text:
John Russell, 1st Earl Russell

John Russell, 1st Earl Russell, (18 August 1792 – 28 May 1878), known by his courtesy title Lord John Russell before 1861, was a British Whig and Liberal statesman who was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1846 to 1852 and again from 1865 to 1866.

The third son of the 6th Duke of Bedford, Russell was educated at Westminster School and Edinburgh University before entering Parliament in 1813. In 1828 he took a leading role in the repeal of the Test Acts which discriminated against Catholics and Protestant dissenters. He was one of the principal architects of the Reform Act 1832, which was the first major reform of Parliament since the Restoration, and a significant early step on the road to democracy and away from rule by the aristocracy and landed gentry. He favoured expanding the right to vote to the middle classes and enfranchising Britain's growing industrial towns and cities, but he never advocated universal suffrage and he opposed the secret ballot. Russell was outspoken on many issues over the course of his career, advocating Catholic emancipation in the 1820s, calling for the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1845, denouncing Pope Pius IX's revival of Catholic bishoprics in 1850, and supporting Italian unification during the 1860s.

Russell's ministerial career spanned four decades. In addition to his two terms as prime minister, between 1831 and 1865 he served in the cabinets of Earl Grey, Viscount Melbourne, the Earl of Aberdeen, and Viscount Palmerston. Russell's relationship with Palmerston was often stormy and contributed to bringing down Russell's first government in 1852 and Palmerston's first government in 1858. However, their renewed alliance from 1859 was one of the foundations of the united Liberal Party, which would go on to dominate British politics in the following decades. While Russell was an energetic and effective minister during the 1830s and helped to commit the Whigs to a reform agenda, he proved less successful as prime minister. During his two periods as prime minister he often suffered from a disunited cabinet and weak support in the House of Commons, meaning he was unable to carry out much of his agenda. During his first premiership, his government failed to deal effectively with the Irish Famine, a disaster that saw the loss of a quarter of Ireland's population through death and emigration. During his second premiership, he split his party by pressing for further parliamentary reform and was forced from office only to watch Derby and Disraeli carry a more ambitious Reform Bill. It has been said that Russell's ministry of 1846–1852 was the ruin of the old Whig party and that his ministry of 1865–1866 was very nearly the ruin of the Liberal Party that took its place.

Background and early life
Russell was born on 18 August 1792 into the highest echelons of the British aristocracy, being the third son of John Russell, later 6th Duke of Bedford, and Georgiana Byng, daughter of George Byng, 4th Viscount Torrington. The Russell family had been one of the principal Whig dynasties in England since the 17th century, and were among the richest handful of aristocratic landowning families in the country, but as a younger son of the 6th Duke of Bedford, he was not expected to inherit the family estates. As a younger son of a duke, he bore the courtesy title "Lord John Russell", but he was not a peer in his own right. He was, therefore, able to sit in the House of Commons until he was made an earl in 1861 and was elevated to the House of Lords.

Russell was born two months premature and was small and sickly as a child (even in adulthood he remained under 5 ft in height, and his small stature was frequently the butt of jokes by political opponents and caricaturists). In 1801 at the age of nine he was sent away to school. Shortly thereafter his mother died. After being withdrawn from Westminster School in 1804 due to ill health, Russell was educated by tutors, including Edmund Cartwright. In 1806 Russell's father was made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in the short-lived Ministry of All the Talents and it was during this time that the young Russell met Charles James Fox. Fox was Russell's formative political hero and would remain an inspiration throughout his life. Russell attended the University of Edinburgh from 1809 to 1812, lodging with Professor John Playfair, who oversaw his studies. He did not take a degree. Although often in poor health, he travelled widely in Britain and in Continental Europe, and held commission as Captain in the Bedfordshire Militia in 1810. During his continental travels, Russell visited Spain where his brother was serving as aide-de-camp to Lord Wellington in the Peninsular War. The following year, Russell had a 90-minute meeting with Napoleon in December 1814, during the former emperor's exile at Elba.

Backbench MP: 1813–1830
Russell entered the House of Commons as a Whig in 1813 at the age of 20. The future reformer gained his seat by virtue of his father, the Duke of Bedford, instructing the 30 or so electors of Tavistock to return him as an MP even though at the time Russell was abroad and under age.

Russell entered Parliament more out of a sense of duty and family tradition than out of serious political ambition. With the exception the 1806-1807 coalition government in which Russell's father had served, the Whigs had been out of power since 1783, and Russell could have had had no certain expectation of a ministerial career. In June 1815, Russell denounced the Bourbon Restoration and Britain's declaration of war against the recently-returned Napoleon by arguing in the House of Commons that foreign powers had no right to dictate France's form of government.

In 1817, tired of the prospect of perpetual opposition, Russell resigned from Parliament. After spending a year out of politics and travelling on the continent, he changed his mind and re-entered Parliament for Tavistock at the 1818 general election. In 1819, Russell embraced the cause of parliamentary reform and he led the more reformist wing of the Whigs throughout the 1820s. In 1828, while still an opposition backbencher, Russell introduced a Sacramental Test bill with the aim of abolishing the prohibitions on Catholics and Protestant dissenters being elected to local government and from holding civil and military offices. The bill gained the backing of the Tory Home Secretary Sir Robert Peel and was passed into law.

Minister under Grey and Melbourne: 1830–1841
When the Whigs came to power in 1830, Russell entered Earl Grey's government as Paymaster of the Forces. Despite being a relatively junior minister, as a vocal advocate for Parliamentary reform for over a decade, Russell became a principal leader in the fight for the Reform Act 1832. He was one of the committee of four tasked by Grey with drafting the reform bill, alongside cabinet ministers Lord Durham, Lord Duncannon and Sir James Graham. Despite not yet being in the Cabinet, Russell was chosen to introduce the bill in March 1831 and over the following year he successfully steered the Reform Act's difficult progress through the Commons.

Russell earned the nickname "Finality Jack" from his pronouncing the Act a final measure but in later years he would go on to push for further reform of Parliament. In May 1834, Russell made a speech on the Irish Tithes bill, in which he argued that the revenue generated by tithes was more than was justified by the size of the established Protestant church in Ireland. Russell argued that a proportion the tithe revenue should instead be appropriated for the education of the Irish poor, regardless of denomination.

The speech was seen by its opponents as an attack on the established church in Ireland and it cemented a split within Grey's government over the issue of Irish tithes. The following month four members of the Cabinet resigned over the issue, weakening the government's hold on Parliament. Sensing that his position was now hopeless, Grey offered his resignation to the King in July, and was replaced by Viscount Melbourne at the head of the government.

In November 1834, when the leader of the Commons, Lord Althorp, succeeded to the peerage as Earl Spencer, Russell became the leader of the Whigs in the Commons. Russell's appointment prompted King William IV to terminate Melbourne's government, in part because the King objected to Russell's views on the Irish Church. This remains the last time in British history that a monarch has dismissed a government. The subsequent minority Conservative government lasted less than five months before resigning in April 1835. Russell then returned to office as Home Secretary in Melbourne's second government, before serving as Secretary of State for War and the Colonies from 1839 to 1841. Through this period, he continued to lead the more reformist wing of the Whig party.

As Home Secretary, Russell recommended and secured royal pardons for the Tolpuddle Martyrs and partial commutation of their sentences. In 1836, he introduced the Marriages Act, which introduced civil marriages in England and Wales and allowed Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to marry in their own churches.

In 1837, he steered a series of seven Acts through Parliament, which together reduced the number of offences carrying a sentence of death from thirty-seven to sixteen. This number was reduced further by the Substitution of Punishments of Death Act 1841. After these reforms the death penalty was rarely used in the United Kingdom for crimes other than murder. As Home Secretary Russell also introduced the public registration for births, marriages and deaths and played a large role in democratising the government of cities outside of London.

Opposition: 1841–1846
In 1841 the Whigs lost the general election to the Conservatives and Russell and his colleagues returned to opposition. In November 1845, following the failure of that year's potato harvest across Britain and Ireland, Russell came out in favour of the repeal of the Corn Laws and called upon the Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel to take urgent action to alleviate the emerging food crisis.

Peel had by this time already become convinced of the need for repeal, but he was opposed in this by the majority of his own cabinet and party. On 11 December 1845, frustrated by his party's unwillingness to support him on repeal, Peel resigned as prime minister and Queen Victoria invited Russell to form a new government. With the Whigs a minority in the Commons however, Russell struggled to assemble the necessary support. When Lord Grey declared that he would not serve in cabinet if Lord Palmerston was made Foreign Secretary, it became clear to Russell that he could not form a viable government.

Russell declined the Queen's invitation on 21 December and Peel agreed to stay on as prime minister. In June 1846, Peel repealed the Corn Laws with Whig support, bitterly dividing the Conservative Party in the process. Later that same night Peel's Irish Coercion Bill was defeated after vengeful anti-repeal Tories voted with the opposition; and Peel, taking this as a vote of no confidence, resigned as prime minister. Russell accepted the Queen's offer to form a government; this time Grey did not object to Palmerston's appointment.

Appointment
Russell took office as prime minister with the Whigs only a minority in the House of Commons. It was the bitter split in the Conservative Party over the Corn Laws that allowed Russell's government to remain in power in spite of this, with Sir Robert Peel and his supporters offering tentative support to the new ministry in order to keep the protectionist Conservatives under Lord Stanley in opposition. At the general election of August 1847 the Whigs made gains at the expense of the Conservatives, but remained a minority, with Russell's government still dependent on the votes of Peelite and Irish Repealer MPs to win divisions in the Commons.

Domestic agenda
Russell's political agenda was frequently frustrated by his lack of a reliable Commons majority. However, his government was able to secure a number of notable social reforms. Russell introduced teachers' pensions and used Orders in Council to make grants for teacher training. The Public Baths and Wash-houses Acts of 1847 and 1848 enabled local authorities to build municipal baths and washing facilities for the growing urban working classes. Russell lent his support to the passage of the Factories Act 1847, which restricted the working hours of women and young persons (aged 13–18) in textile mills to 10 hours per day.

1848 saw the introduction of the Metropolitan Commission of Sewers and the Public Health Act 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63), by which the state assumed responsibility for sewerage, clean water supply, refuse collection and other aspects of public health across much of England and Wales.

Following the election of Lionel de Rothschild in the 1847 general election, Russell introduced a Jewish Relief bill, which would have allowed Rothschild and other Jews to sit in the House of Commons without their having to take the explicitly Christian oath of allegiance. In 1848, the bill was passed by the House of Commons, receiving support from the Whigs and a minority of Conservatives (including future prime minister Benjamin Disraeli). However, it was twice rejected by the Tory dominated House of Lords, as was a new bill in 1851. Rothschild was re-elected in the 1852 general election following the fall of the Russell government but was unable to take his seat until the Jews Relief Act was finally passed in 1858.

Ireland
Russell's government led the calamitous response to the Irish Famine. During the course of the famine, an estimated one million people died from a combination of malnutrition, disease and starvation and well over one million more emigrated from Ireland. After taking office in 1846, Russell's ministry introduced a programme of public works that by the end of that year employed some half-a-million but proved impossible to administer. In January 1847, the government abandoned this policy, realising that it had failed, and turned to a mixture of "indoor" and "outdoor" direct relief; the former administered in workhouses through the Irish Poor Laws, the latter through soup kitchens. The costs of the Poor Law fell primarily on the local landlords, some of whom in turn attempted to reduce their liability by evicting their tenants. In June 1847, the Poor Law Extension Act was passed, which embodied the principle, popular in Britain, that Irish property should support Irish poverty. Irish landlords were believed in Britain to have created the conditions that led to the famine, a view which Russell shared.

Relations with the Roman Catholic Church
In the first half of his premiership Russell aimed to improve the British government's relations with the papacy and the Catholic clergy in Ireland, which he saw as one of the keys to making Ireland a more willing part of the United Kingdom. Russell proposed to make an annual grant of £340,000 to the Catholic Church in Ireland, with the aim of ameliorating Irish Catholic opinion towards the Union. In 1847, Russell's father-in-law the Earl of Minto was dispatched on a confidential mission to Rome to seek the Pope's support for the grants plan. In the end, the idea had to be abandoned due to Catholic objections to what they saw as an attempt to control their clergy.

However, Russell pressed ahead with plans to re-establish formal diplomatic relations between the Court of St James's and the Holy See, which had been severed when James II was deposed in 1688. Russell managed to pass an Act to authorise an exchange of ambassadors with Rome, but not before the bill was amended by Parliament to stipulate that the Pope's ambassador must be a layman. The Pope refused to accept such a restriction on his choice of representative and so the exchange of ambassadors did not take place. It would not be until 1914 that formal UK-Vatican diplomatic relations were finally established. Relations with the papacy soured badly in late 1850 after Pope Pius IX issued the bull Universalis Ecclesiae. By this bull Pius unilaterally reintroduced Catholic bishops to England and Wales for the first time since the Reformation. Anti-Catholic feelings ran high with many Protestants incensed at what they saw as impertinent foreign interference in the prerogative of the established Church of England to appoint bishops. Russell, not withstanding his long record of advocating civil liberties for Catholics, shared the traditional Whig suspicion of the Catholic hierarchy, and was angered at what he saw as a papal imposition. On 4 November 1850, in a letter to the Bishop of Durham published in The Times the same day, Russell wrote that the Pope's actions suggested a "pretension to supremacy" and declared that "No foreign prince or potentate will be permitted to fasten his fetters upon a nation which has so long and so nobly vindicated its right to freedom of opinion, civil, political, and religious". Russell's "Durham letter" won him popular support in England but in Ireland it was viewed as an unwarranted insult to the Pope. It lost Russell the confidence of Irish Repealer MPs and the cabinet were angered that he had made such an incendiary statement without having consulting them.

The following year Russell passed the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1851 with Tory support, which made it a criminal offence carrying a fine of £100 for anyone outside of the Church of England to assume an episcopal title "of any city, town or place, or of any territory or district...in the United Kingdom." The Act was widely ignored without consequences and only served to further alienate Irish MPs, thereby weakening the government's position in the Commons.

Disagreements with Palmerston and fall of ministry
Russell frequently clashed with his headstrong Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, whose belligerence and support for continental revolution he found embarrassing. In 1847 Palmerston provoked a confrontation with the French government by undermining the plans of the Spanish court to marry the young Spanish Queen and her sister into the French royal family. He subsequently clashed with Russell over plans to increase the size of the army and the navy to defend against the perceived threat of French invasion, which subsided after the overthrow of the French king in 1848.

In 1850, further tension arose between the two over Palmerston's gunboat diplomacy in the Don Pacifico affair, in which Palmerston sought compensation from the Greek government for the ransacking and the burning of the house of David Pacifico, a Gibraltarian holder of a British passport. Russell considered the matter "hardly worth the interposition of the British lion," and when Palmerston ignored some of his instructions, the Prime Minister wrote to Palmerston telling him he had informed the Queen that he "thought the interests of the country required that a change should take place at the Foreign Department." However, less than a month later Lord Stanley successfully led the House of Lords into passing a motion of censure of the Government over its handling of the affair and Russell realised that he needed to align with Palmerston in order to prevent a similar motion being passed by the House of Commons, which would have obliged the Government to resign. The Government prevailed, but Palmerston came out of the affair with his popularity at new heights since he was seen as the champion of defending British subjects anywhere in the world.

Russell forced Palmerston to resign as Foreign Secretary after Palmerston recognised Napoleon III's coup of 2 December 1851 without first consulting the Queen or Cabinet. Russell tried to strengthen his government by recruiting leading Peelites such as Sir James Graham and the Duke of Newcastle to his administration, but they declined. Out of office, Palmerston sought revenge by turning a vote on a militia bill into a vote of confidence in the Government. A majority vote in favour of an amendment proposed by Palmerston caused the downfall of Russell's ministry on 21 February 1852. This was Palmerston's famous "tit for tat with Johnny Russell."

In opposition: February–December 1852
Following Russell's resignation, on the 23 February 1852 the Earl of Derby accepted the Queen's invitation to form a government. The new Conservative ministry were a minority in the Commons due to the continuing rift with the Peelites. Derby called a general election for July but failed to secure a majority. After the election Derby's Conservatives held 292 out of the 662 seats in the Commons but were able to carry on in office due to divisions among the opposition. Negotiations over a Whig-Peelite coalition stalled over the question of who would lead it. Russell's authority and popularity within the Whigs had been dented by his falling out with Palmerston, who flatly refused to serve under him again. Moreover he had alienated many in the Peelites and the Irish Brigade, who held the balance of power in the Commons, leaving them unwilling to support another Russell-led government. Palmerston proposed Lord Lansdowne as a compromise candidate. This was acceptable to Russell but Lansdowne was reluctant to take on the burdens of leading a government. The defeat of Disraeli's Budget in December 1852 forced the issue. Derby's government resigned and the Queen sent for Lansdowne and the Peelite Lord Aberdeen. Lansdowne declined the Queen's invitation, pleading ill-health and so Aberdeen was tasked with forming a government.

The Aberdeen coalition: 1852–1855
Russell, as the leader of the Whigs, agreed to bring his party into a coalition with the Peelites, headed by Aberdeen. As the leader of the largest party in the coalition, Russell was reluctant to serve under Aberdeen in a subordinate position, but agreed to take on the role of Foreign Secretary on a temporary basis, to lend stability to the fledgling government. He resigned the role in February 1853 in favour of Clarendon, but continued to lead for the government in the Commons and attended cabinet without ministerial responsibilities. Russell was unhappy that half of Aberdeen's cabinet was made up of Peelites, despite the fact that the Whigs contributed hundreds of MPs to the Government's support in the Commons, and the Peelites only around 40. However, he came to admire some of his Peelite colleagues, particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer William Gladstone, who would go on to become an important political ally in later years.

With Aberdeen's agreement, Russell used his position as Leader of the House of Commons to push for a new Reform Act. Although Russell had promoted the Reform Act 1832 as a one-off measure to re-balance the constitution, after twenty years he had become convinced of the need for further electoral reform. In February 1854 Russell introduced his bill to the House. The property qualification was to be reduced from £10 to £6 in boroughs, and from £50 to £10 in the counties. Additionally 66 seats would be removed from undersized constituencies and redistributed. The second reading of the bill was set for March 1854, but the prospect of imminent war with Russia led to it being postponed until April. After the outbreak of war on 28 March Russell came under pressure from the cabinet to withdraw the bill entirely. Russell threatened to resign if the cabinet abandoned the reform bill, but he was convinced to stay on by Aberdeen, who promised that he would support the reform bill if Russell reintroduced it in a future session. However, with the fall of the Aberdeen government the following year, it would be 12 years before Russell had another chance to introduce a reform bill.

Together with Palmerston, Russell supported the government taking a hard line against Russian territorial ambitions in the Ottoman Empire, a policy that ultimately resulted in Britain's entry into the Crimean War in March 1854, an outcome that the more cautious Aberdeen had hoped to avoid. In the following months Russell grew frustrated by what he saw as a lack of effective war leadership by Aberdeen and the Secretary of State for War, the Duke of Newcastle. Dispatches from the front reported that the army was suffering from supply shortages and a lack of adequate accommodation and medical facilities. In November 1854 Russell urged Aberdeen to replace Newcastle with Palmerston, who he believed would get a firmer grip on the organisation of the war, but these suggestions came to nothing. In January 1855, after a series of military setbacks, a Commons motion was brought by the radical MP John Roebuck to appoint a select committee to investigate the management of the war. Russell, not wishing to vote against an inquiry he believed was badly needed, resigned from the cabinet in order to abstain. Aberdeen viewed the Roebuck motion as a vote of no confidence in his leadership and, accordingly, when it passed by 305-148, he resigned.

In the eyes of many, including the Queen and Aberdeen, Russell's temperamental behaviour and personal ambition had undermined the stability of the coalition. On visiting Windsor Castle to resign, Aberdeen told the Queen "Had it not been for the incessant attempts of Lord John Russell to keep up party differences, it must be acknowledged that the experiment of a coalition had succeeded admirably," an assessment with which the Queen agreed. Russell accepted an invitation from the Queen to form a new government but found that he could not assemble the necessary support, with many of his colleagues having been angered by his abandonment of Aberdeen over the Roebuck motion. Palmerston became prime minister, and Russell reluctantly accepted the role of Colonial Secretary in his cabinet. Russell was sent to Vienna to negotiate peace terms with Russia, but his proposals were rejected and he resigned from the cabinet and returned to the backbenches in July 1855.

Return to the backbenches: 1855–1859
Following his resignation Russell wrote to his father-in-law that he would not serve again under Palmerston or any other prime minister. For a time it appeared as if his career in frontbench politics might be over. Russell continued to speak out from the backbenches on the issues he most cared about - lobbying for increased government grants for education and for reduction in the property qualification for Parliamentary elections. In early 1857 Russell became a vocal critic of Palmerston's government over the Anglo-Persian War and the Second Opium War. Russell spoke in support of a motion tabled by Richard Cobden, which criticised British military action in China and calling for a select committee inquiry. When the motion passed on 3 March, Palmerston dissolved Parliament and went to the country. In the subsequent general election Palmerston was swept back into power on a tide of patriotic feeling with an increased majority. Many of Palmerston's critics lost their seats but Russell hung on in the City of London, after fighting off an attempt to deselect him and replace him with a pro-Palmerston Whig candidate. Palmerston's triumph was short-lived. In February 1858 the Government rushed through a Conspiracy to Murder bill, following the attempted assassination of Napoleon III by Italian nationalist Felice Orsini - an attack planned in Britain using British-made explosives. Russell attacked the bill, which he saw as undermined traditional British political liberties to appease a foreign government. On 19 February Russell voted in favour of Thomas Milner Gibson's motion, which criticised the government for bowing to French demands. When the motion passed by 19 votes Palmerston's government resigned.

Foreign Secretary under Palmerston: 1859–1865
In 1859, following another short-lived Conservative government, Palmerston and Russell made up their differences, and Russell consented to serve as Foreign Secretary in a new Palmerston cabinet, usually considered the first true Liberal cabinet. This period was a particularly eventful one in the world outside Britain, seeing the Unification of Italy (the change of British government to one sympathetic to Italian nationalism had a marked part in this process), the American Civil War, and the 1864 war over Schleswig-Holstein between Denmark and the German states. Russell arranged the London Conference of 1864, but failed to establish peace in the war. His tenure of the Foreign Office was noteworthy for the famous dispatch in which he defended Italian unification: "Her Majesty's Government will turn their eyes rather to the gratifying prospect of a people building up the edifice of their liberties, and consolidating the work of their independence, amid the sympathies and good wishes of Europe" (27 October 1860).

Elevation to the peerage: 1861
In 1861 Russell was elevated to the peerage as Earl Russell, of Kingston Russell in the County of Dorset, and as Viscount Amberley, of Amberley in the County of Gloucester, and of Ardsalla in the County of Meath in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Henceforth, as a suo jure peer, rather than merely being known as 'Lord' because he was the son of a Duke, he sat in the House of Lords for the remainder of his career.

Prime Minister again: 1865–1866
When Palmerston suddenly died in late 1865, Russell again became prime minister. His second premiership was short and frustrating, and Russell failed in his great ambition of expanding the franchise, a task that would be left to his Conservative successors, Derby and Benjamin Disraeli. In 1866, party disunity again brought down his government. Russell never again held any office. His last contribution to the House of Lords was on 3 August 1875.

Marriages and children
Russell married Adelaide Lister (widow of Thomas Lister, 2nd Baron Ribblesdale, who had died in 1832) on 11 April 1835. Together they had two daughters:
 * Lady Georgiana Adelaide Russell (1836 – 25 September 1922). She married Archibald Peel (son of General Jonathan Peel) on 15 August 1867. They had seven children.
 * Lady Victoria Russell (20 October 1838 – 9 May 1880). She married Henry Villiers (the son of The Honorable Henry Montagu Villiers) on 16 April 1861. They had ten children and left many descendants.

Adelaide came down with a fever following the birth of their second child and died a few days later on 1 November 1838. Following her death, Russell continued to raise his late wife's four children from her first marriage, as well their two daughters.

On 20 July 1841 Russell remarried, to Lady Frances ("Fanny") Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, daughter of Russell's cabinet colleague Gilbert Elliot, 2nd Earl of Minto. Together they had four children:
 * John Russell, Viscount Amberley (10 December 1842 – 9 January 1876). He married The Hon. Katherine Stanley on 8 November 1864. They had four children, including a stillborn daughter. Their eldest son, Frank, would succeed Lord John to the title to become the 2nd Earl Russell. Another son, the 3rd Earl, was the philosopher Bertrand Russell.
 * Hon. George Gilbert William Russell (14 April 1848 – 27 January 1933).
 * Hon. Francis Albert Rollo Russell (11 July 1849 – 30 March 1914). He married Alice Godfrey (d. 12 May 1886) on 21 April 1885. They had one son. He remarried Gertrude Joachim on 28 April 1891. They had two children.
 * Lady Mary Agatha Russell (1853 – 23 April 1933).

In 1847 Queen Victoria granted Pembroke Lodge in Richmond Park to Lord and Lady John. It remained their family home for the rest of their lives.

Religious views
Russell was religious in a simple non-dogmatic way and supported "broad church" stances in the Church of England. He opposed the "Oxford Movement" because its "Tractarian" members were too dogmatic and too close to Roman Catholicism. He supported Broad Churchmen or Latitudinarians by several appointments of liberal churchmen as bishops. In 1859 he reversed himself and decided to free non-Anglicans of the duty of paying rates (taxes) to the local Anglican parish. His political clumsiness and opposition to Church finance made him a target of attack and ridicule in many Church circles.

Final years and death
Following the death of their daughter-in-law Viscountess Amberley in 1874 and their son Viscount Amberley in 1876, Earl Russell and Countess Russell brought up their orphaned grandchildren, John ("Frank") Russell, who became 2nd Earl Russell on his grandfather's death, and Bertrand Russell who would go on to become a noted philosopher and who in later life recalled his elderly grandfather as "a kindly old man in a wheelchair."

Earl Russell died at home at Pembroke Lodge on 28 May 1878. The Prime Minister, the Earl of Beaconsfield, offered a public funeral and burial at Westminster Abbey for Russell but this was declined by Countess Russell in accordance with her late husband's wish to be buried among his family and ancestors. He is buried at the 'Bedford Chapel' at St. Michael's Church, Chenies, Buckinghamshire.

Legacy and reputation

Scion of one of the most powerful aristocratic families, Russell was a leading reformer who weakened the power of the aristocracy. His great achievements, wrote A. J. P. Taylor, were based on his persistent battles in Parliament over the years on behalf of the expansion of liberty; after each loss he tried again and again, until finally, his efforts were largely successful. E. L. Woodward, however, argued that he was too much the abstract theorist:

"He was more concerned with the removal of obstacles to civil liberty than with the creation of a more reasonable and civilized society. His political theory centred in the revolution of 1688, and in the clique of aristocratic families to whom the country owed loyalty in return for something like the charte octroyée of the reform bill." Nevertheless, Russell led his Whig party into support for reform; he was the principal architect of the Reform Act 1832 (2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 45).

He was succeeded as Liberal leader by former Peelite William Gladstone, and was thus the last true Whig to serve as prime minister. Generally taken as the model for Anthony Trollope's Mr. Mildmay, aspects of his character may also have suggested those of Plantagenet Palliser. An ideal statesman, said Trollope, should have "unblemished, unextinguishable, inexhaustible love of country.... But he should also be scrupulous, and, as being scrupulous, weak."

The Reform Act 1832 and extension of the franchise to British cities are partly attributed to his efforts. He also worked for emancipation, leading the attack on the Test and Corporation acts, which were repealed in 1828, as well as towards legislation limiting working hours in factories in the Factories Act 1847, and the Public Health Act 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63).

His government's approach to dealing with the Great Irish Famine is now widely condemned as counterproductive, ill-informed and disastrous. Russell himself was sympathetic to the plight of the Irish poor, and many of his relief proposals were blocked by his cabinet or by the British Parliament.

Queen Victoria's attitude toward Russell was coloured by his role in the Aberdeen administration. On his death in 1878 her journal records that he was "a man of much talent, who leaves a name behind him, kind, & good, with a great knowledge of the constitution, who behaved very well, on many trying occasions; but he was impulsive, very selfish (as shown on many occasions, especially during Ld Aberdeen's administration) vain, & often reckless & imprudent."

A public house in Bloomsbury, large parts of which are still owned by the Bedford Estate, is named after Russell, located on Marchmont Street.

Earl Russell Street is named after him in Aylestone, a suburb of Leicester.

Russell Road in Merton Park, a suburb of London, is named after him, adjacent to Derby, Gladstone, Palmerston and Pelham Roads, all named after former Prime Ministers.

The town of Russell in the Northland Region of New Zealand, was named in honour of him as the then Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Original works
Russell published numerous books and essays over the course of his life, especially during periods out of office. He principally wrote on politics and history, but also turned his hand to a variety of other topics and genres. His published works include:

 * The Life of William Lord Russell (1819) - a biography of his famous ancestor.
 * Essays and Sketches of Life and Character by a Gentleman who has left his lodgings (1820) - a series of social and cultural commentaries ostensibly found in a missing lodger's rooms, published anonymously.
 * An Essay on the History of the English Government and Constitution, from the reign of Henry VII. to the present time (1821)
 * The Nun of Arrouca: a Tale (1822) - a romantic novel set in Portugal during the Peninsular War.
 * Don Carlos: or, Persecution. A tragedy, in five acts (1822) - a blank verse play on the same subject as the play of the same title by Friedrich Schiller.
 * Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe from the Peace of Utrecht (1824) - a second volume appeared in 1829.
 * The Establishment of the Turks in Europe, An Historical Discourse (1828)
 * The Causes of the French Revolution (1832) Author of the "Memoirs of the Affairs of Europe." (BM 1859,0625.112).jpg, 1831]]
 * Adventures in the Moon, and Other Worlds (1836) - a collection of fantasy short stories, published anonymously.
 * The Life and Times of Charles James Fox (1859-1866) - a three volume biography of Russell's political hero.
 * Essays on the Rise and Progress of the Christian Religion in the West of Europe, from the reign of Tiberius to the Council of Trent (1871)
 * The Foreign Policy of England 1570-1870, An Historical Essay (1871)
 * Recollections and Suggestions 1813-1873 (1875) - Russell's political memoir.

As editor

 * Correspondence of John, Fourth Duke of Bedford - in three volumes, published between 1842 and 1846.
 * Memoirs, Journal, and Correspondence of Thomas Moore - in eight volumes, published between 1853 and 1856. Russell was Moore's literary executor and published his papers in accordance with his late friend's wishes.
 * Memorials and correspondence of Charles James Fox - in four volumes, published between 1853 and 1857.

Dedications
A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens was dedicated to Lord John Russell, "In remembrance of many public services and private kindnesses." In speech given in 1869, Dickens remarked of Russell that "there is no man in England whom I respect more in his public capacity, whom I love more in his private capacity."

title: John Russell, 1st Earl Russell


text:
Decebalus

Decebalus (Decebal; Δεκεβαλος; ), sometimes referred to as Diurpaneus, was the last Dacian king. He is famous for fighting three wars, with varying success, against the Roman Empire under two emperors. After raiding south across the Danube, he defeated a Roman invasion in the reign of Domitian, securing a period of independence during which Decebalus consolidated his rule.

When Trajan came to power, his armies invaded Dacia to weaken its threat to the Roman border territories of Moesia. Decebalus was defeated in 102 AD, and his own sister was abducted within this timeframe and forcibly wed into Roman nobility, causing some historians to infer that she was the ancestress of the usurper, Regalianus, who claimed to be a kinsman of Decebalus. He remained in power as a client king, but continued to assert his independence, leading to a final and overwhelming Roman invasion north of the Danube in 105 AD. Trajan reduced the Dacian capital Sarmizegetusa to ruins in 106 AD, absorbing some of Dacia into the Empire. Decebalus died by suicide to avoid capture.

Early life
After the death of Great King Burebista, Dacia split into four, then five smaller kingdoms. Nothing is known about Decebalus' youth or background. Decebalus appears to have risen to prominence in the court of the Dacian king Duras, who claimed authority over all Dacian territory. An ancient Dacian pot bearing the words “Decebalus per Scorilo” led to the suggestion that this might mean "Decebalus son of Scorilo".

According to Lucian Boia this suggestion was originally a "scholarly joke", but the theory has been considered plausible by several writers. It has been suggested that "Scorilo" may be identical to the "Coryllus" or "Scorillus" identified by Jordanes as a Dacian king prior to Duras. Duras may have been Decebalus' uncle, having taken over the throne by agnatic right on his brother's death.

In 85 AD the Dacian army began minor raids upon the heavily fortified Roman province of Moesia, located south of the Danube. In 86 King Duras ordered a more vigorous attack south into Moesia. Roman sources refer to the attack being led by "Diurpaneus" (or "Dorpaneus"). Many authors have taken this person to be Duras himself, and refer to him as "Duras-Diurpaneus". Other scholars argue that Duras and Diurpaneus are different individuals, or that Diurpaneus is identical to Decebalus. Recent sources take the view that "Diurpaneus" is most likely Decebalus.

The Dacians defeated and killed Oppius Sabinus, the governor of Moesia, forcing Domitian to deploy more troops to the area. Marcus Cornelius Nigrinus replaced Sabinus. Domitian took command to deal with the problem himself, arriving with his general, prefect of the Praetorian Guards, Cornelius Fuscus.

War against Emperor Domitian
Domitian pushed back the Dacians from Moesia, then returned to Rome to celebrate a Triumph, leaving Fuscus in charge of the army. Fuscus advanced into Dacia, but his four or five legions suffered a major defeat when ambushed by the forces of Decebalus (the sources say "Diurpaneus" was in command, which might mean Decebalus or Duras). Two Roman legions (among which was the V Alaudae) were ambushed and defeated at a mountain pass the Romans called Tapae (widely known as the Iron Gates of Transylvania). Fuscus was killed, and Decebalus was crowned king after the ageing Duras abdicated.

Dio Cassius described Decebalus as follows: This man was shrewd in his understanding of warfare and shrewd also in the waging of war; he judged well when to attack and chose the right moment to retreat; he was an expert in ambuscades and a master in pitched battles; and he knew not only how to follow up a victory well, but also how to manage well a defeat. Hence he showed himself a worthy antagonist of the Romans for a long time.

Fuscus was replaced by Tettius Julianus. In 88 Julianus commanded another Roman army under Domitian against the Dacians, defeating them in a battle near Tapae. However, elsewhere in Europe, Domitian was having to deal with revolts along the Rhine, and suffered heavy defeats at the hands of the Marcomanni, and Sarmatian tribes in the east, notably the Iazyges. Needing the troops in Moesia, Domitian agreed to peace terms with Decebalus. He agreed to pay large sums (eight million sesterces) in annual tribute to the Dacians for maintaining peace. Decebalus sent his brother Diegis to Rome to accept a diadem from the Emperor, officially recognising Decebalus's royal status.

Consolidation of power
Decebalus' victory greatly increased his prestige. He proceeded to centralize power and build up his fortifications and war machines, using engineers supplied by Domitian. Decebalus's court also became a haven for malcontents and deserters from the Roman empire becoming "the nucleus for anti-Roman sentiment" in the words of historian Julian Bennett. He also sought to build alliances with independent tribes, notably the Getic Bastarnae and the Sarmatian Roxolani. He failed to secure the support of the Quadi, Marcomanni and Jazyges, but ensured that they would not interfere with his plans.

First Dacian war
When Trajan came to power in 98, he immediately toured the Danube area and ordered the strengthening of fortifications along the Dacian frontier. Three years later, Trajan decided to launch an offensive against Dacia. According to Cassius Dio this was because "he had taken stock of [their] previous record, resented the annual sums of money they were getting, and saw that their powers and their pride were on the increase." Trajan's force crossed the Danube in 101 and advanced into Dacia, pushing back Dacian forces. According to Dio, Decebalus sent envoys asking for negotiations, but Trajan refused a personal meeting.

At the Second Battle of Tapae, Decebalus was defeated, but he inflicted serious losses on the Romans. Trajan chose not to pursue the war until the spring. Decebalus tried to wrongfoot Trajan by launching a surprise attack on Moesia, but he suffered a major defeat at the Battle of Adamclisi. Despite stiff resistance, the Romans closed on the Dacian capital by early 102. Decebalus was forced to concede defeat and accept Trajan's terms, which included the loss of some territories in the vicinity of the Danube and the dismantling of his fortresses. However, Decebalus retained his throne.

Second Dacian war
Decebalus had no intention of remaining subject to Rome, or giving up his lost territory. As soon as he was able to, he took revenge on those who had supported Rome. He annexed territory from the Jazyges and violated the peace treaty by re-arming and receiving refugees and deserters from Roman territory. He also restored his fortifications. This time, Decebalus did not wait for Trajan to strike. In 105 he authorised a direct attack on the newly occupied Roman territory, probably the fortress at Banat. The attack seems to have taken Trajan and the Senate by surprise. Trajan immediately travelled north to review fortifications.

Meanwhile, Decebalus continued to disrupt Roman positions with guerrilla attacks. He also developed a plan to assassinate Trajan by using Roman auxiliaries who had defected to the Dacians to infiltrate the emperor's camp. The plot failed. However he succeeded in capturing one of Trajan's senior officers, Pompeius Longinus, whom he tried to use as a hostage to bargain with Trajan. Longinus took poison to avoid being so used.

Trajan, meanwhile, was building a large force for a full-scale invasion. Decebalus tried to negotiate a peace settlement, but Trajan demanded that Decebalus surrender himself, which he refused to do. Decebalus' allies among the surrounding tribes seem to have deserted him at this point. Trajan launched a direct attack on the Dacian capital, Sarmizegetusa. After a long siege of Sarmizegetusa and a few skirmishes in the nearby region, the Romans conquered the Dacian capital. Decebalus managed to escape with his family. He and his remaining supporters continued a guerrilla campaign in the Carpathian mountains.

Death

Decebalus was hunted down and finally cornered by Roman detachments seeking his head. Rather than being captured only to be exhibited and humiliated at Rome, Decebalus committed suicide by slashing his own throat, as depicted on Trajan's Column (spiral 22, panel b).

It is likely that he killed himself as a Roman cavalry scout named Tiberius Claudius Maximus from Legio VII Claudia was approaching. He was probably still alive when Maximus reached him, as is claimed on Maximus' funerary stele discovered at Gramini in Greece. Maximus is presumably the figure seen on Trajan's column reaching out to Decebalus from his horse.

Decebalus' head and right hand were then taken to Trajan in "Ranisstorum" (an unidentified Dacian village, perhaps Piatra Craivii) by Maximus, who was decorated by the emperor. The trophy was sent to Rome where it was thrown down the Gemonian stairs. Tiberius Claudius Maximus' tomb cites two occasions where the legionary was decorated for his part in the Dacian wars, one of which being the acquisition of Decebalus' head.

Romanian national hero
Decebalus is considered a national hero in Romania, and has been portrayed in numerous literary works, movies, public sculptures, and other memorials.

Decebalus began to be seen in these terms during the 19th century, when he came to be associated with Romantic ideals of national freedom and resistance to imperialism. Romanian politician Mihail Kogălniceanu gave a speech in 1843 in which he called Decebalus "the greatest barbarian king of all time, more worthy to be on the throne of Rome than the rascally descendants of Augustus!"

Alecu Russo compared him to the medieval hero Stephen the Great, saying "The one and the other both had the same aim, the same sublime idea: the independence of their country! Both are heroes, but Stephen is a more local hero, a Moldavian hero, while Decebalus is the hero of the world." Mihai Eminescu, the Romanian national poet, wrote the historical drama Decebalus. George Coșbuc's 1896 poem  Decebal către popor (Decebalus to his People) lauds the Dacian leader's scorn of death.

Decebalus is often paired with his enemy Trajan, with the former representing national identity and the latter the grandeur and classical values brought by Rome. Decebalus and Trajan were depicted as a pair on many Romanian banknotes.

Decebalus and Trajan were regularly invoked at the coronation of new rulers. Both featured significantly in the imagery of Ferdinand I of Romania and his wife Marie of Romania. The Romanian poet Aron Cotruș wrote a long poem "Maria Doamna" ("Lady Marie") after Marie's death, invoking both Decebalus and Trajan as admirers of Marie. The Dacian king, along with the Roman emperor who conquered Dacia are sometimes invoked as the fathers of the Romanian nation.

He remained a hero in the Communist era, especially in the Stalinist "national Communism" of Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej. According to Lavinia Stan and Lucian Turcescu, "In a process paralleling the way modern Serbs perceive the defeat by the Ottomans in the Battle of Kosovo of 1389, Decebal's defeat at the hands of Trajan in 101–107 CE and the resulting population mix were reclaimed as the cornerstones of Romanian ethnic identity". The nationalist model progressed further under Nicolae Ceaușescu, under whom Decebalus was listed as one of the ten great leaders of Romania.

He was depicted as a great national leader in two major epic films in this period, The Dacians (1967, directed by Sergiu Nicolaescu), and The Column (1968, directed by Mircea Drăgan). In both films he was portrayed by Amza Pellea. Several public statues of Decebalus were also set up in the Ceaușescu era, including an equestrian statue in Deva created in 1978 by the sculptor Ion Jalea, and a column topped by a bust in Drobeta-Turnu Severin, created in 1972.

He was central to the nationalist protochronism movement, which identifies Romania as the cradle of east-European civilisation, and the Dacianism movement, which directly relates Romania as descendants of the Dacians. During the 1990s, a team of sculptors carved a 40-metre-tall rock sculpture of Decebalus from a stone outcrop overlooking the Danube near the city of Orșova, Romania. It was devised and funded by Iosif Constantin Drăgan, a supporter of the protochronist and Dacianist movement. He is quoted saying, "Anyone travelling towards 'Decebal Rex Dragan Fecit' [King Decebalus made by Dragan] is also travelling towards the origins of east-European civilization and will discover that a United Europe represents the natural course of history".

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Decebalus


text:
Talk:Common sunflower

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mayrahdez15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Heliotropism
The Heliotropism section mentions "The heliotropic motion of the bud is performed by the pulvinus, a flexible segment just below the bud, due to reversible changes in turgor pressure, which occurs without growth". How is turgor pressured changed actively by the plant? Is the citation for the line the same as the citation for the previous sentence? If not, what is the source?

Thank you in advance to whoever holds the knowledge and responds. 冷雾 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

wow
i think that this is a very well done article. It has all the sections clearly labeled and it is easy to read. One small thing would maybe be to have less sections, although I do think that for showing so many different aspects of the sunflower you do a good job of keeping it focused. Overall well done, probably one of the best I have read. I would say try to simplify it a little bit, and are all the pictures relevant to the article? Adrian Arias —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarias (talk • contribs)

why do sunflowers "want" to follow the sun?
what do they get out of it? is this known? guessed by relevant public work? I myself would even take a clue, here. (thats I really wanna get info on this) Bye and thanks. Pablo2garcia 00:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Heliotropic flowers are more prevalent among plants in alpine areas. The absorbed light makes the flowers warmer, which attracts more pollinating insects. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1365-3040.1998.00336.x?cookieSet=1  May be the sunflower's heliotropism is a rudimentary feature from an alpine past? Ceinturion 12:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pizarro?
It says that he cultivated them around 1000 B.C.... but this is impossible because Pizarro didn't even go to the Americas until the 16th century A.D.

 * Although the text did not say Pizarro cultivated sunflowers, the sentence has been rephrased. Ceinturion 12:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Other types and species of sunflower
There are many species in the genus Helianthus all of them "sunflowers", they possibly deserve a mention as do the decorative, dwarf and giant varieties that can aparently grow upto 7.76m (25ft 5.5in) tall. Some mention could also be made of sunflower growing competitions or how to grow them. 84.51.146.100 06:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A sunflower is not a weed
I made a comment about this on my Talk page, and I will copy an excerpt here as my source:

Here's a line from the beginning of the Weed article (emphasis mine): "Weeds may be unwanted because they are unsightly, or they limit the growth of other plants by blocking light or using up nutrients from the soil."

I would also agree with the "unsightly" definition to an extent, but you cannot generalize it to "any plants that are unwanted, or haven't been planted by the grower." What if, for example, an acorn is somehow brought onto the property (maybe by an animal)? Is the oak tree that grows from it considered a weed? --Procrastinatrix 18:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this very general sense, if the oak sprouts in the middle of a person's prize dahlia patch, they may yank it out as a weed.  That's what a weed is, an undesired plant, not in its proper location according to some criterion.  KP Botany 19:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

REALLY PEOPLE!!! Look up the definition of WEED in the dictionary! Learn instead of making up meanings of words! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.188.156 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably too many images
Wikipedia articles aren't really supposed to be general image gallery pages; ideally, each image should have a specific role in illustrating some fact about sunflowers. AnonMoos 07:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sunflower
I don't understand this sentence...

"Sunflowers can be processed into a peanut butter alternative, Sunbutter, especially in China, Russia, the United States, the Middle East and Europe."

It seems redundant. It lists pretty much the whole world. maybe it should be rephrased? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordmichael21 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't make sense because it is grammatically incorrect. (Rikku 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC))

Andygusgs should.............
You guys should try to make more pictures of sunflower seeds such as the process of frying it. Tell me when it is posted. Andygusgs (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Better you do it yourself Ceinturion (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Innacurate domestication origin information
In fact, the origin of domestication has been fairly conclusively shown to have happened in the southeastern US. Basically, all domesticated sunflowers (whether from mexico or wherever) are more closely related to wild populations from the US than to wild populations in mexico. This has been shown using allozymes, nuclear, and chloroplast markers. There are only two archeological sites in mexico, plus some ehtnographic data to suggest otherwise, and these could have originated from an early (pre-columbian) introduction from the north.

lots of evidence to back this up:

Burke, John, M., Shunxue Tang, Steven J. Knappb, and Loren H. Rieseberg. 2002. Genetic Analysis of Sunflower Domestication. Genetics, 161: 1257-1267

Abigail V. Harter, Keith A. Gardner1, Daniel Falush2, David L. Lentz3, Robert A. Bye4 & Loren H. Rieseberg. 2004. Origin of extant domesticated sunflowers in eastern North America. Nature, 430: 201-205

Rieseberg, Loren H. and Gerald J. Seiler. 1990. Molecular Evidence and the Origin and Development of the Domesticated Sunflower (Helianthus annum, Asteraceae). Economic Botany 44: 79-91.

Admittedly there is "controversy" in the field about this but the article should at least reflect both perspectives, since the evidence is definitely on the side of one domestication origin in the US.

24.84.193.187 (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)maayan

Article title
This page needs to be moved to Helianthus annuus or Common sunflower. Sunflower covers a large group of plants and the only vernacular name limited to this species is "Common sunflower". Note this search for a quick overview. . Hardyplants (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree, this article should be re-titled. Janeky (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, it has now been five years since you proposed this change, and nothing has happened: no one has yet moved the page, and neither has anyone objected to the idea. I am going to assume that Hardyplants knows what he/she is talking about (I am not a botanist, though neither am I completely ignorant of plant taxonomy/ naming) and will be bold and try right now to carry out this move myself.  This is a pretty frequently visited page, and I have never attempted a thing like this before.  But if it needs to be done, then it should be done-- somebody watch my back, here goes bold nothin'!  KDS 4444  Talk  06:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Aaaaaaaaand done! Article moved successfully, now just trying to clean up the redirects!  Yay!  KDS 4444  Talk  07:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

germination!
Sunflowers take from 10-20 days to start gerrmination to get them too start gerrmination you have to have them in a sunny spot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.133.164 (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Cultivation and uses"
''Sunflowers may also be used to extract toxic ingredients from soil, such as lead, arsenic and uranium. They were used to remove uranium, cesium-137, and strontium-90 from soil after the Chernobyl disaster (see phytoremediation).''

This doesn't explain why Sunflowers may be used for this purpose? Is it just that they are an abundant organic substance that is found in surroundings at these circumstance and therefore free access (that organic substances have a hygroscopic or "sponging" effect to the high end element or such?). In addition the Cough medicine article says that the sunflower is an expectorant, is this do to a molecule or alkaloid that grows within it or a combination of the elements that form it; or is this a common facet to grass and hay and most other plant life (which I know animals eat for various gastro-intestinal remedies)? 4.242.174.188 (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. There is nothing about permission except for the misuse of the word "may."  I have replaced "may also" with "can." — Jay L09 (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The seeds and carnitine content.....
--222.64.215.115 (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Helianthus+annuus%22+seeds+carnitine&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

File:Sunflower sky backdrop.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Sunflower sky backdrop.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 31, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-01-31. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 06:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Heliotropism
The notion that mature sunflower heads track the sun appears to be widespread. I suspect many people come to the WP page to find out if this is true. I think it is relevant to note that this notion is not true. To say that mature sunflowers exhibit no diurnal movement is not strong enough a refutation of this myth, and the use of the word diurnal is unnecessarily obscure, in my opinion.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaplot (talk • contribs) 09:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I was just reading the section and I think it is too strong now in saying it is not true. It says it's not true as an absolute and then goes on to clarify that it is not true for mature plants, but is very much true for immature plants. The plants do track the sun at a certain stage of their life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.182.234 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Maybe you misread the section. It says "a common misconception is that flowering sunflower heads track the Sun". That specifically refers only to the mature plant. The presence of flowering sunflower heads means the sunflower plant is mature, they are the conspicuous yellow 'sunflowers'. In contrast, immature flower buds are inconspicuous, closed and green. Few people notice the immature plant, so there are no common conceptions or misconceptions about the immature plant. Elevant (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Image queue
The following images were in a gallery removed from the page per WP:IG because they're a rather indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject. When the article is expanded, some may be moved back to the article inline with prose. Until then they're queued here. Rkitko (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Page move undone
I've restored the page following an undiscussed move. If the page needs renaming, seek consensus here first. Vsmith (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

"Structure" section
I am not sure the new section at the beginning has improved the article. It is an plethora of botany jargon (dicot, radicle, taproot, apical meristem, plumule, xylem, phloem, cortex, pith, calyx, corolla, and perianth). I would think it is not something the general reader of wikipedia would want to read, outside the scope of wikipedia. Ceinturion (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Agree. A diagram would be very helpful.冷雾 (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Culture
I think it would be better to remove the entire 'culture' section, which currently is just a bullet list of non-encyclopedic information (tourist information and company logos). Any objections? Ceinturion (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Do it, baby! (if you haven't already... Sorry for the drive-by talk page commentary).  KDS 4444  Talk  11:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Article in Need of Revision
This article is full of incorrectly used jargon and some bizarre usages, some of which are not even botanical. Either someone is messing with us, or the article was edited by someone with a poor grasp of botany. The entire structure section should probably be removed or completely rewritten, and the rest of the article rewritten as well. This article used to be better. What happened? Any thoughts?Michaplot (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * An anonymous user created the structure section on 4 december 2012 (diff), and he shuffled a few sections. I wouldn't mind if those edits were reverted. But I don't know much about botanical jargon. Ceinturion (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Michaplot, this is your opportunity to be WP:BOLD and switch the article back to a version you think was the best one! Anonymous users are somewhat famous for doing what Ceinturion describes: executing messy revisions and taking no accountability for them by using an IP address.  The good news is that their work can quickly be undone if someone (you?) will take the time to look at the article's history log and figure out where the good stuff "left off".  Once you have established that, reverting to that version is pretty straightforward, I think (though I do not think I have ever done a revert myself that goes back more than one edit in an article's history...  but that means nothing).  Will you sally forth, good sir?  KDS 4444  Talk  11:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

More information on agricultural cultivation and world production areas would be welcome. The map is nice but a description would be desirable. It is for example not clear how the crop is normalised but I guess that maybe a crop of x kg/ha might be an average eg corresponding to a case where 25% of the cultivated soil is used for sunflower giving 4x kg/ha on average for those 25% i.e. x=25%*4x. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Common sunflower → Helianthus annuus – Botany article on a species, belongs under its own Latin-named article space. Consensus seems to be that this is where it belongs, without controversy. Would move it there myself over the current redirect but there is already an edit history so no can do. KDS 4444 Talk  10:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Support The best solution is probably for "sunflower" to redirect to new page "List of plants known as sunflower" (as is the developing norm for such cases, e.g. Nettle redirects to List of plants known as nettle). The genus and all the species should then be at the scientific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Turns out there already is an article on sunflowers, Helianthus, and I have now turned the "Sunflower" page into a redirect to that, which seems be the most consistent and appropriate move. This article on the common sunflower still needs to be relocated to Helianthus annuus, I think.  KDS 4444  Talk  23:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de La Blanca, Cardejón, España, 2012-09-01, DD 02.JPG to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de La Blanca, Cardejón, España, 2012-09-01, DD 02.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on October 18, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-10-18. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Helianthus annuus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/5833/cycas.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Helianthus annuus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907063800/http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html to http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/5833/cycas.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523191033/http://www.flowers-org.com/helianthus-sunflower.html to http://www.flowers-org.com/helianthus-sunflower.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helianthus annuus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527035852/http://www.learn2grow.com/plantdatabase/plants/PlantDetails.aspx?PlantID=9e95edbe-8f23-4880-a664-5e6cdac17e68 to http://www.learn2grow.com/plantdatabase/plants/PlantDetails.aspx?PlantID=9e95edbe-8f23-4880-a664-5e6cdac17e68

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helianthus annuus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090916234127/http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html to http://www.mcs.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/R.Knott/Fibonacci/fibnat2.html
 * Added tag to https://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110624/wl_asia_afp/japandisasteraccidentnuclearsunflowers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding an informative sentence
I plan on adding a sentence to the heliotropism section to include a detail I thought would help others understand how helioptropism works. This is my first time editing a wiki article so I am still not sure what the proper etiquette is for informing others that I am adding onto an article. If it is necessary, the sentence I am going to add is: They are able to regulate their circadian rhythm in response to the blue-light emitted by a light source. Leetif03 (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Used as a food source?
I am curious why so little information is included about all the different ways it is used as a food source. The only thing mentioned is use of seeds but nothing about the other parts of the plant. One can find dozens of videos and many articles on the internet about the use of Sunflower seedlings as microgreens as just one example. There are old wife's tales about the leaves being poisonous but I've been eating them in salad since I was a kid. If they are toxic they sure do take a long time to make you sick as I'm in my sixties. Would it not be appropriate to add a section expounding upon the use of various parts of the plant for food. As far as I know the entire plant is edible. Roots can be cut up and eaten raw as a slaw or boiled to make a tea. The stalk can be cooked in a soup or steamed or pealed and eaten raw and taste a little like celery. The leaves, flower petals, bud all can be eaten raw or cooked. The plant is loaded with nutrients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.142.155.80 (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Addition to the Cultivation Section
I added in a sentence explaining why the ''Helianthus annuus is harmful to the crops which were listed previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finfinbear (talk • contribs) 21:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Common sunflower. Seems to be an acceptable compromise. A move discussion from Helianthus to Sunflower may also be a good idea going forward. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Helianthus annuus → Sunflower – Sunflowers are exceedingly too common & well known to have their article be placed under the Latin name rather than the common name. The rationale for moving it here was a supposed "consensus" that all articles on plants must be under the Latin names; this is apparently a consensus of purely botany-interested editors, and not of the community at large, and for relatively obscure plants, that practice seems fine. Sunflower is not one of such plants. For analogy, we have the articles apple, plum, rose, pineapple, and tulip, not Malus domestica, Prunus domestica, Rosa spp., Ananas comosa, and Tulipa. Note: for whatever reason, "sunflower" currently redirects to the article on the genus; I think that page should be left where it is, but sunflower should be the name of this article; we can put a hatnote at the top that says something like "For the genus, which contains some species that are also sometimes called sunflowers, see..." 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:50F6:C1D6:31E7:5B10 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a number of different plants called "Sunflower". Common Sunflower would be the name for Helianthus annuus Hardyplants (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Support, of course, per common name and most familiar name. English Wikipedia pages are best understood and recognized in English. Randy Kryn (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Sunflower" by itself preferable to "common sunflower" per decision at "Chimpanzee" as compared with "Common chimpanzee". Randy Kryn (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * not sure this is comparable, as the other member of Pan also has a well known common name, the bonobo. For sunflowers there are many member of the genus Helianthus with common names ' sunflower'. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would Sunflower work better as the title of Helianthus? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose, per . A rename of Common sunflower might be more appropriate, but not entirely sure I'm convinced of that. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME. "Sunflower" is the most common name. The lead can point out that it is sometimes referred to as the "common sunflower" to distinguish it from other members of the genus, just as many other organism articles do. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Common sunflower. Showiecz (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Greek mythology?
There is a widespread myth about sunflowers related to Greek mythology. One version says Clytie was a water nymph, and deeply in love with the sun god Helios. Sadly, he left her for another goddess, and it's said that Clytie watched Helios crossing the sky in his golden chariot for days, without any food or water. Eventually, she was transformed into a sunflower, and it’s said this is why sunflowers always face the sun.

However, since the sunflower is assumed to have come to Europe only in the 16th century, there is something that doesn't make sense here. Could somebody do some research on this? Maybe sunflower is confused with turnsole? Joreberg (talk) 08:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Style problem
Hey @Larizdibartolo, the edit you did today has a style problem. What you wrote is worded like advice and Wikipedia's style guidelines say not to do that. See WP:NOTGUIDE. Also what you added about disposal does not have a reference. Do you have one? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024
— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Common sunflower


text:
Talk:Skene's gland

Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology
Saidmann, regarding this? Are you aware that, per WP:MEDDATE, history sections are not subject to a strict application of WP:MEDRS? Also keep the "Other sources" section of WP:MEDRS in mind when editing medical and anatomy topics.

As seen here here and here, Headbomb sourced the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology material months ago. Did you look for sources for it? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 * You seem to refer to "History sections often cite older work" in WP:MEDDATE. This hint means that here older sec sources may be valid. The source that I deleted, however, is no secondary source. It is not even a peer-reviewed source. --Saidmann (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Saidmann, nowhere does WP:MEDDATE state or imply that history sections must include secondary sources or at least a peer-reviewed source. I've edited many medial and anatomy articles, and we include primary sources in many of them history sections. Sometimes media sources will be in them, just like they are often in our "Society and culture" sections (which also often are not subject to a strict application of WP:MEDRS). It is not like a secondary source or a peer-reviewed source is needed to relay the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology matter. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS does not ban use of primary sources. We are cautioned to use them sparingly, under certain circumstances. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The section you quoted definitely refers to reviews and nothing else. --Saidmann (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 * The source that Headbomb quoted is a dead link. Yes, I looked for sources, but in vain. --Saidmann (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 * That a source is dead is no reason to remove it, or what is supported by it. Further, This book still exists, and still is ISBN 9781285401027, and the link still works. Likewise this website still works, even if it's flash-based.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 * That issue is now done. Well, it is our job find sources, not the readers' job. I will continue to delete stuff that I fail to make transparent. --Saidmann (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * "I will continue to delete stuff that I fail to make transparent." The repeated removal of reliably-sourced content against consensus is usally grounds for a block, so I would advise you against doing that. In the meantime, I have reverted to a prior version.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Saidmann, regarding what Headbomb stated, see WP:Dead link. And as for deleting stuff, do read our WP:Preserve policy; you should take that policy seriously. It is not a guideline. It is a policy.

 * As for the section I quoted? It has often been misunderstood by editors who are not as experienced editing medical and anatomy articles as WP:Med editors are, which is why it has been revised more than once. One way it was revised was by taking out its previous emphasis on "two or three years." Even with the "five or so years" piece that is there now, it doesn't mean that sources we use must be within five years. WP:MEDDATE is about whether the material is up-to-date. If, with regard to anatomy or another medical topic, something that was true years ago is still true today, the source reporting on that does not need to be removed simply because the source is old. If the source can be updated, then, yeah, it's best to do that for the sake of appearance...so that readers know that the material is up-to-date. But WP:MEDDATE is about whether the material is out of date; we look at newer sources to assess if the material is out of date. In any case, the claim that WP:MEDDATE refers to reviews and nothing else is incorrect. It quite clearly states that its guidance is "appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." In other words, there are some topics, like this one, that have few reviews and may therefore need to rely on primary sources or include more primary sources more than a well-studied area. It tells us to "Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic." Not to exclude primary sources. It tells us that "If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews." So no ban on primary sources. And, again, nowhere does WP:MEDDATE state or imply that history sections must include secondary sources or at least a peer-reviewed source. History sections are given as an exception to strict application. I don't see why you would think that the "History sections often cite older work" aspect means "no primary sources." We use Gray's Anatomy, a primary source, in some of our anatomy articles.
 * Anyway, as you know, I added this 2008 "Terminologia Histologica: International Terms for Human Cytology and Histology" source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 65, for the material in question. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Reverting to a previous version
Headbomb, regarding this? I wouldn't have reverted that far back. Saidmann and Zefr did improve the article, and I'm okay with this version. After reviewing the changes, can you be okay with that version? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly indifferent, just against the spurious removal of sources based on flawed logic.   Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. I restored the article to the improved version. I will certainly report support you on any unjust removals. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Definitely meant "support", not "report." Sorry about that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

 * "Support you on arguing against, reverting, and/or reporting any unjust removals." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I don't know squat about phonetics or how these IPA templates work, but to me the pronunciations in the IPAc-en template (which suggests the vowel sound is like the I in kind) and the respell (SKEEN) are not consistent with each other. We may want to also check the IPA template at Alexander Skene. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Skene's gland