cut down on perhaps personal bias while reading that part would be to define what "process is still in operation today". In addition, the portion where it talks about how Charles Lyell was one of the first men to believe that the world was more than 300 million years old is slightly understated. It is not in reference to anything else and I believe that adding some context, that most people at this time thought it was only 6000 years old, would help show the gravity of his statement especially given the time. 
There are some really great aspects of this article and I think with a little more research it could really shine! 
--JessicaCmaguire (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea, why don't you fix it like that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Improvement

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charles Lyell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513031028/http://geology.com:80/publications/lyell/ to http://geology.com/publications/lyell/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On the basis of Michael Ruse in The Darwinian Revolution which says Lyell was "born in Scotland, but brought up as an English country gentleman", I undid a change from British to Scottish. Mais has changed it back, linking to Britannica. That does indeed describe Lyell as Scottish, but also says his "principal childhood associations, however, were with the New Forest near Southampton, Eng., where his parents moved before he was two years old." and his education and career seem to have also been very much in England. Will leave it as Scottish, but would like to see better sources about how he identified himself. . dave souza, talk 11:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to open a discussion on this point a few years ago Talk:Charles_Lyell#Nationality, but there wasn't much response. His father, Charles Lyell (botanist), has been variously described as English, Scottish and British in our article - he moved to Kinnordy at the age of 59, having been born, and lived in England (particularly the New Forest, hence the link) until then. I looked at Google Books and found that the subject of this article has been described as English, Scottish and British in turn. I always thought that 'British' covered the bases best but, as before, I'll await further comment. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Scottish?

message: The current page says of Lyell, ″He also coined the currently-used names for geological eras, Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic″. This sentence is false in all respects and needs deleting or modifying. Adam Sedgwick invented the term Palaeozoic in 1838, which he initially just used to group the Cambrian and Silurian periods (Ref: Sedgwick, Adam (1838). "A synopsis of the English series of stratified rocks inferior to the Old Red Sandstone – with an attempt to determine the successive natural groups and formations". Proceedings of the Geological Society of London. 2 (58): 675–685). Later, John Philips (1840 and 1841) redefined the Palaeozoic and suggested the terms "Mesozoic" and "Kainozoic" for subsequent eras, where the latter eventually became the Cenozoic. In fact, the wikipedia page for Mesozoic says that John Philips proposed the term Mesozoic. And similarly, note #4 for the Paleozoic wikipedia page correctly attributes the term to Sedgwick.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliecat1 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A basic error in this page regarding geological eras 

message: Somebody thinks this phrase is misleading. It's a neutral characterization. To point out that Lyell "associated" with Darwin and "is associated with Darwin, is uncontroversial and factual and supported in body of article (42 times). To dispute this isn't useful. Generally his textbook isn't read today.
35.8.218.249 (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Associate of Darwin