Jump to content

Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Another nit-pick

In the 'Reactions' section occurs this: "Owen’s verdict was unknown until his April review condemned the book" I presume you mean in the Edinburgh Review, in which case it was anonymous. The general public would not have known the author, though C.D. guessed it right away. Perhaps adding "... and even then the authorship was cloaked in anonymity" would help. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right about this nuance, but we shouldn't give it undue attention in this article which is trying to be extremely concise. Desmond & Moore don't mention that the review was anonymous, Browne does say so but precedes it with an explanation that most reviews at that time were anonymous, and Darwin was able to find out who had written most of them. Perhaps best to rephrase the sentence as "Owen responded in April in a review which condemned the book." This picks up the point made in both biographies that Owen was responding to Huxley's sniping, and though it loses the idea that Owen's verdict was unknown and eagerly awaited, Browne suggests that his views had already appeared jaundiced in December. I'll make the change now, can always review the wording. .. dave souza, talk 10:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Darwin and Dr. James Manby Gully

Greetings Darwin scholars. It is a pleasure and honor to a part of this article and dialogue. I've just made some minor edits to the information about Darwin's experiences in Malvern. After much dialogue at the article on James Manby Gully, we've come to certain agreements, and I've noted them in this article. Most Darwin biographies make reference to Dr. Gully. He is clearly notable. For people who might be interested in a summary of Darwin's experiences in Gully and even some of his experiments with what easily be considered homeopathic doses, go to: [1] Because this is an article that I have written, I will not link to it in the article itself [WP:COI], though it is a good reference and resource for those to you who like to explore the amazing life of a major man of science. One bit of warning about my participation here, sadly, there are many serious antagonists to homeopathy who follow me around and who delete whatever I contribute. I try to communicate with them, with some success and more failures. I invite the regular users of this page to determine the notability and verifiability of the information that I have provide, though it is hard to not acknowledge the notability and verifiability of this information. I also invite the serious editors here to consider adding more information about Darwin's health and illness to this article because his health played a major role in his life. Dana Ullman Talk 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, while your enthusiasm for promoting homeopathy is appreciated, this article is an overview and the detail you've proposed is excessive. The aspects of his illness and treatments are already dealt with in more detail in other articles, and I note that your account is partial, omitting for example the point that Darwin kept records of the effects of the continuing water treatment, and in 1852 stopped the regime, having found that it was of some help with relaxation but overall had no significant effect. It's a complex issue and for the purposes of these articles we are well served with reputable biographies, providing a good basis to prevent undue weight being given when writing about these aspects. .. dave souza, talk 00:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It would be beneficial if reliable secondary and third party sources were used rather than relying on sythesis and drawing conclusions from disparant primary sources. Shot info (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Good idea Shot info. I can and will get secondary sources (there are many), though I thought that the direct link to Darwin saying that "Gully did me MUCH good" is a good one. While it is true that water-cure and homeopathic medicines provided temporary relief of his awful nausea, nothing really cured THIS condition. However, prior to going to Gully, he was unable to work ONE day in every THREE, and he was so sick that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral. It is notable that he had had fainting spells and black spots before his eyes for several years prior to seeing Gully, and these symptoms are never described again by Darwin after that first visit to Gully. Here's where Darwin's statement about Gully is a good NPOV statement. Also, Darwin's general health improved considerably after Gully's treatment. He visited other water-cure establishments at different times in his life. Anyone else have any thoughts here, especially the regular editors here! (please note that Shot info and select others follow me wherever I go) Dana Ullman Talk 06:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's ODNB, citing Darwin's journal: "Just after his fortieth birthday in 1849 he fled in desperation for four months—his longest absence from Down—to a water-cure establishment at Malvern run by the fashionable hydropathist James Manby Gully. The water cure seemed to work and Darwin kept up the energetic cold-water regime when he returned home, with Joseph Parslow, the Down House butler, sluicing him down. He shivered with cold, plodding to and from a specially built outside shower-house throughout the winter. Darwin varied the treatment according to Gully's instructions and recorded his daily symptoms obsessively, and elliptically, for six years in a foolscap health diary. After many relapses, and fearing that his ailment was a heritable defect, he gave up ‘all hopes of ever being a strong man again’ " Darwin is clearly referring to hydropathy, not homeopathy, and his relief from the condition was not permanent. Old Moonraker (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Thanks for that reference, Old Moonraker. The significance of the water treatment is already covered in these articles in a proportionate and proper way. .. dave souza, talk 09:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, agreeing with dave souza: the bouts of chronic illness have about the right weight in the article. There is certainly no justification for homeopathy!--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
At the very least, reference and link to James Manby Gully is a no-brainer. Secondly, Dave is right about Darwin doing water-cure treatments at home (no mention of the use of homeopathy at home). I'm simply saying that Gully provided more than water-cure treatment, and it is notable to mention which other treatments he provided, especially since Darwin noted "Gully did me MUCH good." What "good" did he do? Gully provided NO long-term benefits to Darwin's nausea, but Gully's treatment did provide long-term benefits to some other serious symptoms he had previously experienced. Dana Ullman Talk 13:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Gully's significane is in relation to Darwin's illness, and he is given due mention in the article about that subject and in the detailed subarticles about the phases of Darwin's life. This article is necessarily concise and is about much more than Darwin's illness, which is given appropriate mention. Your diagnosis is of course original research and doubtless a hydrotherapist would hold a different view. .. dave souza, talk 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with dave souza, talk having reviewed the various articles in WP and to do justice to the claims, externally ( what an uninspiring read that was!). I can see no value in adding anything to this article about Homeopathy or Hydrotherapy. Frankly, to imply that there is some proof that the treatment did some good merely because Darwin said he felt better temporarily having gone to Gully's clinic is just further evidence of a pseudoscientific approach where you can correlate anything with anything to prove a point it seems. I can see so many flaws in this claim to make it absolutely worthless and only due a mention as it is known from Darwin's own diary that he went there.Tmol42 (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The health of Charles Darwin played a major role in his life, and it is notable that the vast majority of biographies of him make reference to Dr. James Manby Gully and his Malvern water-cure spa. Prior to his visit to Gully's clinic, Darwin was so ill that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral and he couldn't work 1 day in every 3. His symptoms included persistent nausea and vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, fatigue, black spots before his eyes, and fainting spells. This was in 1849, 10 years before he finished his seminal work. Would he have lived another 10 or 20 years if he didn't get some effective treatment? No one can answer this, but it is something to consider. Although Darwin got temporary relief of these symptoms during the first several months of Gully's treatment, the benefits to Darwin's digestive symptoms were only temporary, and he suffered from nausea throughout his life. However, Darwin never again complained about those black spots or fainting spells...and in 1856, Darwin asserted, "Gully did me MUCH good" (that "much" was Darwin's emphasis). It would seem that some of this information would be notable. Once again, Darwin's health is notable and is a part of every significant biography of the man. What thoughts do others have here? Dana Ullman Talk 06:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

DU, please add the source that says "Prior to his visit to Gully's clinic, Darwin was so ill that he couldn't attend his own father's funeral and he couldn't work 1 day in every 3. His symptoms included persistent nausea and vomiting, severe boils, heart palpitations, fatigue, black spots before his eyes, and fainting spells. This was in 1849, 10 years before he finished his seminal work. Would he have lived another 10 or 20 years if he didn't get some effective treatment? No one can answer this, but it is something to consider. Although Darwin got temporary relief of these symptoms during the first several months of Gully's treatment, the benefits to Darwin's digestive symptoms were only temporary, and he suffered from nausea throughout his life. However, Darwin never again complained about those black spots or fainting spells...and in 1856, Darwin asserted, "Gully did me MUCH good" (that "much" was Darwin's emphasis)". If you cannot and need to have one or more source per sentance, then you are performing original research here in wikipedia. This is why you keep having problems inserting your edits. And just stating it is so doesn't make it any better. Shot info (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Shot info, Thanx for those questions. The best source for the various references you want to the info above is in one of my articles that provides links to the precise Darwin letter (ain't the internet fab!). Go to: [2]. I am anxious to hear your thoughts here. In the meantime, I'm going to sleep. Dana Ullman Talk 06:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Personally I would be inclined to suggest this is not a reliable source. BTW, I didn't really ask a question, or at least I didn't use a question mark to indicate that one of my sentences was in fact a question. FWIW off-wiki essays don't really cut much mustard. For a person as notable as Darwin and for this claims that you are making to be notable, there will be sources....otherwise it's just not notable. Shot info (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Shot info, You asked for a SOURCE for each of my above statements (that is akin to asking questions). I recommended my article on Darwin and Gully, not so that it would be referenced (WP:COI) but because it links directly to Darwin's letters, all of which are NPOV sources (the best ones!). I simply recommended my article because you asked me for sources, and rather than point to each Darwin letter for each statement that I made above, my online article provides that (and more). To make your life easier, here's that link again: [3]. It is a good resource. Dana Ullman Talk 02:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You need to read WP:RS. Your personal website is not a reliable source. You recommending your website is possibly COI (as you have indicated). Your continual reference to primary sources and then making the inference here in Wikipedia is original research. You need to source the original research, ie/ the bits outside the various primary sources that you would like to add. This has been pointed out to you several times now, and I fail to see why many and various editors need to keep saying the same thing over again - it is clear you don't want to get it, or are just being disruptive. Shot info (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Further, I believe that since you wish your website to be considered for RS, that it be posted to RSN as directed here. Thanks Shot info (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeez. I am NOT saying that I want or even recommend using my article as a RS. I was simply telling you that ALL of the direct references that you requested to Darwin's letters you can find at that article. I am NOT suggesting that the Darwin article link to my writing (I thought that I was clear about this). You asked me for the sources of my statements, and rather than go line-by-line giving you those references, you can find them all in my short article. Is that more clear? Dana Ullman Talk 06:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Dana, this is a case of primary sources vs secondary sources. The Darwin letters are primary sources and such sources can be used to elicite a variety of meanings, depending on the intent of the person using the primary source. That is why they are usually used sparingly on WP. Articles are typically built using reliable secondary sources (one step removed from the event). Your writings would be considered a secondary source but currently they qualify under original research. See this article for more clarification. We have a strict policy of no original research allowed on the project. If you would like to become established as a reliable source, you would need to follow through on what Shot mentions in his posts. To be honest, I don't think you will make the cut to be a reliable source for this particular subject. Homeopathy, perhaps, but not Charles Darwin (or Gully). Regardless of this, the article already addresses the issue of his illness and treatments in a manner, as mentioned by Dave Souza, that is in proportion to its importance. Baegis (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me why the story of Darwin's treatment by James Manby Gully is in virtually every biography of Darwin, and yet, this article only makes mention of Malvern, while carefully avoiding mentioning the physician/owner of the establishment, let alone linking to the article about Gully. Is it interesting that there is one other reference to Gully in this article but no link to his article on wikipedia, and no reference to his full name (only "Dr Gully"). Curious minds want to know. I ask that only regular editors of the Darwin respond to this question (I fully realize that just asking doesn't mean that everyone is required to comply). Dana Ullman Talk 05:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
See Dave Souza and Old Moonraker's comments above about why more detail isn't given about Gully. I'm not sure how many more times the same answer can be repeated. And there is a redirect on Gully's name. Baegis (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gully's page is linked from the article. Why don't you go and look at the Charles Darwin's illness page? If you made simple requests (eg. please link to Gully's page), checked if what you were asking for hasn't already been done, and presented V and RS to back up your reasoning, things would go a lot smoother for you and for the articles --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Darwin's "experiments with what easily be considered homeopathic doses" mentioned in the first post under this heading, I assume Dana is referring to Darwin's experiments on the sensitivity of Drosera to ammonium salts. Is there any evidence that the solutions Darwin used were serially diluted and succussed? This is apparently considered to be an essential part of the preparation of homoeopathic solutions. Brunton (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As a rather uninvolved editor, I would like to point out a problem with the single reference to Gully in the article:

Here Gully is mentioned alongside Grant, and both of whom are referred to as if they had already been treated to some extent in the rest of the article. However, only Grant was actually mentioned elsewhere. Of course, Grant was a much more significant figure in Darwin's life than Gully, so this is only appropriate. My question is, why is Gully mentioned in this paragraph at all? Were his views as a medical man significant? If so, then the sentence should be rephrased to indicate Gully's importance. If not, is it really too much to ask for a single sentence mentioning Gully somewhere else in the text? (BTW: This last question is an honest one, not an attempt to bait anyone. I am genuinely curious what the answer is.)

I would propose that the existing mention of Gully be removed, and that the following sentence be emended:

(Bold text new.) Is this a reasonable compromise? Silly rabbit (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with your proposal (adding "In an attempt to improve his chronic ill health, Darwin went to a spa in Malvern run by the well-known hydrotherapist James Manby Gully), let's see what the more usual editors here think. This is a dispassionate and uncontroversial edit, supported by facts. (Aside: I disagree with Dana's characterisations below of 88 and Baegis, and I'd ask Dana to remember to AGF. I recall that he had been directed here and to Charles Darwin's illness by those involved. This edit is totally unlike your (Dana) previous attempts to edit the page) --RDOlivaw (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Silly rabbit (I love saying that!), yeah, what you wrote makes sense, and I cannot help but sense that some of the livid anti-homeopathic editors may have previously deleted Gully's name from the earlier reference to his hydrotherapy spa. I had earlier warned editors at this site that there are a group of anti-homeopathic editors who follow me around. Predictably, Dr88 and Baegis arrived shortly after I introduced some reasonable edits. And yes, Gully was notable as a physician to many of the most respected members of British society, as an author of the leading book on water-cure, as a strong critic of conventional medicine of his day (rightly so!), and as an appreciator of other effective healing methods, including homeopathic medicines and nutrition. If you happen to have any other comments about what I've written above about Darwin's experiences with Gully, we might all benefit. One resource that will link you directly to Darwin's letters is an off-site article that I wrote here [4] Dana Ullman Talk 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Dana, please assume good faith and stop making personal attacks by describing others as "livid". This article is about Darwin, and your original edits were inappropriate. The size of the article was a matter of concern during the FA process, and the text was tightened up as much as possible. As there's a separate article covering Darwin's illness, the need here is to provide the absolute minimum necessary to remind the reader of the continuing problems with illness. The earlier reference to Gully relates to his significance as an early proponent of evolution, showing the context in which Darwin developed his theory, and I'm reluctant to remove that link. Perhaps "Medical men including Dr. Gully" might be better phrased as "Medical men such as Dr. Gully" to make the point that many medics were openly evolutionist at that time. However, taking Silly rabbit's point, the sentences about the spa could be rephrased to make a concise reference to Gully. There's no need to call him "well-known" since he wouldn't have a link otherwise.
  • In an attempt to improve his chronic ill health, Darwin went in 1849 to Dr. Gully's Malvern spa and was surprised to find some benefit from two months of hydrotherapy.
If the same information can be conveyed more concisely that would be welcome. In the detailed article about Darwin's illness mention of his subsequent preference for Dr. Edward Lane will be appropriate, and I'll look into that. .. dave souza, talk 18:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
At present there isn't a prominent {{details|Charles Darwin's illness}} link, as there is to the other subsidiary articles, only wikilinks. Would it help to insert one, perhaps at "Overwork, illness, and marriage", to emphasise that the man's illnesses are only dealt with briefly here? Again, the weight given to the topic in this parent article seems about right. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The infobox at the foot has a link at the section headed "Darwin's family, beliefs and health", but that's neatly hidden now unless you click the open button. The "Overwork, illness, and marriage" section is expanded in the Inception of Darwin's theory article so that would also have to be linked at the head of the section. Looks like {{see also|Inception of Darwin's theory|Charles Darwin's illness}} would work. .. dave souza, talk 19:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy probation

Unfortunately, due to the behaviour of certain editors here I feel compelled to add the Homeopathy probation warning to this talk page. I hope this can be removed quickly, as obviously this page is not directly related. If anyone not involved in homeopathy editing would like to remove the warning, feel free, but please read the above and the discussion first. Thanks, and apologies --RDOlivaw (talk)

"Mary, you're nearly a laugh, but you're really a cry." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP the lyrics I think go "Mary, you're nearly a treat, Mary, you're nearly a treat, but you're really a cry". In any case the metaphor is a tad disingenuous Tmol42 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't feel like typing the whole bit. "disingenuous" -- how so? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Could use You're nearly a laugh, But you're really a cry [5] :-) Shot info (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ya know, I am going to be bold and remove the warning. I really, really do not think it is valid. Darwin may have used homeopathic medicines at some point but they played a tiny, tiny importance in the overall picture of the biography. As addressed above, the Malvern bit is going to be cleared up, and I have no problem with mentioning who the doctor was at the facility he visited. Dana has tried to bring the same pro-homeo message into the Beethoven article as well and it is not currently under this homeopathy restriction. According to his mentor, Dana is not allowed to edit mainspace and the other editors can take his thoughts on the article into mind on the talk page. Baegis (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm restoring it based on this reasoning.... In the beginning I didn't understand why the template should be placed on articles that obviously were not homeopathic articles, but later I read a comment that made more sense. It appears that the template and article probation are designed to make it easier to reign in homeopathic POV pushers (and anyone who is disruptive in that connection). Therefore the template follows the numerous attempts by these POV pushers to insert homeopathy into all kinds of articles, especially when those attempts are often used as an excuse by the author to suggest (on talk pages) that the author's own book be used as a source. Such attempts have resulted in many edit wars and fires getting started on articles that aren't normally associated with homeopathy. Although homeopathic drugs have no calories or active ingredients, the subject certainly provides plenty of fuel for these fires! Therefore the template follows the slightest mention of the subject of homeopathy, no matter where it comes up. It is a sort of "whack a mole" thing that is designed to curb edit wars wherever these attempted inclusions occur. It applies to editors of all persuasions. -- Fyslee / talk 07:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's see how many articles we can slap that warning on, eh? Of course, in the interim, the homeopathy page is descending into chaos. Cool. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it, thank god I dropped it off my watch list. O well, this is what you get when the admins don't....administer...Roll on the victory of ASPOV :-) Shot info (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry my child, the greater glory of the mysterious powers shall save us all from destruction. So sayeth the Book of Wikien. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the warning can be removed from this page now. Any comments? --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, WP policies will keep the POV pushers at bay when it comes to notable subjects. Shot info (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the template. This is a non-issue. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Good. Hopefully it can stay off --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Descent of Man images

Please see Talk:The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Richard001 (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: It looks like a lot of the Darwin images are going to be deleted. See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Darwin Online. Richard001 (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for starting that – there's an interesting discussion there, which is bringing knowledgeable attention to the situation. .. dave souza, talk 10:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The images have been deleted now. How many were being used here? I still haven't looked at Wikipedia images (yes, it would be nice if people only uploaded to Commons...), so there will probably be a few more deletions yet. Richard001 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like they actually won't be deleted after all, though we are trying to replace them with our own images, such that nobody can ever claim they aren't PD. It would be nice to see an organized effort to get all of the images from his works available at Commons, though the interested community here is pretty small, and that at Commons much smaller still. Richard001 (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please add interwiki link to vo:Charles Darwin. --Smeira (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I don't see a note as to the reason for protection here, but clearly it wasn't to prevent interwiki links. - Nunh-huh 00:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Erasmus's theory

I've removed the changes to the lead which proposed that he "provided scientific evidence in support of his grandfather Erasmus Darwin's theory[1] that all species of life have evolved over time from one or a few common ancestors.[2] Charles improved upon his grandfather's theory..." cited to Uglow, Jenny (2002). The Lunar Men: The Friends Who Made the Future, 1730-1810. Faber and Faber, xiv, xvi, 270, 429, 485, 498. ISBN 0-571-21610-2. This exaggerated the importance of Erasmus's outline idea (not a scientific theory) to the history of evolutionary thought and to Charles Darwin in particular, giving the point undue weight. In keeping with the biographies of Darwin, the idea is mentioned in conjunction with Lamarck's more developed theory as concepts Darwin learnt from Grant in Edinburgh. That part of the article could be rephrased to make Erasmus's contribution clearer, but we already have a problem with article size so any revised text has to be as concise as the present mention. It's understandable that a historian dealing with the Lunar society would focus on the achievements and possible influence of Erasmus, but that should not be given undue weight in this biography. .. dave souza, talk 09:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening line

I'm really not satisfied with the current article's first sentence. It should really say something about evolution. Just as a lead section should provide a good summary of the article, the opening sentence should give as accurate a characterization of the subject as possible, and not to mention evolution in that sentence is a significant omission. There are lots of English naturalists - the opening sentence should say more than just this. I'm sure it was different before, though it must have been changed with the intent of making the article better, so if anyone wants to defend the current version please make yourself heard. Richard001 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's in the second sentence, in the important context of him being an eminent geologist first. We did have "famous for his theory of evolution" or something along those lines, and that met with strong objections which I can appreciate. The current form has emerged from the Featured Article process, so proposed replacements should be discussed here before changing the article. Just as a thought, we could try combining the two sentences, but that might be rather clumsy –

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist, eminent as a collector and geologist, who proposed and provided scientific evidence that all species of life have evolved over time from one or a few common ancestors through the process he called natural selection.

That trims down the current formulation of "After becoming eminent among scientists for his field work and inquiries into geology", and makes it clearer that "natural selection" was a term he introduced. Think it's an improvement? .. dave souza, talk 09:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
For a lede, can't we shorten that a bit to:

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist, eminent as a collector and geologist, who proposed and provided scientific evidence that all species of life have evolved from common ancestors through the process he called natural selection.

- Nunh-huh 09:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you could shorten it more than that, but surely there is nothing wrong with simply saying he was an English naturalist famous for his theory of evolution. It's not like we are saying he did nothing else, we are just establishing his main claim to notability in the first sentence. If he was only a geologist, I doubt he would be very well known (nor would he be for his work on barnacles alone). Besides that, it will still have the second and following sentences (i.e. the whole remainder of the article) to expand on and clarify things. Richard001 (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The background of the opening sentences is that some people wanted to say "Darwin was an eminent English naturalist who proposed the theory of evolution." The use of "eminent" was objected to as a peacock term and an endorsement of the pro-evolution POV. The current wording makes it clear that he was eminent among scientists before he started writing about evolution. If he had not written about evolution he might not had the same staying power, but he still would have been eminent in his time. 67.168.160.218 (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm still not convinced. We want to know why he is so famous, not why he would also have been famous in his own time if he had not done the things that made his fame especially enduring and widespread. Britannica's opening sentence does a good job of this, for example: English naturalist whose theory of evolution by natural selection became the foundation of modern evolutionary studies. Richard001 (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
But not in his lifetime, and this is a biography rather than an examination of the 20th century perception of Darwin. He had numerous claims to notability, and his current fame is often based on misconceptions about his work. While natural selection now overshadows his other contributions, his contributions to geology were significant (not least his coral reefs theory) and he would at least be on a par with Humboldt as a travel writer. He certainly didn't originate the idea of evolution, and his eminent status played a part in his success with the Origin. Taken as a whole, our opening paragraph provides a much more nuanced and in my opinion informative statement than the Britannica sentence, including the point that his work remains the foundation of biology, and not just evolutionary studies. No point in saying things twice, once as a crude approximation and again as a more accurate statement. Having said that, there seems to me to be merit in some of the ideas above. .. dave souza, talk 10:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm somewhat more convinced, but evolution is still surely his prominent claim to fame. It basically flips our whole thinking upside down, and Darwin was the one to come up with both a mechanism for it and huge amounts of evidence, such that it was more or less "proven" just with the publication of Origin. But there were others who proposed the general idea of evolution before him (one who even explained natural selection), so I'm not that worried if we leave it as it is. Richard001 (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Am becoming rather inclined to implement Nunh-huh's proposed version, and check that the "one or a few" common ancestors issue is covered in the body of the article. Rather rushed just now, .. dave souza, talk 17:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why has this page been locked with such an obvious bias in it?

This page does mention Darwin's 'theories' but talks about them as if they are fact. This should not EVER be done. Theories are exactly that, theories!

There are many well-educated scientists who do not hold to Darwin's theory, it is not JUST religious people that disagree with Darwin and it should be clearly emphasised that while there are many people in the world who accept Darwin's theories without investigating matters for themselves, there are equally a good number of people who have studied and investigated and who disagree with Darwin's theories.

Theories should NEVER, EVER be taught as FACT or suggested as FACT because by definition they are NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LJMH1976 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, and if you have proposals for improvements to the article please discuss them on this talk page first. Also, in accordance with WP:TALK policy note that his page is for discussion about improvements to the article, not general discussions about the subject. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
To address your point directly, I believe there's some confusion over the word "theory", which is discussed in the article Theory. In this context, it is used to mean a scientific explanation that is widely accepted among the scientific community and is able to predict results or explain phenomena. The theory of evolution is a theory in that sense, in that it is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Darwin's theory is discussed not strictly as fact, but as the most widely supported theory. To emphasize the perspective of the extremely small minority of scientists who do not accept evolution would be giving undue weight to it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the confusion here lies in the difference between the word theory and hypothesis. unfortunately in common culture, the word theory is confused with and has replaced in many cases hypothesis. an example might be that darwin hypothesised that life developed through evolution during his time on the beagle. that is he had the idea of evolution. later after he developed the hypothesis, subjected it to the criticism of the wider scientific community etc etc and was accepted by that community as the best possible explanation for what was occouring, did it become a theory. this is the core of the issue, a theory is something accepted (and in more quatitative sciences tested to destruction and for repeatability, often by the scientist who came up with the hypothesis, before being opened up to the weider community for the same testing) by the majority of the field of that scientific community. Onw man does not declare a hypothesis as a theory, the majority does.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.101.180 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 24 March 2008
Thanks, agree in principle. The idea of transmutation of species was common though not widely accepted before Darwin set out on the Beagle, during the voyage he slowly came to think it might be valid to think that species were not fixed, and his hypothesis came to him in 1838. He then worked (initially as a "hobby") to prepare a fully developed and well supported theory, but after being prompted by Wallace published On the Origin of Species as an abstract of the theory. His "big book" was intended to present the theory in full, but not all of it was published during his lifetime. . . dave souza, talk 13:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Natural selection is a theory, evoltion of species is not (read the works of Gould on that issue, specially Evolution as a theory and as a fact), the factual evidence of evolution is, at present, really vast: 1) vestigial features in ontogeny; 2) the fossil record (wich includes a lot of transitional fossils); 3) DNA and mtDNA analysis; 4) comparative anatomy; 5) lab studies and historical accounts; 6)etc.; You could say that evolution is a theory only if you think that the sun, or all reality, is a theory (something very solipsistic), but, as long as you adopt a realist epistemology, evolution is a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.115.225 (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwin Island at the Galapagos

A suggested addition for the commemoration section:

Two of the northernmost islands in the Galapagos archipelago are called Wolf and Darwin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.72.25 (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Just a question

I have heard of a theory of Darwin's that I am intrested in, having similar thoughts myself, itapparently goes along the lines of that the theory of evolution could be disproved if there was evidence that the detail in development in microevolution would take longer than is theoretically possible to develop into humans (i.e. the evolution of every miniscule part of every cell by natural selection would take to long to lead to humans as we have them today, which is not the case) , at the moment there is no evidence that is the case, but I just want to know the name of the theory so that I can read the wikipedia article as I am intrested.86.154.49.0 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mockingbirds?

Unless I'm mistaken, didn't Darwin study the beaks of finches, not mockingbirds? the two are in completely separate families. I'm changing it to finches, if anyone has a reason to object, please respond and/or revert the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richbank (talk • contribs) 00:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert, purely because the editor who introduced the mockingbirds cite extensively revised the article back in 2005 and I think must have had sources. I have to think that this is a case where what was noticed during the expedition was the mockingbirds, but what was the best example (of birds) was the finches. I will leave a query on Dave souza's talk page asking him about this change back on 18:52, 17 February 2005.
Remember that Alexander Fleming was at first irked at "that fungus". The way science is best demonstrated ain't necessarily showin' the messy parts, just the parts best shown. And the finches all lined up showed a good case. :-) Shenme (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
"I think [he] must have had sources" is a creditable application of assuming good faith. However, the story of how Darwin gave his name to the fifteen or so species of Galapagos finch is told at Darwin's Finches. In Darwin's own account of his voyage there is but one reference to a "mockingbird", spotted near Montevideo, but eighteen to "finch" (count by Google Books in The Voyage of the Beagle ), used as he illustrated his case. Finch should be reinstated. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Thanks, everyone, it's a good point that Darwin collected finches on the Galapagos islands, but he didn't know at the time that they were finches and didn't bother labelling which island each came from. I've amended the sentence to read "On the Galápagos Islands he collected birds, and noted that mockingbirds differed depending on which island they came from." as well as adding a reference to Eldredge who goes into detail on that and on the rheas. Note that mockingbirds are also called Thenca, and that The Voyage of the Beagle was written after Gould had revealed that many of the birds were actually finches. See Darwin's Finches for details. .. dave souza, talk 07:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC) See also Keynes pages xix and xx. ... dave souza, talk 08:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand the intent of your approach better now, but I'm still not sure if its wording is clear enough. Perhaps "On the Galápagos Islands he collected birds, and noted that what appeared to be mockingbirds differed depending on which island they came from."(emphasis mine) would be a better sentence. Thank you for your prompt response! -Richbank (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are any of Darwin's works NOT PD-UK?

An editor reverted my change to the external link The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online and insists the contents of the site are not in the public domain.

Darwin died in 1882. All of his works, published or unpublished, are PD-US. The editor claims in the edit summary that "it's under UK law which differs in some ways from PD-US."

Which if any of Darwin's works are subject to copyright in the UK? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

One example is his unexpurgated autobiography which was published by Nora Barlow in 1958, and is in copyright. I'm not sure about Natural Selection published in 1975, or any of the minor works published in the 20th century. As we say in List of works by Charles Darwin, the DarwinOnline resource is free to read, but not Public Domain, and includes work still under Copyright. There was discussion about images, where UK law is significantly different from the US public domain situation. See Commons:Deletion requests/Images from Darwin Online for the discussion, including an email from Dr. van Wyhe which starts "The images on Darwin Online are from very various provenances and copyright status. Hence it is not permissible for any of them to be reproduced without checking with us- and this is clearly indicated on the website. Each image therefore carries a copyright notice. The Descent of man is of course an out of copyright work. However our scans are copyright of Cambridge University..." and says "I am very happy to give permission for images to appear on other websites, provided that they are non-profit and we have the permission to allow it to be reproduced (some we do not), but this is non-transferrable.". .. dave souza, talk 18:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the commons discussion link. Published or not, Darwin's original manuscript of his autobiography published by Barlow in 1958 would be PD-US since the copyright expired 70 years after Darwin's death, if not sooner. The published version would however be under a fresh copyright if Barlow changed it in a non-trivial, non-mechanical way before publication, making it a "new work." As for Darwin Online, if they have even one item available that is in the public domain worldwide even if Darwin Online claims copyright on that item then we should not imply that the entire site is protected by copyright. My gut says that if this ever goes to a British court, Darwin Online will find that much of what they have is PD-UK. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved from "Opening Line"

Ummm... If someone can show real 'evidence' that evolution is true, please do so there is 10K waiting for you in http://www.intelligentdesignversusevolution.com/. Micro-evolution is proven. Macro-evolution is not, and never has been. It is a theory. Please do not claim it is a fact! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.19.50 (talk) 19:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution on a macro scale is a generally accepted theory. There are many scientific theories which are generally accepted as true because the evidence strongly supports them, but scientists, being scientists, will toss the theory out on its ears when it is disproven. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
NPOV: Making necessary assumptions means we don't argue about evolution here. Oh, and ID isn't even a theory, as its leading proponents have publicly admitted. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Vestigial legs on a beech scale insect. Give me my $10k.
And they have that incredibly deceptive video of Dawkins being asked the 'information question' too. Wow, one can really hear the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped. Richard001 (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's vandalized again

The opening says:

"Charles provided scientific no evidence...'

Could someone do the same thing to the creationist article?

Mikister (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph's been vandalized by some idiot as well.

"Darwin developed his interest in natural history while studying first medicine at Edinburgh University, then theology at Cambridge, and is often regarded as the father of modern homosexualness." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.155.99 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not document vandalism, as it only encourages the vandals by giving them the attention they are seeking. Just revert and move on. And certainly do not "retaliate" by vandalizing some other article. Mycroft7 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nonsensical

Could somebody provide the actual quote from which this is drawn "but during the Beagle voyage he questioned, for example, why beautiful deep-ocean creatures had been created where no one could see them,"? It doesn't make any sense to me. What creatures is Darwin talking about which no one has seen? Certainly not any creatures he has seen, for then it doesn't make sense, as he has obviously seen them.Tstrobaugh (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Put a fact tag on it. Shot info (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Now referenced.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Desmond's article, as already referenced, states "The hardship was immediate: a tormenting seasickness. And so was his questioning: on calm days Darwin's plankton-filled townet left him wondering why beautiful creatures teemed in the ocean's vastness, where no human could appreciate them.. ..." . . dave souza, talk 15:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Correcting self: now additionally referenced! --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The basis comes from Charles Darwin (2006). "p. 55". Darwin's Beagle Diary (1831-1836). The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online. Retrieved 2008-06-06.:
"The number of animals that the net collects is very great & fully explains the manner so many animals of a large size live so far from land. — Many of these creatures so low in the scale of nature are most exquisite in their forms & rich colours. — It creates a feeling of wonder that so much beauty should be apparently created for such little purpose."
January 11th 1832, before their first landing at the Cape Verd Islands. . dave souza, talk 00:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. A. May

I'm uploading scanned images from The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals to Commons (and I'm glad I did; the images at Darwin Online are complete crap), but I'm not very knowledgeable about Darwin's times. Who was "Mr. A. May", who authored Image:Expression of the Emotions Figure 7.png (and fig. 8)? I have managed to use Wikipedia and Google to get a fairly good estimate as to who other authors he has mentioned are (and sometimes what books the images are borrowed from), but not for this one. I can only quote the author (or sketch provider) as "Mr. A. May". He doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article, but can we at least get his first name?

I'm not that sure about the all the others either (often it seems likely, but I don't want to say someone is author if I'm not sure). If someone who is good with this sort of thing could review the images that would be great. I'll continue uploading images from his other books after this too. Richard001 (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work, these look very good. I've tried looking for information a bit but have had no success so far. .. dave souza, talk 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded the last plate today. There is still a lot of work to do in terms of improving the descriptions etc, and I think I would really have to read the book to be able to make a good job of them all. Richard001 (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Reversion

In the interest of promoting factual conception of Darwin's ideas about the human races, I added a quote from Darwin's most popular book, Descent of Man, outlining his clear views of Caucasian superiority. This edit was unreasonably reverted by an author who clearly is interested in promoting a saintly portrait of the late biologist.

While it is essential to note Darwin's lasting contributions to the biological sciences, it is preposterous to thrust sainthood upon him. The myriad references to Darwin's views on slaves and blacks in this article comprise a clearly single-point-of-view effort to deify the man further as some sort of pioneer of proper race relations. His views on the probable future "extermination" of the lesser human races by the Caucasian are entirely contradictory to this perception.

If this is an article about the man as a scientist, there need be no reference to his views on the races outside of the realm of science -- incidentally, the very realm in which his comments about the "extermination" were made. If the article is a pure biography (which, clearly, it ought to be), then the full scope of Darwin's views on the races should be disclosed. It is preposterous that Darwin's personal views on the races, in which he advocates fair treatment therebetween, be related in the article, while his *scientific* views (those relating to his only lasting theoretical contribution to the sciences) are suppressed. I ask that the revision be overruled. --75.148.171.69 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're thinking of the races of cabbages ;) The quotation is actually one commonly misinterpreted, as discussed at the Quote Mine Project. The question as to whether Darwin was racist is covered in outline at Claim CA005.1 and some quotations giving more context are shown at Darwin on race and slavery. Hope you find that useful, . dave souza, talk 22:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
The wikipedia NPOV policy states explicitly: "Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media." The Descent of Man is certainly a "reputable" source for quotations from Darwin. No-one is accusing Darwin of "racism" in the contemporary sense, that he thought blacks & al. should be treated any less humanely than any other human (Darwin felt this way about all forms of life, indeed: "The love of all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man"). However, the irrelevant sites to which you link all dodge around the essential question here, which is that Darwin most obviously believed that blacks & al. were inferior to Caucasians (an insulting proposition, to say the least), given that they would be forced to extermination by selection pressures favouring the "civilised" Caucasian. None of them provides an alternate "interpretation" to Darwin's first-hand words.
It is disingenuous and moreover insulting to the races to which Darwin referred as "savage" to ignore these comments while simultaneously extolling his opposition to slavery (which, again, was a part of a greater worldview that condemned cruelty to all life) as evidence of his supposed social enlightenment. It is true that Darwin lived in a time when basically all Europeans considered non-Caucasian races inferior, so he's not entirely to blame, but making it seem as though he was progressive as far as the idea of racial equality is concerned is a disservice.--Jimiraywinter (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, to your request for a so-called "secondary source":
This requirement is nothing more than a shamelessly obvious method of in-group administration of total control over the content considered admissible to wikipedia articles. I wasn't born yesterday; it is clear that any source which provides the actual face-value interpretation of Darwin's statement, which is that blacks and other "savage" races would be exterminated for being inferior to Caucasians (an interpretation which none of the sites you provided cares to refute -- again, they only address the vague semantic question of whether Darwin was a "racist"), would be rejected as a "non-reliable source" (nevermind the fact that the sites you linked to are hardly credible institutional sources by any means). Some quotes, like the one I mentioned, are of intellectual value in and of themselves and require no "secondary source" to be properly interpreted. Darwin's theory does not lead to racism, one of the main deceitful "claims" the sites you linked to suppose to refute, but Darwin most certainly thought the forces described by his theory would exterminate the blacks & al. because of their inferiority.--Jimiraywinter (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Your ideas and interpretations are, as has been pointed out to you, original research which cannot be incorporated into articles, and NPOV: Undue weight determines how much attention this biography should give to this fringe viewpoint. Darwin's view was that European civilisation was culturally superior to the wayys of the "savages" he had seen on his travels, but he had met and appreciated the intellect and abilities of "blacks & al." who had learnt European ways, as well as the abilities of "natives" in their own country. He did not just think the "forces described by his theory would exterminate the blacks & al." because of their cultural inferiority, he had seen it happening in South America. Ask native Americans in the U.S. how well their culture did in those days. .. dave souza, talk 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
He also thought it obvious that women were more intelligent than men. Should we put that in the article? Perhaps if there was a more specific article like politics of Charles Darwin, worldview of Charles Darwin (which wouldn't be all that unreasonable; we have one on his religious views and that's more specific than worldview) or something like that it might be possible to incorporate his views on all such things, but otherwise there is little point including all such views, which were pretty much the norm at the time. It's really his views that were unconventional that are more interesting. In today's world people consider you a racist if you think there might be differences of any sort between 'races' (presumably excluding skin colour), so some people probably would classify Darwin as a racist even if his opinion was only of a scientific nature. Richard001 (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Darwin's views about races (of humans, rather than races of cabbages as discussed by him in On the Origin of Species) are significant and fascinating, as his educational and travel experiences showed him that the differences between his friends the civilised clergy of England and the "savages" he encountered were superficial, a matter of culture rather than the created distinctions commonly believed at that time. Thus the quoted passage is arguing against the views of creationists such as Louis Agassiz that races were different created kinds. From today's US sensitivities it can seem racist to even suggest that the Fuegians he encountered, who slept naked in sleety rain without any shelter, were in some way culturally inferior to the 19th century English, but these views were normal at that time ;) However, this is a concise article about his life. It may be possible to develop a sub-article on such themes, but reliable sources are needed and notability has to be established. .. dave souza, talk 08:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you even bothering to read what I'm saying? How ridiculous is it that you repeat back to me exactly what I have said as reasoning for rejecting the premises of my argument? You keep snarkily referring back to "races of cabbages," even as I have provided you a direct quote from Darwin himself in which he references the "races of man." Further proof of your inability of comprehend simple argumentative reasoning is your continues insistence upon the "original research" that supposedly comprises my DIRECT QUOTATION of Darwin, devoid of any qualification that might be contrued as "original research" whatsoever.
I can see that the prevarication here extends to outright lies about Darwin's supposed acceptance of the higher intelligence of women. Let's take another look at a direct quote from Darwin, also from his most popular book: regarding men's capability of ".. a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women- whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music(inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half a dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on 'Hereditary Genius' that..the average of mental power in man must be above that of women."
It seems therefore, that rather in interest of communicating the truth, you would rather stick to beatifying (but unacceptably misleading) concepts of the man, which is in absolute violation with the NPOV policy of wikipedia.
I agree that the "fringes" of Darwin's views should not be given import: why, then, is the article written persistently form the standpoint that Darwin held anything like an enlightened view on the races? An obviously historically-challenged person above has mentioned that his views that savages not be ill-treated were somehow "unconventional"; given that Britain had already made criminal the practise of slavery, it is not possible to accept this proposition. As I have said before, Darwin's views on the proper treatment of the "savage" races is entirely coincident with his views on the proper treatment of ALL animals. It follows DIRECTLY from coupling his ideas that "civilised" Caucasians would exterminate the lesser races with the main premises of natural selective pressures as described by his theory that he thought the blacks & al. to be measurably less "favoured," from a purely evolutionary-selective standpoint, than the "civilised" Caucasian. This bit about whites enslaving and killing Africans having ANYTHING to do with his statements as related in Descent of Man (statements regarding the natural-selective outcome of Caucasian superiority) has NOTHING to do with the formulation of Darwin's viewpoint.
That being said, I realise that Darwin's boot-lickers here aren't going to allow a single bit of negative factual information on Darwin's views on the races into this article to balance out the unnecessarily fawning portrait painted here, extrapolated from a few (noble, indeed, but certainly not revolutionary) statements on the proper treatment of the races. Thusly, I'm not going to waste my time any longer. Let it be known, though, that neither of you has a rational leg to stand on (and one of you is just outright *lying* towards Darwinian apotheosis).--Jimiraywinter (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:NOR and WP:NPA. . . dave souza, talk 17:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Writings of Darwin: potential article?

Would an article on the writings of Charles Darwin (or works of Charles Darwin, though the former could also include his correspondence etc.) not be a good addition to the Darwin collection? I'm aware of the list, but a full article could include discussion of the books that are unlikely to have their own article and much more that a list never could. I'm certainly not volunteering to write it myself; it's really a job for a scholar throughly familiar with his work. But identifying potential articles is still of value; they can be recorded somewhere as a request, e.g. a to do list here and/or a requests page, if nothing else. Richard001 (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's probably a good place to raise the point, it's an interesting question but I'm not sure if a separate article's needed. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin article covers that part, the main books have their own articles and the list could include a section noting the significance of the lesser works. Such a section could be expanded into the article you suggest.
To some extent the issue is also covered in the biographical articles, and more commentary about the individual writings could be added to them, in historical context. . dave souza, talk 12:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Would all of his books be notable - i.e. should they all have an article here? I imagine they have all received enough reviews etc to meet WP:BK, and because Darwin himself is so notable they probably don't even need to meet this condition (The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. For example, a person whose life or works is a subject of common classroom study.). Perhaps they should be added as red links to the Darwin template, or at least filed as article requests. Richard001 (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Madeira or Tenerife

Hi, I am a little confused. Here and here it says that Darwin wanted to go to Tenerife after finishing his studies whereas in the same article it says that he intended to go to Madeira and the Beagle voyage had been "dashing his plans to visit Madeira". As far as I know, the two islands are different. So which one is correct, is there anybody who has a source on that? Also the German Wikipedia says Madeira, but without source. Greetings --hroest 21:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, thanks very much indeed for noticing that error, which I've now corrected. His intention was to go to Tenerife in the Canary Islands, and I've checked this point in Browne p. 134 and Desmond & Moore p. 91. I've a horrible feeling this was my mistake a while back, and will be very grateful if you can correct this point in the German Wikipedia. If you need an online source, ask here and I'll have a look for it – the sources used by these historians should be in DarwinOnline. My apologies, dave souza, talk 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, it seems like some wikipedia projects have copied the mistake (sry, I don't want to make you feel bad) and I have corrected them in the german, french and portugiese wikipedias whereas other big ones I checked did not seem to mention it at all. So I think it would be good if you could provide some source since a couple of people might show up here and ask for the source of this edit. Thanks a lot for the quick response. --hroest 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
One possible source is this one that I found on the dutch wikipedia. --hroest 23:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that covers it well. Darwin mentions it in his own biography,[6] but doesn't give as much detail. . dave souza, talk 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The autobiography by Darwin states on page 68:
During my last year at Cambridge I read with care and profound interest Humboldt's Personal Narrative. This work and Sir J. Herschel's Introduction to the Study of Natural Philosophy stirred up in me a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science. No one or a dozen other books influenced me nearly so much as these two. I copied out from Humboldt long passages about Teneriffe, and read them aloud on one of the above-mentioned excursions, to (I think) Henslow, Ramsay and Dawes; for on a previous occasion I had talked about the glories of Teneriffe, and some of the party declared they would endeavour to go there; but I think that they were only half in earnest. I was, however, quite in earnest, and got an introduction to a merchant in London to enquire about ships; but the scheme was of course knocked on the head by the voyage of the Beagle.
This should be sufficient, I think. --hroest 20:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotes of childhood

The following anecdotes were added by Leonard^Bloom –

As a child, Darwin was described by his father as "only caring for shooting, dogs, and rat-catching." [1] He frequently collect things; bugs, coins, shells, so on. His father was noted as saying his son would "mess up the house with everlasting rubbish." [2]

The article's rather over size, and has already been rigourously trimmed to get it down nearer to the ideal size, keeping just the essentials. The stories are familiar, and can be checked from better sources, but in my opinion they're not essential. They can be moved to the relevant sub article. Any other opinions? . . dave souza, talk 17:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I found them in an old almanac of mine, and though that would be a great primary source for the 'pedia. I didn't know this article had length issues. I wouldn't say the addition was essential, but I felt it added some insight into his character. I'll let those who have been on this article longer for the decision. Sorry, and thanks for the correction. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, they're good points and I'll add them to the more detailed biography we have at Charles Darwin's education. We've already had a huge struggle to cut this article down to about twice the recommended size, while still covering the main points in sufficient detail! . . dave souza, talk 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for adding them there, didn't find a source offhand so you beat me to it! . . dave souza, talk 00:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

FitzRoy or Henslow

Hi, here in the article it says:

Before they set out, FitzRoy gave Darwin the first volume of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology

But other authors from the German Wikipedia found that Desmond & Moore, p. 108 say that it was actually Henslow who gave the book to Darwin. Is there anybody who has a source that claims that FithRoy gave the book to Darwin or is it just a mistake? Greetings --hroest 22:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Janet Browne p. 186 is specific that FitzRoy gave Darwin the first volume of Lyell's Principles, together with an English grammar! Browne covered the same point in more detail in her introduction to the 1989 Penguin Classics issue of Voyage of the Beagle, p. 12, noting that FitzRoy had an interest in geology and had been approached by Lyell before the voyage to carry out geological observations. However, after the voyage FitzRoy added an appendix to his report recanting the views he'd recorded in his diary when in Patagonia, and reaffirming faith in Noah's flood – see Robert FitzRoy#Return from the voyage. It's interesting because several short histories or TV programmes have given the idea that a devoutly religious FitzRoy objected to Darwin's ideas during the voyage, when in fact he'd seen the Patagonian plains as having been formed by he sea over an "immense duration", while Darwin, straight from his religious studies, was actually quite orthodox according to his autobiography – see Charles Darwin's views on religion#Darwin's loss of faith. The reference in Desmond & Moore, p. 108, notes that before they set out, Henslow gave a copy of Humboldt's Personal Narrative to Darwin, and recommended taking a copy of the first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology. "but 'on no account' to accept all its views". As far as I can see, they don't say where Darwin got the book, their interest is more in the religious advice from Henslow. . . dave souza, talk 09:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What did Charles darwin actually do for a living?

Charles Darwin was a keen scientist and tried to convince people that the earth, space and the solar system wasn't created by god and he also was the author of the origin of species. He was born in 1809 and died in 1882 which means he died at the age of 83. He lived a good life and was a very clever and interesting scientist (Almost as good as Albert Einstein)!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.103.168 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article and associated sub articles giving more detail , covering all the misconceptions you raise. As for "what he did for a living", he was a gentleman. Full details in the articles and sources. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding the earth, space and the solar system, he made various statements of which this is a typical example – ""I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide." See Charles Darwin's views on religion. . dave souza, talk 15:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought

This article is up as a FAC, see discussion here. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Walleshinsky, David, and Irving Wallace . The People's Almanac. '2nd ed'. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1975. (A. and E. 500-502)
  2. ^ Walleshinsky, David, and Irving Wallace . The People's Almanac. '2nd ed'. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc, 1975. (A. and E. 500-502)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Darwin/Archive_7&oldid=1142755674"