This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
Charles Darwin is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shropshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Shropshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShropshireWikipedia:WikiProject ShropshireTemplate:WikiProject ShropshireShropshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
This article is about a botanist or someone who contributed to the field of botany.
Important notice: Some common points of argument are addressed at Wikipedia's Evolution FAQ, which represents the consensus of editors here. Please remember that this page is only for discussing Wikipedia's encyclopedia article about Charles Darwin. If you are interested in discussing or debating evolution itself, you may want to visit talk.origins.
Other talk page banners
Why is this page listed in the "Utilitarians" category?
Though the edit which "changed portrait to a more recognizable one" was clearly in good faith, the previous portrait was chosen after careful consideration, and I've restored it. As noted at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin, "There was a lot of discussion earlier resulting in the decision that the image from around the time of publication of The Origin is preferable to the iconic image of Darwin's beard which he grew seven years after publication" [10:16, 17 December 2006] . . . dave souza, talk23:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reference 179 and the short sentence along with it should be removed from the article because it contrasts with the views of Darwin written later in the article. Additionally, the source itself uses the quote from the book out of context and seems to weaponize the quote. The source article makes good points of course, but the short paragraph which it mentions Darwin provides little to no context with the excerpted quote. And the author seems too merely have selected it for its seemingly racist language. The word used by the author of the article, 'degraded' means a series of successive stages, which means that Darwin was likely hypothesizing about how the multitudes of human races came to be. There are of course other issues with the use of this source such as how Darwin may have used the term Savage's to refer to indigenous people. But Darwin does not call all indigenous people savages only certain tribes. It is also worth noting that the citation within the source article does not provide the page number for which the quote, "the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages" was found. I am aware that Darwin's Racism has been thoroughly discussed in Archived Talk pages, but either way the source has multiple issues that prevent it from being reliable enough to include in the Article. I Apologize If this has been Discussed Previously as there is a good chance I missed any previous discussions on this due to the length of the archived Discussions. Neonblaze1 (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't actually provided a good reason why the material should be removed, rather than potentially given the additional context you've characterized it as lacking presently. Remsense ‥ 论04:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote (New Edition, Appleton & Co, New York, 1897, p. 66) is "Differences of this kind between the highest men of the highest races and the lowest savages, are connected by the finest gradations. Therefore it is possible that they might pass and be developed into each other." This is an argument that the differences may be social rather than genetic, the opposite to the impression given by ref 179. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove it. The issue is discussed extensively elsewhere in the article, and altering the passage would be original research. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was being a bit vague, but I meant there might be some other secondary source dealing with this material. If not, then of course we agree. Remsense ‥ 论11:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is discussed in detail in note vi. There is no point in briefly duplicating one part of the discussion in cite 179. A citation is in any case the place for citations, not notes. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.png){kind=small}
