Talk:Charles Darwin

Suggestions re “Eugenics” section.

I think there is a case for dropping, or at least altering, the last two sentences in the Eugenics section (beginning:

“Eugenics movements were widespread at a time when Darwin's …”).

The influence of Darwin's ideas upon proponents of eugenics has already been dealt with in the first paragraph of the section. Do we, further, want to suggest a link between - the temporary eclipse of Darwin’s ideas, and - the eugenics movements of the first half of the 20th c, as this sentence might imply? Also the sentence implies that “Mendelian genetics” was the only factor in the eclipse of natural selection. This is not the case. More generally do we need to include a potted history of later events surrounding Eugenics, when a wiki article covering this subject is linked to at the start of the section? Prunesqualer (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the cited sources note that "In the first decades of the twentieth century, the study of human heredity consisted of the applied science of eugenics and the theoretical science of genetics. Geneticists studied the mechanisms of heredity, while eugenicists sought to apply this knowledge to manage society."[1] and "The primary scientific foundation for this shift [to negative eugenics] lay in Mendelian genetics, not in evolution, based on the idea that recessive genes were the locus of negative traits."[2] There's an all too common misperception that Darwin's work led straight to nasty eugenics, which the section aims to correct in a concise way. We shouldn't imply that eugenics was the only factor in the eclipse, but it was central to the popularising of negative eugenics. Proposals for improved wording? . . dave souza, talk 14:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave- I’m not disputing any of the points you made, my concerns are slightly different from those you address (I probable didn’t explain my concerns very well in my initial post). I have a problem with the article saying: “Darwin's natural selection was eclipsed by Mendelian genetics” Which, in my opinion, is a little muddled (eg it could imply to the reader that, Mendelian genetics somehow replaced, at least temporarily, Natural selection as a theory). I would also say, that later developments in Eugenics (eg links between “Mendelian genetics” and Eugenics) are probably too far off topic to be alluded to in the Darwin biography article (especially as links to articles which deal these issues are provided). Personally I would be happy to lose the last two sentences of that section.Prunesqualer (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking over losing the last two sentences, and improving clarification of points in the footnote. Your change removed the more significant aspect, that the "primary scientific foundation for this shift [to negative eugenics] lay in Mendelian genetics", so I've trimmed and modified the wording accordingly. Will now review sources on these developments. . . dave souza, talk 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave. Thanks for giving this your attention. I'm a little uneasy about the claim that- the "primary scientific foundation for this shift [to negative eugenics] lay in Mendelian genetics". My version has the advantage that it makes no contentious claims and leaves more complex issues to the links (ie I’m not sure that these issues can be dealt with adequately in a few sentences). There is an understandable impulse among those of us who admire Darwin, and his work, to want to distance him, as much as possible, from distasteful associations with Eugenics. However I don’t think we need to tarnish Mendelian genetics in order to do this. I shall be interested to see what your further research turns up though. Prunesqualer (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading through the section now, I think it has reached a good state, with no obvious problems. It has been a good discussion. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There's still seems to be a problem with the following sentences:

"Galton named the field of study "eugenics" in 1883. In contrast to their cautious ideas of voluntary improvement, negative eugenics later developed on a basis of Mendelian genetics and led to compulsory sterilization laws which brought the field into disrepute."

It's not all clear (not to me, at least) whom the pronoun "their" is referring to at the start of the second sentence.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 09:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Since the article's about Darwin, I've changed it to "In contrast to Darwin's cautious thoughts on voluntary improvement,". I'm currently reading through Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the uses of human heredity and negative eugenics seems to have come in with Charles Davenport's ideas and the U.S. state laws on sterilisation and immigration control: British eugenicists kept more to voluntary principles, though near the end of his life Galton apparently expressed thoughts of a compusory scheme. . . dave souza, talk 11:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Death and legacy

I split of some content into a death and legacy section. I think this should however have more content. I heard that Alfred Russel Wallace attended his funeral from a video on NOVA. This is important because the relationship between Darwin and Wallace is not well commented on. The fact that they were good friends should also be mentioned somewhere. The BBC movie "Creation" also said that he was buried with full Christian "honours". This is important because it shows some of his relationship with the church and how he was not universally hated at that time by all Christians.Sidious1741 (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily trust a movie as as source but burial at Westminster Abbey would mean a Church of England burial service and judging from the Times description of the funeral a lot of ministers were there though apparently no bishops. BTW I am very dubious about calling it a State Funeral except in the sense that there was permission for him to be buried at Westminster. No members of the royal family attended, the Prime Minister did not attend, there were no bishops presiding or assisting, and it was not organized by either the crown or the government (all four I would expect at a State Funeral). --Erp (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, we seem to have been let down by the beeb, possibly due to the Graun, but it's not supported by the best source[s]. Have modified the article accordingly
As for more detail, don't forget this is a concise overview and more detail is given in Darwin from Insectivorous Plants to Worms, which I've linked as a see also.
Re the 1909 celebrations, a useful source: van Wyhe, John (March 2011). "1909: The first Darwin centenary". The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online. http://darwin-online.org.uk/1909.html. Retrieved 7 June 2011. . . dave souza, talk 08:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Political Interpretations

The political interpretations section seems very out of place in a biography on Charles Darwin -- it barely mentions the man himself, and focuses primarily on things that (as it describes) have little direct connection to him beyond occasional naming. This doesn't seem to be the appropriate place to go into it (no more than, say, you would put a section on the Crusades in Jesus Christ) -- this article is intended to be a biography of Darwin the man, and his own life, beliefs, and personal accomplishments. It also feels like it was cut-and-pasted awkwardly from another article (especially the heading -- political interpretations of Darwin himself?) --Aquillion (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Having only skimmed the actual content, I do agree there's a lot there. I don't agree it should be excluded altogether. The reason it's relevant is because Darwin's name is used heavily when discussing these concepts, and as such, they are a topic which a reader might pursue this biography to explore. I would have to read them over more heavily to decide, but it seems likely that they could be trimmed, particularly since the content is already linked in the "main article" templates above. If you agree, you're welcome to be bold and do it!   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the word 'political' is not right; it has connotations which do not fit. I suggest the section should be 'Social interpretations', and the two sub-sections as now. Since CD expressed views on both sub-topics, the content seems justified. Discussions certainly appear in published biographies of CD. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point about renaming the section, that brings it more into line with evolution#Social and cultural responses so I've made the change. These are areas of common misunderstandings of Darwin, so it's important to show his own views on these topics while indicating how he did not support later developments of these social interpretations. Some tightening may be in order to keep the focus on Darwin, but it's sometimes complex and not easy to be concise while remaining accurate. . . dave souza, talk 09:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Get a grip - get rid of the Alma mater

(Please accept my apologies for any spelling mistakes and the like - English is not my mother tongue.) Because of reasons not necessary to discuss here, the American culture (maybe also the British, please enlighten me) has a fixation with the institution at which anyone received his higher education. This is evident from the Info-box in the article where the Alma mater of Charles Darwin is presented, the Universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge. If a primary school child comes to Wikipedia to learn, by a quick look, something about Darwin, he (possible a girl, because I use he as a gender neutral pronoun) might very well return from the visit with the knowledge that Darwin was educated at Edinburgh and Cambridge. This would be a waste, because the theology Darwin studied at Cambridge has no relation to his contributions, and of course Darwin's true university was H.M.S. Beagle - what the child would be much better off to have learnt was the grandfather's of Darwin, and so I suggest that the Info-box, obviously of no good to anyone but a schoolboy, be changed and the Alma mater data be replaced with data about his grandfathers.

(It can be worthwhile to look around at the other languages of Wikipedia, the German page does not sport an Info-box at all, and the French page says nothing of Darwin's formal education in it's Info-box. The Spanish page does mention the Alma mater in its Info-box, not Edinburgh but Shrewsbury, something for the Spanish speaking editors to look into, but the Italian page again spares the reader the sufferings of an Info-box.)

((What I'm really trying to say above is this: The American view of the world is a tilted one, and the article reflects this American view more than it reflects Charles Darwin, and therefore the article would be improved if the American view was set aside just an inch for a more accurate description of the life and times of Charles Darwin, not the life of modern time American Wikipedians, some of which are to young to know the essential things about Darwin, but hopefully none to old to be willing to look closer at the differences between their own days and the times of Darwin.)) --78.69.55.99 (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly how the article is displayed in Spanish let alone the French Wikipedias sites etc is irrelevant and in my view a little condescending, but I will comment no further on this. I can't see what you are getting at by 'an American tilt'. The article no doubt has a whole range of contributions from editors of many nations and be assured if any cultural bias crept in there would be plenty of editors from both sides of the pond and further afield stepping in to address any such 'tilts'. If you have any specific examples I suggest you be more specific and refer to these here. You are also wrong about the irrelevance of Darwin's Alma Mater and his theological education having no influence on his contribution to science. There will be some Darwin experts who can comment on this more eruditely than I can but it was perhaps the very fact that he continually had to resolve conflicts in his mind between his religious beliefs and the evidence which emerged from his scientific discoveries that led him after years of personal struggle to publish On the Origin of the Species. Tmol42 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

To put another slant on it, this is a biographical article so of course his education is relevant. – ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Info-box, I think, correct me if I am wrong, is the minimal short summary Wikipedia would like to tell any quick visitor about the subject, especially those of less knowledge and shorter time spent in school, children, even small children. Such minimal short summaries should try to focus on the most important points of the subject, and the fact that Darwin had an education of some kind, and the fact that it happened to be a partly theological one, are not so important, and - now I have to ask you to read again what I wrote above - the institutions at which Darwin received his education is of absolutely no importance, lest the kind of education is first told the visitor. The Info-box mentions his Alma mater, but not the kind of studies Darwin took, and so a visitor will learn nothing of importance by staring at the words Edinburgh and Cambridge. (Please note that I suggest one single specific improvement, the removal of the Alma mater of the Info-box, and the addition of the names of Darwin's grandfathers. I do not claim to have read the article in any length, I am busy reading OtOoS, which happens to be a very nice book, recommended.) --78.69.55.99 (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

By consensus, infoboxes for people contain fields for their places of education. If you wish to change that consensus, feel free to suggest it. In any event, educational background is far more relevant that grandfathers, but if the grandfathers are notable, they maybe listed in the ibox too. – ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

What I suggest is this: Charles Darwin is such a different and important man that he deserves an Info-box design of his own - to give a hint of his story requires something more, and different, than the Info-box of an ordinary run-of-the-mill kind of scientist. Therefore the Alma mater is ill-placed in his Info-box and should be removed and replaced. (I am convinced that Ukexpat is plain wrong when he (who might be a woman, because I use he as a gender neutral pronoun) states: "In any event, educational background is far more relevant that grandfathers" - in this particular case the educational background is of far less importance than the family tree, not to mention his world tour. To assume educational background, here taken to mean the place of, not the kind of, education received, to always be of greater importance than a persons grandfathers is part of the tilt of the (modern day) American world view. In 19th century imperial homeland England quite a number of people are found who exhibits qualities not related to their places of education, Florence Nightingale is perhaps the prime example.) --78.69.55.99 (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I think our IP contributor makes a good point. Yes, someone's education is important, but to just list the academic institutions, and not the field(s) of study, tells the reader very little. And I too agree that it seems to be an American habit to rate the place of one's education ahead of what one actually learnt. Infoboxes are dangerous places. The inevitable tendency to use a field just because it's there can lead to both a shallow and distorted view of a subject. HiLo48 (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of an info box in an article on a person is to provide common biographical information (date of birth, date of death, nationality, field of work, and institution of higher education attended are examples). They do include a field for what a person is known for, but they do not provide a space suitable for much explanation about what is really important about a person. This is no different than say the info box for an article on a country that provides useful statistics and facts about that country (population, area, languages spoken and religions practiced there etc.) but nothing about what is really important about a country's history, politics, physical geography, flora and fauna, or culture. The really important information is summarized in the article lead not the info box. Furthermore I find it puzzling that anyone who was really familiar with Darwin would write "the theology Darwin studied at Cambridge has no relation to his contributions". Darwin's education at Edinburgh, and especially at Cambridge was immensely important to his future work. His studies in natural theology shaped his view of the natural world, especially his emphasis on the adaptation of living things to their environment, and his studies of entomology (esp. beetles), botany, and geology (all of which were studied as part of natural theology at the time) with Henslow and Sedgwick at Cambridge as well as his earlier studies of marine invertebrates with Grant at Edinburgh provided him with the background in natural history that made his observations during the voyage of the Beagle possible. Not to mention of course that it was one of his professors at Cambridge, Henslow, whose recommendation secured him the position on the Beagle in the first place. Finally, while we Yanks no doubt deserve much of the blame/credit for what is good and what is bad about the English language Wikipedia, you can't blame much about this particular article on us. Most of this article has been shaped, for better or for worse (mostly for the better I think) by British editors, and one Brit in particular :) Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I assumed that, as is very common, the infobox was designed by an American. Dunno about anyone else, but it's more the structure of the infobox that I'm criticising, in that it over-emphasises some things and ignores others. Apologies if it wasn't an American creation. HiLo48 (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's the term 'alma mater' that looks odd to me - what's wrong with 'education'? I've never heard the term used outside the US and I always thought that it was the first university/college attended whereas many scientists have attended multiple institutions, as in Darwin's case. Mikenorton (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Whatever we end up doing, we should say something other than "alma mater", which sounds rather pretentious to many people (I'm an academic, and it makes me cringe) and is a little odd when there are several institutions listed. I think education is fine. I don't have strong feelings either way whether we include what he studied or not, but I'd lean towards something like "Edinburgh (medicine), Cambridge (theology)". garik (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like the term alma mater (and I can see your point) the place you need to discuss it is at Template talk:Infobox person or maybe at Template talk:Infobox scientist. I think you are going to have a hard time reaching a consensus to move away from the standard biographical info box templates for this (or any other) biographical article. The templates are used to provide a little commonality in structure, appearance and terminology across articles. As it stands now the term alma mater appears in the info box of many thousands of biographical articles, and changing it in one but not others is probably going to cause confusion; standardizing terminology was one of the big motivations for adopting info box templates in the first place. I do think there is probably room for improvement in the way the info box template is used for this article. I don't have any objection to adding his field of study in parenthesis after the school as suggested above, and I would like to see common descent added to the things he is known for. I would also like the word "evolution" to be worked into the list of things he is known for as well, as not having it there is a bit like ignoring the elephant in the room. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Good points, I'm not much interested in infoboxes but agree that alma mater is an Americanism which is totally out of place in a British bio. First I heard of Alma mater was listening to Chuck Berry. So Tertiary education would be better, have raised this at Template talk:Infobox scientist#Alma mater. The other proposals also seem like good ideas. . . dave souza, talk 18:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm comfortable no university is credited for the passion of Vincent van Gogh. I'd like to see the Xerox machine at the patent office listed as the alma mater of Thomas Alva Edison, a good matching of an American term with an American figure, alas chronology has a more persuasive platform than I do. Charles couldn't copy his classmates, he could certainly lecture his lecturers, and his university was no school of revolution. Credit where it's due. My own schooling prepared me to address the English speaking world and farm animals alike. I find chickens and dogs to be naturally multilingual, and the dialect of cats I cannot fathom. Like the IP Contributor I feel it's worthwhile to look beyond our noses for a wider view. I oppose shelving the discussion in templates, I support 'Getting a Grip' with passion. Penyulap _talk 14:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

John Edmonstone

"He learned taxidermy from John Edmonstone, a freed black slave who had accompanied Charles Waterton in the South American rainforest, and often sat with this "very pleasant and intelligent man".[18]"

Does anyone else feel that this sentence has a slight "Charles Darwin: NOT A RACIST" subtext? garik (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

To me this observation is more likely to be expressing quite the opposite if you read the whole quote not just the last bit. Important also we don't apply a 2011 perspective to a 19th century statement. Tmol42 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

<ec> Maybe we should make it a stronger subtext, possibly citing Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (2009), Darwin's Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the quest for human origins, Allen Lane, Penguin Books, which has a lot on the topic. This review covers that specific point. However, I'm reluctant to add yet another reference book to the list. How do others feel? . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Tmol42: I'm not sure how Darwin's observation is expressing the opposite. My point anyway is not about what Darwin might have meant, but what the sentence in the article is doing. Dave souza: I should add that I'm not saying Darwin was a racist and that this sentence is therefore misleading. My worry is that this sentence makes me cringe; it seems to be saying: "Look! Darwin knew a black man and found him intelligent and pleasant!" I have no doubt that he did, but I think the article would be better either addressing the "Darwin not a racist" point more explicitly (i.e. not as a heavy-handed subtext) or not at all. garik (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

We do cover the point more explicitly later on, in the Education section we're covering the notable fact that he did have this training and had these friendly and respectful dealings with a freed black who had been a slave, as well as learning the craft of taxidermy which would prove useful on the Beagle voyage. This story shows aspects of his character at that time. He was significantly less racist than many scientists were at the time, but modern sensitivities can take amiss Darwin's willingness to describe people as savages or western civilisation as superior. Like the similar issues with his contemporary Abraham Lincoln, it has to be considered in context. Darwin was strongly motivated to consider people on an egalitarian basis, but he ranked people by abilities, had the class consciousness of his time, and did not have modern ideas of multiculturalism. . dave souza, talk 18:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest citing a secondary source like the one you mentioned previously. Simply putting that quote in there, devoid of context, is plainly trying to make an argument without properly sourcing that argument to a secondary source. Since we have secondary sources talking about Darwin's attitude on race, we can cite those directly. (However, either way, Darwin's attitudes towards race shouldn't be given undue weight in the article, since it's not what makes him notable.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well sourced improvement of this aspect will be welcome, will try to assist when time permits. We don't want to give these attitudes undue weight, but D&M do make a case that his attitude to slavery and hence to other races had a strong influence on his willingess to see unity in life, and so influenced his theorising. There's also the need to clear up misunderstandings that are sometimes promoted by anitevolutionists. . .dave souza, talk 19:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Academic advisors seems misleading

Because I don't speak English as my mother tongue my problem might be due to language difficulties but I do find it odd that the Info-box states John Stevens Henslow and Adam Sedgwick as Academic advisors of Darwin. I have tried to understand this "academic advisary" using WP, but no avail. The article speaks about Henslow and Sedgwick in the following passages:

[Darwin] became a close friend and follower of botany professor John Stevens Henslow and met other leading naturalists who saw scientific work as religious natural theology, becoming known to these dons as "the man who walks with Henslow".

In preparation, [Darwin] joined Adam Sedgwick's geology course, then went with him in the summer for a fortnight to map strata in Wales.

After a week with student friends at Barmouth, [Darwin] returned home to find a letter from Henslow proposing [him] (...) for a self-funded place with captain Robert FitzRoy, more as a companion than a mere collector, on HMS Beagle which was to leave in four weeks on an expedition to chart the coastline of South America.

When the Beagle reached Falmouth, Cornwall, on 2 October 1836, Darwin was already a celebrity in scientific circles as in December 1835 Henslow had fostered his former pupil's reputation by giving selected naturalists a pamphlet of Darwin's geological letters.

Darwin visited his home in Shrewsbury and saw relatives, then hurried to Cambridge to see Henslow, who advised on finding naturalists available to catalogue the collections and agreed to take on the botanical specimens.

Still rewriting his Journal, [Darwin] took on editing and publishing the expert reports on his collections, and with Henslow's help obtained a Treasury grant of £1,000 to sponsor this multi-volume Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle,

The Church of England's response was mixed. Darwin's old Cambridge tutors Sedgwick and Henslow dismissed the ideas,

I have not read up on Darwin more than this, but the old tutor and first and foremost close friend Henslow does not at all sound like an "academic advisor". The role Sedgwick played does not fit my idea of such an advisor either. I suggest that the Info-box be stripped of their names. If there is something important I'm missing I hope the "academic advisor" will be linked to a suitable article for my sake (and the sake of other foreign readers). --78.69.55.99 (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox scientist describes the "academic_advisors" field as being for "Names of any significant educational advisors (other than doctoral advisor)", then its Usage guidelines says "Insert names of significant academic teachers other than the doctoral advisor: e.g. Master's advisor, postdoctoral supervisor, significant undergraduate mentor/teacher etc. In Cambridge, before 1919, there was no PhD and so you can insert the relevant Cambridge tutor." As discussed in more detail in Charles Darwin's education, Henslow was a tutor to Darwin on mathematics and theology, as well as teaching him botany and natural history. Sedgwick taught Darwin about geology, as well as taking him on a brief but influential expedition to examine stratigraphy (rock layers) in Wales. So in my view they both significant academic teachers of Darwin. Hope that explains their inclusion, . . dave souza, talk 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

To me an important tutor is something else than an academic advisor, whatever the Usage guidelines of Template:Infobox scientist says. Your explanation does not make sense in my world, Henslow and Sedgwick didn't "advice" Darwin in the way a full professor would have done, had Darwin been a 20th century postgraduate student. I still think the article would benefit from having the "academic advisor" removed from the Info-box, even after having read your description of the tutor-student-relation between Darwin and Henslow; Sedgwick must go at once, mustn't he?

(A few more words about the use of Info-boxes: An Info-box serves two purposes, on the face of it, the Info-box summarizes the most usual answers the editors expects a causal visitor would look for. On a deeper level the Info-box teaches the visitor what questions to ask, at least in the case of a template. The editors teaches the readers to think along the lines: Scientists can be described by a few typical traits, and Darwin is a scientist, therefore we (the readers and the editors together) can describe Darwin, and understand him, and his contributions, by simply stating his position in the multi-dimensional space of scientists, defined by his "academic advisor", his "alma mater", etc. This takes the reader away from the important questions, and puts him in a place where he can feel safe - having all the answers - but totally fooled all the same - he has not gained an inch in understanding Darwin by learning about his academic advisors and his alma mater.

The problem of course, for 21st century readers, is the enormous differences between our days, and the world of 19th century "scientists". A "scientist" today is something very different from a "scientist" 200 years ago, the use of a common Info-box template obscures this very important fact. (One example difference: Back then, you received an education because of who you were, today you receive an education because of who you shall become.)) --78.69.55.99 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that there's a problem involved in outlining early 19th century concepts with an infobox which uses modern American terms. Your comments at Template talk:Infobox scientist#Alma mater will be welcome. . . dave souza, talk 22:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I think also you may be expecting too much from an info-box. The purpose of an info box is to provide convenient access to certain facts about the subject of an article (for biographical articles things like birth date, death date, nationality, religion etc.). You say "he has not gained an inch in understanding Darwin" by reading the info-box, and that is probably true but I can't help (and perhaps this is just me being over familiar with the English language Wikipedia) but I am very puzzled by anyone who would expect to gain any understanding from an info-box. Info-boxes are for quick reference for certain standardized information. The lead of an article is supposed to summarize what is important about the subject, not the info-box. I admit that when I use Wikipedia for a reference I sometimes ONLY read the lead of an article if it tells me what I am looking for, but I would never just peruse the info-box, unless I was looking for one specific fact such as say nationality, or place of birth. As to the "academic advisor" issue. I realize that you seem to have a certain very specific/formal definition of that term in mind which I suspect has something to do with the specific way the term is used in some modern Universities (where an academic adviser might be a person assigned by a university or academic department to advise a particular student), but I find what Henslow did for Darwin to be very consistent with what is described in the academic advising article, and I don't see much problem with describing Sedgwick that way either. Just because a particular profession uses a term in a very specific way doesn't mean that it can't be used in a more general, commonsense, way in an encyclopedia article written for a general audience. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate my reservations regarding info-boxes, or rather templates of such things, let my suggest that we had gathered a list of the one houndred most important contributors to the field of science born before Julius Caesar. Now think about the task of designing a template for Info-box 100best100BC. How would you go about selecting apropriate fields for such a template? You would have to study those one houndred "scientists", I would say rather hard, to decide what to summarize about them for the causal reader. (Of course you would have to study the causal reader as well, to be able to judge what information he would like to see, but then again the WP-editor can look to himself for a reader-model. (Maybe it is the educational task of the editor to teach the reader to put the right questions, that is certainly what I expect the not so effortless template design to do.))

A second task, lets look at all "scientists" mentioned in WP at the end of last month born between 1750 and 1849, and think of how to design a template Info-box 18th and a half century scientist WP 1 June 2011.

Now think about the general template Info-box Scientist and compare it to the 100best100BC and 18th and a half. Are there any common ground between the three of them? Not necessarily, because the general Info-box Scientist template mirrors first and foremost (modern day) (vague) general ideas about scientists - Einstein is probably lurking somewhere in the back of the editors heads - and not a real effort to summarize real people in the real world. (Speaking of scientists is really a matter of speaking about the exceptions, and a template is about the rules, so a scientist template is a self-contradiction.)

Speaking about Darwin there is no need to call his tutors "academic advisors", if the Info-box was designed to mirror Darwin in his time, without glancing at other more contempory scientists, there would be no mentioning of "academic advisors", but of course his most important tutors and real life friends and supporters would be mentioned as such. --81.229.102.134 (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC) (Formerly 78.69.55.99)

I really don't agree. I don't see any real difference between the term "tutor" and the term "academic adviser" they seem pretty interchangeable to me. It is not like we are talking about thesis advisers which would be a modern concept. The info box has a separate field for thesis advisers and clearly says that the "academic advisor" field should not be used for them. It seems to me that the people who created the infobox had in mind exactly the way the term is used here; a teacher who strongly influenced a student's later career. Now we may have preferred a different term perhaps "academic mentors" or "educational influences", but I think that is a separate argument than you are making, which seems to be that the very concept doesn't apply to 19th century scientists. Now one area where I think we do agree is that the "scientist" info box doesn't make much sense for figures from tantiquity. I don't think anyone prior to at least the 16th century really could be called a scientist. Figures like Aristotle, Ptolemy, Thales, Anaximander, and even many later figures like Descartes, Copernicus, and Kepler (Galileo was truly an exception) were really natural philosophers (and thought of themselves as such) whose scientific contributions were merely incidental to their philosophical work. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No Source Cited for a vital claim.

Second Paragraph:

"By the 1870s the scientific community and much of the general public accepted evolution as a fact."

I'm astounded that this wild claim is not cited in any way. I'm not in any way contending it's truth, but it is an extremely presumptuous claim to make without a wealth of evidential support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdrianStray (talk • contribs) 04:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The lead doesn't have to be cited if the material is dealt with in detail lower down. See "Responses to publication". --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

From WP:LEADCITE:

...there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations...

It is a common misconception that the lead is immune from WP:CHALLENGE Jebus989^✰ 09:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• The sources cited for this sentence and the sentence which follows it are van Wyhe 2008 which focusses on scientific acceptance (link to current version), and Bowler 2003, pp. 179, 338, 347. Bowler gives more detail and covers the public acceptance, but as his explanation that in the general public there was a spread of opinion and "in the decade following publication of the Origin, even the conservatives became more willing to accept the general theory of evolution" appears on p. 178, I'll amend the citation accordingly. Note Bowler's comment that Darwin's great achievement was in precipitating a change in public opinion and scientific opinion. dave souza, talk 11:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Claims Summary

The claims of the second sentance in the first paragraph are uncited and inaccurate.

He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry,...

It is NOT established in science that all species of life have descended over time from a common ancestry and it is not accurate to claim that Charles Darwin established this concept as a fact. I propose the following more accurate version:

He proposed that all species of life could have descended over time from common ancestry,...

A reference to these two claims should be cited at minimum if authors believe the current version is truthful and accurate.

Wcwarren (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed at serious, serious length before. Anyone have a link handy to that discussion? de Bivort 03:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Try here, et sec; anything to forestall that argument kicking off again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Could it be that "natural selection" is being applied to the origin and evolution of this article? Texaswikiman777 (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. I thought that this would probably have been discussed at length but I could not find the discussion. Evolution is a theory, and has never been established as proven fact (hence the ongoing debate). I know this sounds like an old discussion but the words used here describing Darwin's contribution are very important. Facts are established, theories (no matter how popular or supported they are) are proposed and supported or challenged. If Darwin actually proposed theory then the sentance also requires the word could as suggested above. Wcwarren (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who uses Western medicine is being treated by people who know that evolution is more than "just a theory". However, our opinions are not relevant: reliable sources are required, particularly when dealing with scientific issues. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Gravity is a theory. Fortunately there aren't alternative versions in ancient religious texts for nutters to push as alternatives. HiLo48 (talk) 09:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If posts of the Great Turtle Theory now start appearing in the Gravity article, we know whom to blame for starting them off! --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article on Scientific Theory, as that argument is quite laughable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.177.39 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 November 2011‎

Please see Use of Word "established" for a hopefully useful detailed explanation and conclusion.Wcwarren (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality is in serious question. The whole introduction should be worded differently, it establishes evolution as fact at least twice. There is no such thing as a scientific fact. See Scientific Method and Scientific Analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.4.147.134 (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The sources cited in evolution as theory and fact disagree with your unsourced assertion. . dave souza, talk 18:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Evolution is a scientific fact. WP:NPOV applies when there is actually a controversy surrounding a matter, however, with evolution, there is no controversy among the educated people who have studied biological processes.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.186.177.39 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 November 2011‎

So this whole discussion comes down to sources cited! If two sources say different things which do we believe? The majority belief is no guide so maybe we use some common sense? I propose evolution, defined as molecules to man, defies common sense proof, since it can't be proved and was never and has never been observed (science method fundamentals are violated) it MUST remain a theory. Wikipedia readers are not thinking about philosophical arguments which move ideas into so called facts. Swirling controversy does surround evolutionary theory except for those who's ideas are opposed to any other possibility so conclude evolution must have happened (so just believe like Richard Dawkins does). WP:NPOV should be applied rigorously to this article!!!Wcwarren (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Fortunately, extraordinary developments in the last 150 years mean we now have medical procedures that would have been regarded as magic in Darwin's time, and we can type messages to each other, and land on the Moon, and a lot more. All that is due to science, and scientific sources verify what is in the article. By the way, evolution has nothing to do with "molecules to man"—it concerns what happened after life began. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Wcwarren argues for common sense. Creationism is anything but. Keep that faith based, irrational dogma away from this scientific content. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Please keep your theology out of my biology. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Evolution is all about molecules evolving into life and that life evolving into man. How else did life begin if it did not spontaneously evolve?Wcwarren (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions are good. While it is known that life has evolved from a common ancestor, how it all began is more speculative—see abiogenesis. At any rate, evolution concerns how self-replicating organisms change when subject to natural selection, and does not consider how the first such entities arose. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Has the issue of WP:NPOV applying to this article been discussed and resolved? Ever?Wcwarren (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in the article is known to be poorly sourced or undue. After some study of the topics, perhaps suggestions about changes might be made. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly my point, the words in the second sentance ARE undue and do not match the rest of the article. The words give greater prominance to one point of view of conclusions about the theory and are NOT neutral. The second paragraph uses words like theory, evidence and consensus which is neutral wording. Using terms like established is opinion. Charles Darwin himself did not even try and make a claim of confirmed facts in his research. He added refinement and evidence to already existing theories.Wcwarren (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As was suggested to you above, this point has been given endless discussion already—example here. I can't think of anything that's left to be said, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. What's the new point, please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wcwarren, if you think that Darwin didn't "establish" but merely "proposed", could you then tell me, who "established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry"? I am not an expert on Darwin and evolution despite being a biochemist. That is why I am asking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carstensen (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Theories are proposed and facts established. Evolution is a conclusion not a testable and proved fact.Wcwarren (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Please see the definition of "theory" as it applies to evolution...

A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

— OED

Theory does not mean what you think it means. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a great definition but it is worth noting the key joining words in it. Theory is a scheme or system held (belief) to explain the known facts. It could also be a confirmed hypothesis (evolution lacks experimental support however). It might be a general law OR principle OR cause of facts observed. Since evolution has never been observed (Dawkins) and is only a conclusion (though often believed in or held) the popular reading of theory fits well. Evolution is a concept or idea. Wcwarren (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Evolution lacks experimental support? Hardly. Did you have suggestions for improving the article? Otherwise please see WP:NOTAFORUM. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

My points about a lack of experimental support for evolution are simply to illustrate the bias of this article. Editorial bias is attributing unproved and unsourced claims to Darwin. For the sake of accuracy and NPOV these errors should be corrected. The section I started below goes into detail on the significant wording problems I see. If this is corrected then this article will be significantly improved and the interpretive and subjective editorial bias corrected.Wcwarren (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah. You want the article to be biased to suit your religious view which has no support in science. Wrong article, wrong 'pedia. Try reading NPOV more carefully, it does not support giving undue weight to your fringe views. . . dave souza, talk 23:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no bias in my suggestions at all. Neutrality is a worthy goal in a subject as contentous as evolutionary theory. I am not seeking a balance to other perspectives just an accurate representation of Darwin's work. Editorial opinion may lean heavily to this articles bias but the quoted sources do not. This is not an issue of my or any other's opinion but the need for verifiability of wording that is the issue needing to be solved.Wcwarren (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Use of Word "established"

In the second sentance the second word is "established". In a previous version the word "showed" was used. This change was made by Mann jess on 14 June 2010‎ at 16:36 and allegedly is based on long discussions up to that time. This is not correct!

I have read the relevant discussions and the change from "showed" to "established" is actually in the context of Darwin's establishment of the theory not his alleged establishment of the science of evolution! This is a vital difference. This sentence reads much more strongly than any reference or discussion supports!

Please see the the fourth sentance of the fourth paragraph for the correct context of the use of this word. In that sentance it is clear that Darwin only "established" an explanation not the conclusion. This sentance is referenced appropriately.

If anyone can show the error in this section please give direct reference to any missing discussion. Please do not include YOUR opinions on the value of the use of the word "established".

This reverted change is NOT based on the ideas of the content but on the wording agreed upon in discussion.

Please do not mindlessly revert this reverted edit.

I hope this clears things up as this single word "established" has been defended incorrectly many times. A simple search of this word in edits and discussions proves the truth of what I am saying.

Wcwarren (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see Evolution as a theory and fact. Providing sources for your proposal would also help.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but you miss the point. Discussions here are NOT about the theory but the discussion of the use of this word. This change has NOT been discussed. I checked! Wcwarren (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is based on an incorrect distinction between "theory" and "fact". The article I linked to explains that in exhaustive detail, with ample sources. We go by what the sources say, not the opinions of our editors. Please just read the article. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My argument has nothing to do with a distinction between "theory" and "fact". The changes to this article are discussed here but this change which I reverted has NOT been discussed. The sources do not say Darwin established science but that he established a concept or idea, call it a fact or theory it is still an idea. Wcwarren (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive 11. However, even if it hadn't been discussed, as you alleged, edit warring would not be appropriate.   — Jess· Δ♥

I accept the observation that edit warring should be avoided, I'll watch my edits. I am not very experienced.

I believe the "consensus" seen is based on editor's opinions on this topic. Sorry Jess, but the original insertion of "established" is I think based on subjective interpretation not on references. There is lots of debate about the current reading though I see that many editors like it. An objective consensus taking this sentance back to an unbiased point of view should be sought. The collective wording says much more than the parts agreed to by some editors. Wcwarren (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Can we stop wasting time on this pointless discussion? It's yet another case of fundamentalist Christians preaching Creationism, this time in an article on a great scientist. No matter how much they argue otherwise, it's a fringe POV position by world standards. Much of this page should be hatted and ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem on the edit warring; Wikipedia is a learning experience by nature. It's just something to look out for going forward. According to the discussion on Archive 11, "showed" was rejected because 1) it implies a visual demonstration primarily, 2) it implies an immediacy to his work, though some of his work was not accepted until later, 3) it is less precise about the impact and acceptance of his work today, 4) it is implied by other alternatives which do not have similar problems (such as demonstrated and established). That the theory of evolution is "established", in the sense that it is both true and a cornerstone of modern biology, is strongly supported by our reliable sources. Here's one, but there are others in the Evolution as a theory and fact article, as well as Evolution and Objections to evolution. If you have sources which demonstrate otherwise, I'd encourage you to link to them. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a thoughtful reply to my discussion. It is good to see constructive discussion without resorting to attempts to distract from the core issue of good literature and NPOV. I didn't search "showed", just the alternative of "established" which lacked discussion. Thanks for the background. I still feel that this word attributes too much to Darwin which is not supported by references. Since some of his ideas were not accepted till latter then he didn't establish the theory but added to the discussion. Again we are not talking about the theory of evolution but Darwin's contribution. The merits or otherwise of the theory is a secondary discussion and ought not even be the core of this article. Maybe we can put to the community a change to "demonstrated" then since this word gives greater accuracy to an understanding of Darwin's contribution to the concept of evolution. Wcwarren (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Another solution would be to put a hatnote above the article to put it all in context. This could be similar to the sentances used in other articles with divergent perpectives like Age of the earth.Wcwarren (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Re Age of the Earth: I reverted the change by Wcwarren which introduced a hatnote to the effect that the article is concerned with scientific estimates (however, the hatnote has been restored). The practice at Wikipedia is to write what pertinent reliable sources say: the Earth is 4.54 billion years old (not "some scientists believe..."). The same applies to this article: Darwin did establish common ancestry (although of course the evidence available now is overwhelmingly more powerful than was available 150 years ago), and the article should not say "some scientists believe...". Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

@John: Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm the one who restored it. I didn't see a problem with the wording on Age of the Earth, but as my edit summary indicated, you're more than welcome to revert me and we can discuss. Obviously, I agree with you; the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and saying "scientists believe" would violate WP:DUE.

@Wcwarren: I think "established" is better than "demonstrated", since our reliable sources indicate common descent is established, and that it originated with Darwin's work. Demonstrated gives almost precisely the same meaning, except that it skips over that fact. I'm not sure what sort of hatnote you wish to put at the top of the article, but none of the ones I can think of would be appropriate. ("For religious interpretations of Charles Darwin...") Hatnotes are intended to guide readers to the topic they were searching for... If they hit "Charles Darwin", they were obviously looking for a biography, not something religious.   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And just to make sure I've hit all your points, Wcwarren, it doesn't matter whether Darwin's work established common descent during or after his lifetime. We haven't supplied any dates in that sentence, so we don't need to restrict ourselves to just that period. BTW, we talked about all this in Archive 11. Did you read the discussion I linked you to?   — Jess· Δ♥ 07:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. A "hatnote" could say something like This article is about Charles Darwin's contributions to the theory of evolution. For detailed discussion of evolution itself see that article.

In Archive 11 Jess's quote sums it up. Established rightly gives him credit for founding and popularizing the theory, No problem here, Darwin established the theory but he did NOT establish the science. The point in timing is a third conversation about who established the theory. Darwin's evidence did not establish evolutionary science but did help to popularise the "concept" or "idea" or "fact". Wcwarren (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Misleading. Darwin's work and authority established the fact that evolution occurs, other scientists had been gradually working towards this but Darwin provided the tipping point. He did not establish his theory of natural selection in his lifetime, that came later. . . dave souza, talk 00:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a proposal for a new consensus for discussion here - let's think about this. It seems we have one group of people that favors "showed" and one group of people that favors "established." Since neither group is willing to accept the other group's word, let's think of a possible alternative to both. I propose (and please, hear my argument out) that we instead use the word "determined." By saying "He determined that all species of life...", we are treating it as both a discovery and the basis for Darwin's work (leaving the dead-horse theory-vs-fact argument completely out of the loop). I know this has been discussed at length, but I think we might be able to find a better consensus here than what we previously had. Any ideas or counter-suggestions? Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The term "established" covers the main point which is that "Darwin's name is so linked with evolution because his works convinced the international scientific community that evolution was true."[3] The other terms don't have the same meaning. He "determined" that evolution was a fact around 1837 soon after his return from the Beagle voyage, but it took him many years of work before he was prepared to convince the scientific community. It's true that he "showed" this to the scientific community, but more than that, "Darwin, as an unquestionably respectable authority in elite science, publicly threw his weight on the side of evolution" and "the great majority of the scientific community came to accept that Darwin was right about the evolution of life". . . dave souza, talk 21:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I see your point; I'm just trying to come up with an alternative that will not cause edit wars. (I realize, of course, that there are some on both sides who won't drop it even if the proof is right in front of them.) If you don't like "determined" (and let's say just for the sake of discussion that "showed" and "established" are also both out), what do you propose? And for the record, I'm not against the current status quo - I'm just trying to come up with a solution that will please both sides. Sleddog116 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is no reason to think that "established" is out. Many articles offend fringe groups and are subject to frequent attempts to "balance" scientifically accurate statements by fiddling with the wording—if this were ever resolved, another word in the article would be the next focus of attention. As dave has mentioned, the transformation to scientific thinking caused by Darwin's work is astounding (and well sourced), and "established" is exactly correct. Johnuniq (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, great contributions. There is a serious lack of reference to the use of the word established in literature however. The use of this word is a consensus of editors' interpretation and thus should be changed or removed as it is not verifiable. The correct use of the word is the establishment of the theory and this is precisely what the references say. Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of diversification in nature. He established an explanation, a great contribution to the story of origins but not the science itself. Wcwarren (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. Darwin's work and intervention tipped the balance to establish what other scientists had been coming round to, the fact that evolution occurs. That isn't "the story of origins", but it does explain the origin of species. As discussed above, your bias is showing and is not a view that should be given weight in this science article. . dave souza, talk 23:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Correct! Darwin did establish a theory that other scientists were coming round to. However there are no sources which say Darwin established the fact of evolution as the origin of species. If there are then provide the quote, please. The key point is that the use of the word established is NOT supported by any quoted sources or references as it is used in the article. Yes he did propose an explanation, now widely accepted, but he did not establish the history of origins any more than any other historian ever established the real history of events NOT OBSERVED. Darwin established the theory not the facts!!!Wcwarren (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Wcwarren, not quite. Darwin's intervention established the fact that evolution of some sort was occurring and had occurred, but his theory was generally rejected or thought to be only a minor factor. As is shown by the sources. . dave souza, talk 03:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a serious lack of references supporting the editorial conclusion that Darwin established the fact of evolution. Change in species is seen but that is not the same as evolution of one species from another. To illustrate this fact the observed changes like finch beak sizes are within a species and reversible over time! The finches are not evolving into a new species and this definition of evolution has NEVER been observed, ANYWHERE!!! If the quotes don't support the text then it should be changed. This is the whole point. Wcwarren (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We get it. You can't see the evidence. However, this is not a forum. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from , 24 November 2011

On the Origin of Species proved unexpectedly popular, with the entire stock of 1,250 copies oversubscribed when it went on sale to booksellers on 24 November 1859. Peperoque (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you'll have to explain more clearly what change you'd like made as this appears to be identical to the current wording. Thanks, . dave souza, talk 17:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Maull and Polyblank portrait

There was considerable discussion some time ago, and agreement that the seated portrait by Maull and Fox was the best portrait for the infobox, but the Maull and Polyblank portrait was recently swapped with that picture. The latter works reasonably well in the "publication" section, but has an unfortunate impact. As Darwin said to Hooker, "if I really have as bad an expression, as my photograph gives me, how I can have one single friend is surprising". So, in my view inappropriate for the infobox and have swapped them back. Will think about whether to quote Darwin's view about the photo in the caption. . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Biologist?

Where and when did Darwin study and earn a degree in biology? --41.151.8.68 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

As the article shows, Darwin studied biology at both Edinburgh and Cambridge, there was no such thing as a degree in biology at Cambridge at that time. He also studied biology in greater depth when working on barnacles and plants. . dave souza, talk 16:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wording in 1st paragraph

Please reconsider the wording in the second sentence. It is not very scientific in its style. "He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection."

He proposed that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestry, and is the founder of the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection."

A hypothesis is proposed, theories are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.51.207.235 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This matter has been thoroughly discussed (see the archives at the top). Darwin did a lot more than wake up one morning with a proposal. Also, reliable sources verify that the scientific community moved from a position of ignorance of the subject to support for Darwin's conclusions in a remarkably small number of years—that is the reason for "established". Johnuniq (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The Article Is Blocked

The Article Is Blocked For Other Users Except Administrators And Bots. It Is A Polpular page in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonphan1 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The article can be edited by established users. If you keep on vandalising articles you'll be blocked, and won't be able to edit any articles, so please try to improve your editing and be constructive. . dave souza, talk 23:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Darwin's views on race and Descent of Man quote

User:Timmoreland added a quote to the Social Darwinism section from from The Descent of Man:

"“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

I have no issue inserting the quote if it is properly explained and placed in context. The quote is sometimes used by critics of evolution and Darwin to show that he was racist or was a proponent of social darwinism. There should be some reliable sources discusses his views on race and that quote in particular. Since this is an issue, people may be looking for it when they go to this article. We could split it from the social Darwinism section so that there's a clear separation between his views and later interpretations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call, the detailed explanation of this particular creationist quotemine are dealt with in The Descent of Man and don't need to be repeated here. . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There's some precedence for this. For instance the Margaret Sanger article has a section on her views on Race. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The article already outlined Darwin's views on race, scholarly views are clear that he was much less racist than most people of his time. It may be useful to move some points from notes into the body of the article, will think about that. . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Also put most of the Eugenics section into Views on Eugenics. It does create some redundancy as you have to explain Francis Galton twice. You can expand the Eugenics section a bit to focus on the field as opposed to Darwin's views on it. I also move the following quote to the end:

Taking descriptive ideas as moral and social justification creates the ethical is-ought problem^{[citation needed]}.

There's no citation. Critics of Social Darwinism have said that, but you have to include a source. I also removed:

Darwin's theory of evolution was a matter of explanation. He thought it "absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another" and saw evolution as having no goal ^{[citation needed]}.

Again, no source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The first was sourced to Wilkins, the statement "absurd to talk of one animal being higher than another" is already sourced further up in the article, his theory was unusual in that evolution to him lacked a goal or direction but don't think that was well sourced so have left it out for now. . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Full quote:

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. Source:Ch. VI, On The Birthplace and Antiquity Of Man

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

As above, see Descent for commentary. . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Also removed the citation to Anthony Flew. I am not sure how useful it is. It seems to contradict the rest of the section.

Darwin did not share the racism common at that time: a point examined by the philosopher Antony Flew, who is at pains to distance Darwin's attitudes from those later attributed to him.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Good call. . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overall, there are some problems with this reorganisation and it may have lost some useful sourced info. However, it's worthwhile reviewing this part of the article. As a first step I've simplified some of the sections, putting the emphasis a bit more on Darwin's views. Note that women aren't a separate race, so a more general heading is appropriate. Have also moved the pic of daddy with Wm. out of the box, you're right about it getting too large. . . . dave souza, talk 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Re the section title, the article explains how "Darwinism" means many things, and we should show that rather than avoiding it because of creationist misuse in one country. The proposed change to "Social Darwinism" gives anachronistic weight to a neologism that didn't exist in Darwin's day, so I'm happier with the shorter title. It already mentions various evolutionary ideas, we could always add a bit about use of "Darwinism" for Weissman's Neo-Darwinism or evolutionary theory with an emphasis on natural selection. . dave souza, talk 18:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)