Talk:Charles Darwin

Financial independence

This edit highlighted in the lead the idea that post-voyage CD was able to start research on transmutaton due to his family connections – the source isn't readily accessible, but doesn't seem to be on that topic, and highlighting it in this way overweights its significance. At the time when CD also had government funding for his main work, publishing the Beagle collections. The issue is covered in context, with a better source, in the #Inception of Darwin's evolutionary theory section. Don't think it's a big enough point to squeeze into the lead, but it certainly doesn't belong at the start of that paragraph. . dave souza, talk 21:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018

In the paragraph

"After a week with student friends at Barmouth, Darwin returned home on 29 August to find a letter from Henslow proposing him as a suitable (if unfinished) naturalist for a self-funded supernumerary place on HMS Beagle with captain Robert FitzRoy, emphasising that this was a position for a gentleman rather than "a mere collector". The ship was to leave in four weeks on an expedition to chart the coastline of South America.[36] Robert Darwin objected to his son's planned two-year voyage, regarding it as a waste of time, but was persuaded by his brother-in-law, Josiah Wedgwood II, to agree to (and fund) his son's participation.[37] Darwin took care to remain in a private capacity to retain control over his collection, intending it for a major scientific institution."[38]

change the first sentence to tell whether it was a week after Darwin graduated from college, or if the trip with his student friends was just a week long, because the section on the page before this was talking about him graduating from college. It could also be nice to add how long after college it was that he received the letter.

I hope you take this edit into consideration -tbone 173.21.197.56 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. I've changed the sentence to be clear that "After leaving Sedgwick in Wales, Darwin spent a week with student friends at Barmouth, then returned home on 29 August to find a letter from Henslow...." and have shown the date Darwin set off with Sedgwick. More details at Charles Darwin's education. . . dave souza, talk 23:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the educated public

Thanks to DVdm for answering the request for a citation, however the point in the lead about acceptance of evolution in the '70s is well covered by Bowler, an expert in science history of the relevant period. Vakoch, Douglas A.; Dowd, Matthew F. (2015). The Drake Equation: Estimating the Prevalence of Extraterrestrial Life through the Ages (illustrated ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 188. ISBN 978-1-316-38118-2. Extract of page 188 is more focussed on ETI, and not clear about what "subset of the public" accepted evolution. Peter J. Bowler (8 September 2009). Evolution: The History of an Idea, 25th Anniversary Edition, With a New Preface. Univ of California Press. p. 178. ISBN 978-0-520-26128-0. (as in his 2003 edition) is quite nuanced, but clearly shows a shift in majority [educated] public opinion, so "subset" may be rather misleading. I've changed back to the earlier sourcing, but modified the wording to "he scientific community and a majority of the educated public had accepted evolution as a fact." Maybe understating things, but better in my opinion. dave souza, talk 19:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Thx. - DVdm (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The addition of "the"

The article currently states "Darwin, c. 1854 when he was working towards publication of On the Origin of Species", the inclusion of "the" should be added and it should read "Darwin, c. 1854 when he was working towards the publication of On the Origin of Species". The exclusion of "the" makes the sentence lack any grammatical sense and if you compare the use of with and without "the", the results prove my point.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It makes grammatical sense either way, so edit warring over it is a Bad Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No it does not, the inclusion of "the" is required. The search of "working towards publication" produces around 14,300 results and "working towards the publication" produces around 29,800,000 results.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the grammar in phrases like "working towards publication" or "working towards acceptance". And see the literature:

Google	Scholar	Books
"working towards publication"	92	135
"working towards the publication"	90	8
"working towards acceptance"	107	169
"working towards the acceptance"	51	3

- DVdm (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, the latter sounds a bit clunky to me; the former, given the use of a caption, is perfectly fine for its intended use. Much like billboards and headlines, in captions articles can be dropped. — Javert2113 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Simply being selective and only using scholars' use of omitting "the" in the sentence is an appeal to authority. Compare the overall results via Google. Excluding "the" makes the sentence awkward to read to say the least.--James Joseph P. Smith (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's compare the overall results via relevant Google searches, as above. - DVdm (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

As is often the case, the simplest solution was to reword the caption to avoid the disputed structure altogether — which I have done. General Ization ^Talk 22:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Influences section

The article is missing information about Darwin's influences. I propose a section could be added on this, any ideas? 80.189.126.234 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2018 (UTC)