Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Shooting Darwin Down

someone who can write better than me should put this theory in the darwin, evolution, intelligent design and irreducible complexity pages

Athiest's Nightmare

--Thurston 21:15, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

You can't be serious. I think that I may have lost an IQ point or two after watching that drivel. Is this from the same people who tried to put forth the domesticated banana as a disproof of evolution? --M 20:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

This article is heavily weighted toward a discussion of Darwin's struggle with religious faith with comparatively little discussion of those things for which he is principally of interest.

Evolution is not an institution to be founded, it is a scientific theory. Darwin was the first to coherently describe part of the process by which it occurs.--Eldepeche 19:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Deleted the deathbed recanting lie. There is no point putting a lie and simply saying it needs a citation. --

More deletions

I also deleted the quote mine AND the line about him being worshipped.

Yeah, it looks like the deathbed conversion stroy isn't true. I re-deleted it.

It has not been proved to be un-true. The section is awaiting citation. Do not delete sections until they are documented as untrue. Thank you. --David R 12:09, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Wait, what? Undocumented claims are to be left in unless they can be proven false? That seems like rather an odd standard of evidence, to say the least... Tsumetai 12:15, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Even the creationists a Answers In Genesis know that it isnt true. You dont put up unsupported lies and just label them as citation needed. You support what you put up.

Someone else added it, I just marked it as "citation needed" rather than deleting it outright. I just wanted to give people a chance to cite it, as I wasn't sure about it.--Monotreme 12:19, 22 February 2007 (EST)

It was there when I edited it, so I included it with my stuff, but noted that it is only a rumor. But further research shows it is totally untrue, so I took it out of my second edit. There are plenty of facts about Darwin and Darwinsim that demonstrate its a sham - why not put them in its place? I mean, Darwinism is full of lies, lets not sink to their level, ok?

No joke. This is completely refuted. DanH 17:50, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Religious Views

I have completely revamped the Religious Beliefs section. I urge everyone to compare what I wrote with the previous counterfactual drivel.

Ray Martinez 17:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Read a credible biography for once. He did not intend to abrogate Christianity, nor did he give it up after his voyage.--AmesG 18:15, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Oops, I stand corrected. He did give up Christianity, but only after his daughter's death. Desmond, Adrian & James Moore (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group. --AmesG 18:30, 9 March 2007 (EST)

You are ignorant to say Janet Browne is not credible. She is the most acclaimed Darwin biographer, as are Desmond & Moore and John van Wyhe. These are the big four (and all of them are evolutionists). Browne is Professor of the History of Biology. Your implied snipe at Browne is because the fact she produced is at odds with your subjective view of Darwin. You also failed to understand that Darwin's harsh dismissal of the Bible, God and Christianity in his Autobiography is dated to be speaking of the years 1836 to 1839. Read Barlow 1958:85 who retained the dating as established by Francis Darwin, original editor of his Father's autobiography (1887). Also, you have erred concerning Desmond & Moore. They said what was left of Darwin's faith (in 1851) was extinguished by the death of Annie. They did not say Darwin was a full blown Christian who lost his faith when Annie died. The context was "whatever was left" after the late 1830s apostasy. Regardless, all my claims are supported by mainstream scholars and whatever happened in 1851 means Darwin was a hardened atheist eight years later when he wrote and published Origin of Species (1859). By the way I own every book mentioned in the References.

Ray Martinez 19:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Missed my "you were right" comment I added, buddy.--AmesG 22:04, 9 March 2007 (EST)

False Information in Article

Ernst Mayr, 1991 One Long Argument page 75 says Darwin became an Atheist and not an Agnostic. I own a copy of the book. The article as it now sits is wrong.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition "agnostic" was not coined until 1869, that is, ten years after Origin of Species was published.

Ray Martinez

PS: In fact, the entire Religious Views section looks like it was written by an evolutionist attempting to cover Darwin's atheism. I thought this was Conservapedia and not Wikipedia?

The section in question is totally wrong, illogical and written out of context.

Let me know if you want the truth written.


I have edited the Religious Views section in the article. Mayr said "Atheist" and not "Agnostic" on page 75 of his book. I also erased a paragraph beneath the Atheist fact that contradicted blatantly said fact with out of context and unreferenced assertions. I also erased a paragraph about Darwin's family being connected to Ben Franklin. If someone wants to re-edit the article and place it elsewhere then fine, but it does not belong in the Religious Views section of article.

When Darwin denied being an Atheist in 1879 he was speaking in a private letter to a person that is assumed to be a believer. In the 19th century England, atheists were highly discriminated against. Darwin always avoided the label in order to evade the negative stigma. We know he was an Atheist based on his theories that deny God had any part in producing reality, and because common ancestry by evolution flatly contradicts what God has said in Genesis.

Ray Martinez 6-12-07

Superb comments, Ray. Please edit it further. I just removed some of the liberal bias based after being alerted by your comments.--Aschlafly 11:42, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry for the bias - that was me - it was accidental.

Ray Martinez 6-12-06

Ray, I have to disagree with your reasoning for why we know Darwin was atheist, or at the very least with your usage of the term. I'm an atheist myself, and if you you look up the term in a dictionary, it's quite clear: atheists do not believe and any god or gods. While Darwin's theories prove he rejected a lot of major Christian beliefs, that does not nessecarily prove he completely rejected the existance of God (or a god, at least). I think agnostic would be a better term to use. user:Catgirlthecrazy - 12:50, 28 June

Ray, you asked me to intervene. Can you quote verbatim Ernst Mayr stating that Darwin was a atheist? Secondly, it seems to me as if this material has more historical immediacy in that it claims Darwin preferred to be called an agnostic and I cite footnote 30 from a AIG article: "In 1881, at a meeting with Edward Aveling (Karl Marx's son-in-law) and Ludwig Büchner, Darwin said he preferred to be called an agnostic. Ref. 1, Vol. 1, p. 286." [1] Now Thomas Huxley appeared to have coined the term "agnosticism". [2] Thomas Huxley was a contemporary of Darwin so it appears as if Darwin could have called himself an agnostic. Any comments Ray? I am open for discussion on this matter. Conservative 22:14, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
It appears as if Ray used this reference to claim that Darwin was an atheist: Ernst Mayr, One Long Argument 1991:75 Ernst Mayr was a Harvard biologist and is a prominent figure in the history of the evolutionary theory. Perhaps Mayr suspects that Darwin was a closet atheist due to the social stigma of proclaiming yourself an atheist that someone wrote above existed in Victorian England. I was hoping that Ray would provide me a quote from Mayr's work but I don't think that will happen as I was told he was banned and that he has no further interest in Conservapedia. If anyone wants to look this up it would be appreciated. Conservative 21:44, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Reply to Conservative

Dear Conservative: I think you should review your own comments about Charles Darwin that appear on the Internet. Your flip flopping is atrocious. When Darwin said he preferred to be called an Agnostic the context was to avoid the negative stigma of Atheism in the 19th century. He was admitting Atheism but wanting to be called Agnostic for the reason just explained. It is a mystery that you suddenly do not understand this? If you have forgotten what you have said about Darwin in the past let me know and I will gladly post your previous opinions on your talk page.

In addition: Why do you suddenly doubt that Mayr said Darwin was an Atheist? Before, you had no doubt, now you are saying Mayr never said it. It is up to you to disprove if you disagree. Mayr 1991:75 says Darwin was an Atheist before the late 1830s.

Why has your good Fundamentalist buddy Moderator used the ultra-liberal "Religious Tolerance" web site to claim Darwin an Agnostic but you do not challenge this unscholarly source? Why does the Darwin article say he was an Agnostic using Mayr (who did not say Agnostic but Atheist) and not the liberal web page? As it sits now many Moderators know of this false information in article and have not changed it!

What is apparent is that you have made some serious mistakes and cannot simply admit it without making intelligence insulting excuses.

RM 2-7-07


Ray, I saw today that you are back at Conservapedia. I understand that you and TK (the Sysop/Admin) are battling regarding the Darwin atheist/agnostic issue. I wanted you to provide the Mayr quote so we could say in the Darwin article that the Prominent evolutionist and Harvard biologist Ernst Mayr said ".........................." and provide the footnote so this way TK could not easily dispute the matter. I do believe that Conservapedia should be rule based and that material pointing to Darwin being a closet atheist should not be squelched out of a conservative encyclopedia merely because a Sysop/Admin (namely TK) doesn't like the material. As far as me saying Mayr never said Darwin was a atheist I merely asked for a quote so this way the whole TK vs Ray issue could be diffused. As far as me believing that Darwin was an atheist earlier, I think we should set aside this issue of what I believed or disbelieved and focus on factual matters in regards to issue at hand and that is: Was Darwin an atheist or a agnostic.

I believe the case is extremely stronger for Darwin being a closet atheist who at times found it hard to maintain atheistic thinking than for Darwin being a agnostic. I say this based on what I strongly suspect Mayr said {which I wish you would provide a small quote for if possible) and the following material regarding Darwin which I read today:

"Ernst Mayr’s recent book on Darwin, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Evolutionary Thought, Harvard, 1991, also acknowledges that Darwin’s references to purpose were to appease both the public and his wife. His early, private notebooks show his materialism well established. For instance, in one of them he addresses himself as, ‘O, you materialist!’ and says, ‘Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity as a property of matter?’ He clearly already believed that the idea of a separate realm of the spirit was nonsense, as is further shown when he warns himself not to reveal his beliefs, as follows:

‘to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock.’ [3]

I also cite a review of a book written in the British Journal for the Philosophy (Volume 47,1996, page 641) saying: "I have no doubt that Darwin was a materialist and mechanist...." [4]

I also cite this material from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of Orchids, and upon The Earthworms, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] [5] Conservative 16:56, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Of course we know Darwin was a Materialist (= Atheist). I could provide these comments right from Darwin's own mouth (as you have). I wonder why the "most knowledgeable" TK has hand-waved Darwin the materialist away in favor of a liberal web page?

Mayr 1991:75 "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus.... but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a 'materialist' more or less = atheist"

OR: "It is apparent that Darwin lost his faith in the years 1836-39, much of it clearly prior to the reading of Malthus. In order not to hurt the feelings of his friends and of his wife, Darwin often used deistic language in his publications, but much in his Notebooks indicates that by this time he had become a ‘materialist’ (more or less = atheist)" Ernst Mayr American Scientist May 1977 p. 323

That is the exact quote.

You are a Mod, why don't you revert the article back to the way Andy and I had it?

This is Conservapedia and not atheist-Wikipedia protecting a flaming Atheist like Charles Darwin. How could anyone who banished God think he was not an Atheist? THIS IS RHETORICAL.

Ray 7-2-07

In the 1600s, the common idea was that angels pushed planets as they orbited the Earth. Kepler provided the means for a materialistic description for the motion of the planets. Newton got the math down for it. That said, Kepler was Lutheran. Newton is a bit tougher to classify (he did write "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.") The point that I am attempting to make is that removing God from natural phenomena does not make one an atheist... unless you still want to believe that the angels push the planets around as they orbit the Earth. --Mtur 17:42, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Your point defies logic: removing God is atheistic. Your commentary attempting to support your "logic" is a straw man. If Kepler was a genuine Lutheran he would not remove God; therefore Kepler (assuming he was as you say) feigned to be a Lutheran.
Ray 7-2-07
Dear Ray, I think you will be most pleased with how I edited the Charles Darwin article just now. I am sorry I was not more attentive to this situation earlier. I was working on the Theory of evolution and Origin of life articles and I put this on the back burner. Our origin of life material was quite deficient and I wanted to improve it as fast as possible. I do wish to sincerely offer my apologies. I also wish to state that I believe you may have misunderstood what I wrote about Darwin in regards to his beliefs but perhaps not but I think we should set that aside but please feel free to write to me about this privately. I also wish to thank you for letting me know about this Darwin/materialist matter as I was not aware of it earlier. Conservative 17:47, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
You are suggesting that if there are two theories, one that invokes God as the reason, the other that invokes a materialistic reason it is the one that invokes God that is correct - or to suggest that the materialistic one is correct is atheistic? The inquiry of how the universe works and marveling it its beauty and intricate and subtle laws is not inherently an atheistic pursuit. --Mtur 18:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

I created an article at another website

I created an article at another website:

Darwin's illness

Conservative 15:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Do you think his illness was just a punishment from God? There are a lot of people who think so since Darwin turned so many people against The Almighty. Should we add that to the article? Miles 17:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Your question solicits opinion, not fact. Can it be conclusively demonstrated that his illness was Divine punishment? If not, I would say leave it out. Unless it's proven, it doesn't matter how many people think this or that about it. Niwrad 22:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

A note on Darwin

He never stated that his theory of species evolution should be applied to humans. If you read the last sentence of "The Origin of Species" he says something to the effect of "this could apply to humans, but I don't see how and frankly I'm not convinced" so stop blaming him.

However, in the later book "the Descent of Man" he DID apply it to humans.Alloco1 17:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

The footnotes are messed up. I don't have time to fix them but I wanted people to know.

The footnotes are messed up. I don't have time to fix them but I wanted people to know. Conservative 20:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

More advanced then women?

I can't find that phrase in Decent of Man is their a citation for this? Tmtoulouse 17:03, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Revamp the article?

It seems a little odd to me that the section on Darwin's religious beliefs dwarfs the rest of it...--M 17:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

A naturalist is a kind of biologist... Darwin belongs in both categories. "1. One versed in natural history, especially in zoology or botany." [6] Dpbsmith 21:07, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Per discussions with User:Conservative, the link to is a decidely leftist and anti-Christion site. [7][8] An article in the National Review [9] says this of,

"a number of Lefty sites that link to the following description of Dominionism at This description includes the claim that Dominionists “advocate genocide for followers of minority groups and non-conforming members of their own religion.” I’m not sure this is accurate, even for the minuscule number of actual Dominionists. But the disturbing thing is the way this and other Left-leaning sites use logical sleight-of-hand to tar ordinary evangelicals with the madcap musings of a few fevered “Dominionists.”"

Citations to this website have already been removed from the Creationism article.[10] is not an appropriate cite we should be linking to. RobS 17:34, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Why did a Conservapedia Mod use this site to begin with? Are we to believe he did not know? The article now says that Mayr said Darwin was an Agnostic when Mayr said Atheist. Why hasn't the Mod who reverted back to Agnostic not used the web page? The article gives the false impression that Mayr said Darwin was Agnostic. I find it hard to believe that the Mod who used the liberal web site forgot to change his source to that site instead of Mayr.
Ray Martinez 2-7-07
All sources I've read say he was an atheist. In fact, reading personal quotes on "Christianity" and "the Judeo-Christian God" in Jacques Barzun's book, the man sounds just like Adolf Hitler in Hitler's Table Talk. Please feel free to make the correction. RobS 14:29, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
I have unproteced the page so someone can make the correction. RobS 14:37, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
What about Andy? I was under the impression that he was deciding? But I do want to thank you for your help and objectivity - thanks! I will make the edit as soon as you reply to this - thanks.
Ray 7-2-07

New Edit

Has many errors.

How can anyone think that the article is well written?

Ray 7-2-07

I have made a newer edit. I did this because certain Moderators seemed to approve that a new edit was in order.
Ray 7-2-07


We identified and made the edit of Charles Darwin being an Atheist here: [11]

Our source was Harvard Professor Ernst Mayr One Long Argument 1991:75

Now, one of your own Moderators (a "closet" Darwinist) has changed the article[12] to say Darwin was an Agnostic using a liberal web page source run by Atheists and Darwinists who happen to own a clerical collar. But this same Moderator, when he reverted the edit, kept the Mayr source which does not say Darwin was an Agnostic but an Atheist. The liberal web page source is this page:[13] It includes Atheists and Wiccans as deciding what Christianity is and is not.

Why has this Moderator changed the article to say Darwin was Agnostic but retains Mayr as a source? Why has he not used his original web page source?[14]

You already agreed that the Agnostic label was obviously false and agreed with my reasoning here: [15]

Ray Martinez:

"I have edited the Religious Views section in the article. Mayr said "Atheist" and not "Agnostic" on page 75 of his book. I also erased a paragraph beneath the Atheist fact that contradicted blatantly said fact with out of context and unreferenced assertions. (SNIP irrelevant material)

When Darwin denied being an Atheist in 1879 he was speaking in a private letter to a person that is assumed to be a believer. In the 19th century England, atheists were highly discriminated against. Darwin always avoided the label in order to evade the negative stigma. We know he was an Atheist based on his theories that deny God had any part in producing reality, and because common ancestry by evolution flatly contradicts what God has said in Genesis."

Andy A. responds:

"Superb comments, Ray. Please edit it further. I just removed some of the liberal bias based after being alerted by your comments."--Aschlafly 11:42, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition "agnostic" was not coined until 1869, that is, ten years after Origin of Species was published. "Agnostic" was only invented to give Atheists safe harbor; an attempt to recast themselves hoping their silly opinions and anti-God theories from being dismissed by someone pointing out their Atheism (which in the case of Darwin is most obvious).

Wikipedia says Darwin was an Agnostic. I was under the impression that Conservapedia exists to erase their untruthful bias?

Charles Darwin:

"We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhabitant of the Old World" Descent of Man 1871:389 Vol.2

Genesis 2:7

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Ray Martinez 7-2-07

Very interesting Ray. I didn't know that agnostic is a modern term! Please give me some time to consider all this.--Aschlafly 12:03, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Andy. If you want additional scholars (not web pages) identifying Darwin an Atheist let me know. I can supply three big name scholars.
RM 7-2-07
Can you erase this uncalled for comment here [16] calling me a "lunatic vandal" for reverting the Agnostic edit back to Atheist? Since you had also made the edit it implies that anyone making the Atheist edit is a "lunatic vandal"?
Ray M. 7-2-07
  • Ray Martinez, you are a fabricator, and your continued posts making things up boarder on the trollish. You claimed that DanH and myself were vandals on Conservative's talk page, for our edits here. Two Sysops. I have now blocked you for one week for name calling. You have no special license here, and although your contributions are appreciated, I urge you to steer clear of inflammatory charges and vindictive rhetoric, as has Conservative. No matter what the editors qualifications, that does not allow them to flaunt the rules. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 02:35, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
TK, you are linking to, a highly partisan and bigotted source. This is the sort of source Scientologists use to support claims. I do not believe CP should give this anti-Christian source any credence whatsoever. RobS 14:43, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
  • You may present your evidence, privately, via the usual methods, Rob. Until then, it remains merely one editors opinion, of which there could be thousands of citations on this site we both would disagree about, eh? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:13, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Ray Martinez has a subject knowledge specialty, but appears not an experienced wiki user. Rather than working with hime to help him learn how a wiki works and develop as an editor, you appear to be insisting on inserting an extreme partisan leftist and bigotted website as a source to support you view. RobS 21:06, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
I have some concerns about Ray as an editor. Here he calls Philip Rayment and TK "fundy morons" and says that Christians are "unfaithful ***holes." It doesn't seem he has the best interests of the project at heart. NonXtianConservative 21:14, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Geez, those words could have been spoken by one of our. RobS 21:25, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
  • But his inflamatory remarks, many of them, were posted way before any Sysop here, other than Conservative, asked him to tone it down, Rob. That's the point. And when he was blocked for a brief few hours for it, he came back spouting more. And, are you saying anyone, even a sysop, hurtling an insult, even one made in the edit notes, that makes it okay for a user to come back with more? That two wrongs make a right? Interesting logic there. I ask that you please stop with the public insults and ridicule of other sysops publicly, as Andy has requested. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 21:29, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
  • You've never presented any evidence where it occurred. And you've been asked several times now. RobS 21:32, 3 July 2007 (EDT)



This person is an admitted liberal sock. Read him admission here:[18]

June 19, 2007

NonXtianConservative wrote:

> > As far as the sock puppet comment, I'm

> > not suggesting that you're a sock puppet, I'm rather admitting that I

> > am (in fact, I am several sock puppets at CP). It's rather fun to put

> > in all these seemingly conservative edits which are completely

> > ridiculous. I would imagine that probably 1/10 CP users are socks of

> > one form or another.

Ray Martinez reply:

> Why be a SP at CP if the edit is not true? What is the point?

NonXtianConservative responds:

"It's terribly amusing (and in some way incredibly disheartening) that when an edit is made that represents such an extreme point of view that it is latched onto as a beacon of objective thought by Schalfly and his jack booted toadies. However, when a rational person looks at the edit from outside they realize how crazy it actually sounds. The CP crew is working hard to try and keep a fairly big tent, but when the patina of objectivity is worn off the article to expose the twisted logic and prejudice underneath it loses all credibility. This is my goal."

Ray Martinez: Here we have the evidence that the above person admits to being several socks. If the link does not work suddenly it is because our double agent has erased it. But I have it saved on another site where it cannot be erased.

Ray 7-5-07


I was hoping for a more concise explanation of why Darwin is important. An explanation of his theory and why he believed in it would have been more valuable than a lengthy discourse on his religious, or lack of religious, beliefs. As the Pope acknowledged today there is no doubt that evolution has much (some?) basis in scientific fact. Scientific support of the theory does not diminish the possibility of the existence of a greater being. My apologies to the Pope if I have misstated his position. Both Darwin’s Theory and the existence of a God can exist and be believed. We need to be able to have honest discussion about such important topics without becoming galvanized. A mind open to honest discussion is a benefit to all of society. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Baronmarbot (talk)

Just picking up on your claim that evolution and god can both exist, you are correct, as long as you are not talking about the God described in the Bible. But as you are talking about the Pope and you are probably referring to Christianity, then you are incorrect; evolution contradicts the biblical account and cannot be reconciled with it. To take one example, the Bible describes the creation of everything up to to the arrival of man as occurring in six ordinary days, whereas evolution requires billions of years. Another example is that God created everything "very good", i.e. without mistakes, defects, diseases, etc. Yet evolution has suffering, disease, and death as necessary components before you can have mankind. Philip J. Rayment 20:40, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Charles Darwin married his cousin

Yes, Emma Darwin (the woman he married) was his first cousin. Out of the ten children they concieved three died due to inbreeding. [19] [20]

I'm rather suprised that this hasn't been adding to the article yet, even the liberal Darwin lovers at Wikipedia have mentioned it. [21]

I would add it myself but this article is protected.

--Rolloffle 14:16, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Lots of famous men have done risque things like marrying a cousin (Poe), a minor (Edison), or a former foster child (Woody Allen. Should we make a page filled with juicy gossip about them, for all the wowsers out there? Pant, drool . . . ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk)
  • This is all moronic. It was common practice, and totally acceptable in that period to marry one's cousin. Goodness! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? Of course, since the user was blocked as a common vandal, not surprising. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:57, 22 August 2007 (EDT)

Note about Grammar

Just to let everyone now - typically references (i.e. [1]) go outside punctuation (i.e. this: blah,[1] not this: blah[1],) So if anyone gets a chance it'd be nice to fix that up. Regards, --Iduan 22:00, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

It seems this is more attack tract than informative article. When the POV colors ever fact or non fact inserted here, it defeats the pupose of saying this is a reference work. Maybe "Essay" should be added to the top of it? --MattM 22:25, 1 October 2007 (EDT)
You merely said "it seems" and cited no support for your contentions. Rather a weak defense of your position, wasn't it? Conservative 22:30, 1 October 2007 (EDT)