Talk:Joseph Dalton Hooker

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

message: Footnote 15 leads to a sporting goods website  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.29.96.66 (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Many thanks, I've removed the link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken bibliograpy link

message: "According to some contemporary accounts, notably Hooker's own" - and also according to the quasi-official account: Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, New Series, 12: 275-277, of which Hooker's defense makes up about half. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been round this many times in different articles, especially in Thomas Henry Huxley. A consideration of all sources does tend to support the traditional account, though it is correct that Hooker made his claim as the article says (Lucas leaves out one critical account, and has been challenged by Jensen). I will put in more sources rather than make too much of it here. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Oxford debate

message: This addition recounting the part Hooker (and Darwin) played in changing the ecology of Ascension Island may be of interest, but not sure if it's rather too detailed for this article. . . dave souza, talk 18:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ascension Island

message: Exciting stuff, rather like Thurber's "All Right, Have It Your Way—You Heard a Seal Bark", but 1902 scholarship about the war between science and religion is rather outdated. As van Wyhe notes, Darwin told many people about his theorising. "The only one of these people who was asked to keep it to himself, as far as we know, was Gray in America. We know that Darwin told a number of people whom he hardly knew. He had been corresponding with the botanist J. D. Hooker for only two months when the latter was told about the theory." . . dave souza, talk 21:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Seal of secrecy

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Dalton Hooker. 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/20061015094131/http://darwin.lib.cam.ac.uk/perl/nav?pclass=letter&pkey=1558 to http://darwin.lib.cam.ac.uk/perl/nav?pclass=letter&pkey=1558
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217234347/http://www.kew.org/news/kew-blogs/library-art-archives/directors-correspondence/index.htm to http://www.kew.org/news/kew-blogs/library-art-archives/directors-correspondence/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Joseph Dalton Hooker. 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/20160304185541/http://www.kewguild.org.uk/media/pdfs/v3s23p265-1.pdf to http://www.kewguild.org.uk/media/pdfs/v3s23p265-1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040527025122/http://www.jdhooker.org.uk/ to http://www.jdhooker.org.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm not sure what to make of the tone of parts of this article. For example, in the "Attacks on Hooker and Kew" sub-section the text seems to be taken or paraphrased from a work on the history of Kew, and the context is either missing or perhaps not phrased appropriately to a biographical entry on Hooker. E.g.: "One extraordinary fact emerged." and "From that moment to this, the value of the Botanic Gardens has never been seriously questioned." There is also a bit of point of view evident in the section, bordering on hagiography. Is it non-neutral, or just a matter of style? Thomas Craven (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone concerns, especially in the Kew section