Talk:Lord Kelvin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Age of Earth Controversy

Presbyterian

Discussion inaccurate in several respects. (1) Implies Thomson rejected natural selection on account of his Christian faith, perpetuating discredited conflict thesis in the history of science and religion. According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The vast majority of authors in the science and religion field [are] critical of the conflict model and believe it is based on a shallow and partisan reading of the historical record." Helen De Cruz, "Religion and Science," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2017 Edition, Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/religion-science/ Kelvin's actual reasons described in Chapters 17 and 18 of Energy and Empire: A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin, by Crosbie Smith and M. Norton Wise. (2) Implies his views opposed a united geological community. In fact the geological community was divided on the question of the age of the earth. Simple dichotomy between physics and geology addressed and rejected in Norton & Wise, p. 579-80. (3) Neglects the centrality of disputes over proper scientific method which arose in the wake of Origin; weight of scientific opinion in the 1860's against Darwin on the grounds that his views speculative & unempirical & therefor no legitimate part of science. However, in the 1870's and 80's it rose to prominence with the younger generation, who simply changed the definition of science in order to accommodate Darwin's approach; hence dispute over Origin's status in part an inter-generational dispute between scientists as to what ought to count as legitimate methods & assumptions, in which the younger generation eventually prevailed through attrition. Kelvin's views in line with that of earlier generation of scientists, in respect to which Darwin & Huxley stood as outsiders. On this last point see James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 195-200, and surrounding passages generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassian1080 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

William Thomson went to a kirk, not a chapel. He was indeed an elder of the Church of Scotland there. "Chapel" is the term in Wales for a place of worship that is not Church of England. I agree with the body of this above, by Cassian1080, that indeed Thomson was entitled to be skeptical of Darwin's evolution, and of Lyle's estimate of a Very Old Earth, independently of the fact of his Christianity. He improved, by almost four orders of magnitude, upon the estimate of 6000 years by Archbishop Ussher of Armagh. Having gone to that trouble, and concluding that the age could not have exceeded 100 million years, he was entitled on perfectly good scientific grounds, by the evidence available to him, to be skeptical of Natural Selection, and even of the geologist Lyle's conviction that marble in the Alps implied a much older Earth. Both of these would have required thousands of millions, as indeed we now know that they did.

DaveyHume (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Excessive repetition of Lord title

I think it is not good style to repeat the title Lord before every single mention of the name Kelvin. A few days ago Vsmith removed many of the "Lord"s and left a reasonable number, but subsequently 81.157.153.165 replaced them all with an edit summary saying that 'Kelvin was not his name'. I would say that Kelvin became his name when he was raised to the peerage, and can be used to identify him from that point on. We do not repeat other titles (such as Mr., Ms., Doctor, Professor, Reverend, or even King or Queen) every time we mention a person, so why should Lord be repeated every time?

In the section "Biography, history of ideas and criticism", some of the references have titles including "Lord Kelvin", but others just say "Kelvin". I suggest we do the same in this article, and I think Vsmith has proposed a reasonable selection of when to use "Lord" and when not. Dirac66 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

No reply after 10 days, so I have restored the edits of Vsmith to delete the excess uses of "Lord". For the infobox, however, I have put the complete name: William Thomson, Lord Kelvin.Dirac66 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Name or title "Kelvin"

The article does not explain the connection between the two names Thomson and Kelvin. The title "1st Baron" suggests that "Kelvin" is a place in England, but this is not clear. Please clarify. Pgan002 (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

See intro, paragraph 3, sentences 1-4. Dirac66 (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

The Encyclopaedia Britannica article makes it clear that the Thomson family originally came from Scotland and they returned to Scotland when William was ten years old. He is therefore by all accounts an Ulster-Scot. Some might even say is is just plain Scottish. The deleted reference was modern propaganda which contradicts the information in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. When two sources contradict each other, we go by the one which is obviously true. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "the one which is obviously true", when what you mean is "the one which I agree with"!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin/Archive_1

In the above link(in mid-2016), we discussed this (it's under 'Kelvin was Scottish', in the Archive section) and you accepted some of the points. Why do you now want to revert from that? Please read the discussion below, and where you replied "Yes, I see your point.."

William Thomson's family had lived in an undivided Ireland for centuries before his father took a job in Glasgow and so the family moved there when he about ten years old. When he was 59 years old, in 1883, he "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf And as I wrote three years ago: "Or do you think William Thomson was wrong about himself, just that he was very good at the physics and mathsy stuff but is not to be listened to if it does not fit in with your ideas of where somebody is from (even if he's actually from there!)?"

I will modify a sentence I wrote three years ago, and say that "He should best be described as Irish-Scottish (of Ulster-Scots heritage) in that he became a naturalized Scottish person, after his childhood in Ireland."

The link to being raised in Ireland, (by a family resident in Ireland for centuries) and Kelvin's opinion of what that meant, should not be ignored (especially for reasons of bias).

If William Thomson's family were in Ireland for a short(ish) period of time, then one could say there wasn't much of a link at all with Ireland. This is the situation with the great English philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe. She was born in Co.Limerick, Ireland, but no one says that she is Irish. Her father worked in Ireland for a period, but then the family returned to England. This is not the case with William Thomson, whose family had lived in Ireland for centuries. That is why Kelvin himself, aged 59, "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf

From mid-2016:

"Kelvin was Scottish

Although he was born in Belfast in the UK he was of Scottish parentage and the family moved back to Scotland again when he was only ten years old. 
http://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Thomson-Baron-Kelvin He was never Irish in any real sense. Kelvinside is an area of Glasgow, Scotland, where he took his
peerage name from. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 

What do you mean by Irish, "in any real sense"?! Do you have a certain narrow caricature definition that you want to impose here, is there a political/tribal aspect to 
it? Do you want to drag strange old ideas of 'blood' and religion into it? Do you associate the word Irish with some people from particular 'blood lines' and
(historically) speaking a certain language? These are quite odd ideas, and sound like something from the 17th century! Thomson was born in Ireland and grew up in Ireland
to the age of about 10. When he went to Scotland he was considered Irish, and he considered himself Irish. He considered himself British aswell. He did not consider
himself to be from an old Gaelic-Irish family, because he wasn't, and nobody else did either, but all considered him Irish, including himself. In a speech of 1883,
William Thomson "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf Or do you think William Thomson
was wrong about himself, just that he was very good at the physics and mathsy stuff but is not to be listened to if it does not fit in with your ideas of where somebody
is from (even if he's actually from there!)? He should best be described as Irish-Scottish, in that he became a naturalized Scottish person, after his childhood in
Ireland. Also you wrote that he was of Scottish parentage, but his father was actually the fourth son of a farmer in Co.Down (fyi, not in Scotland). — Preceding unsigned
comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC) 

Yes, I see your point. But Scotch-Irish is the term you want. Not Irish-Scottish. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish on wikipedia: 
·The Ulster Scots people, an ethnic group in Ulster, Ireland, who trace their roots to settlers from Scotland
·Scotch-Irish Americans, descendants of Ulster Scots who first migrated to America in large numbers in the 18th and 19th centuries
·Scotch-Irish Canadians, descendants of Ulster Scots who migrated to Canada
Kelvin was none of these things so Scotch/Scots-Irish isn't the correct term. 2A02:C7D:6998:1800:DC7:8EBA:E8A1:521C (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
He was in the first group that you list. He was an Ulster Presbyterian and his ancestry came from Scotland. He was therefore an Ulster Scot who migrated to Scotland and 
became Scottish. We could perhaps say that he was Ulster Scot/Scottish. Sandstable (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs)

I want to draw attention to bias in the approach here when compared to other entries. It is important to note that none of the following similar pioneers are called "British" in Wikipedia:

• Rankine was a "Scottish Civil Engineer",
• Watt was a "Scottish inventor and mechanical engineer",
• Brunel was an "English Mechanical and Civil Engineeer",
• Telford was a "Scottish Civil Engineer",
• Babbage was an "English polymath",
• Newcomen was "an English inventor",
• Stephenson was "an English Civil engineer and mechanical engineer".

Now, William Thomson was brought up in Ireland, to the age of 10, and received his initial education in Ireland (and when arriving in Scotland at the age of 10 he then went to university there (not unusual at the time, as the article explains). Thomson's family had been in Ireland for four generations (they were of Ulster-Scots heritage). Why is there an attempt to deny the link to Ireland? Some people want to blatantly use a different way to describe him compared to all of the other examples above to suit their own agenda. In a speech of 1883, William Thomson "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf Or do these people with an agenda think William Thomson was wrong about himself, just that he was very good at the physics and mathsy stuff but is not to be listened to if it does not fit in with their ideas of where somebody is from (even if he's actually from there!)? He should best be described as Irish-Scottish, in that he became a naturalized Scottish person, after his childhood in Ireland. That is not to say that he was not other things ASWELL.

The link to being raised in Ireland, (by a family resident in Ireland for centuries) and Kelvin's opinion of what that meant, should not be ignored (especially for reasons of bias).

Leaving politics out of it, it is not right that some people suppress the fact of Thomson's Irish link, in the same way that Rankine was Scottish etc., regardless of what way (or how, originally in 1800) Ireland was temporarily in the United Kingdom (against her wishes or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Blackburn

While consulting the article for another purpose, I noticed the prominent claim that Thomson 'worked closely' with mathematics professor Hugh Blackburn in his work. I was surprised by this, as it seems to imply or insinuate that Thomson needed mathematical assistance. As Thomson was Second Wrangler in his year at Cambridge, and renowned for his mathematical brilliance, this does not seem likely, unless he delegated some donkey-work to Blackburn. So I have also consulted the two main biographies of Thomson (the old one by Silvanus Thompson, and the modern one by Crosbie Smith and Norton Wise), and find nothing to support it. Smith and Wise only give Blackburn two brief mentions. Unless there is something else to substantiate the claim, I suggest it be deleted. If anyone should be prominently mentioned as a collaborator of Thomson, it is surely Peter Guthrie Tait, who co-authored major works with him.2A00:23C8:7906:1301:14DD:336C:348E:D34B (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 20 May 2023

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 (non-admin closure) ExtorcDev (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

---

William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin → Lord Kelvin – I don't see how the current title satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. I searched and checked the references in the article but it seems like every source published after he became Lord Kelvin mentions him being called "Lord Kelvin". It seems fine that the article calls him William Thomson (after all he only got that name later in his life), but "Lord Kelvin" is his most recognizable name and should be the article title. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Listed as Lord Kelvin at Scottish Science Hall of Fame. Analogous to others, such as Lord Dunsany, Lady Gregory or Baroness Orczy. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. Lord Byron is comparable in recognition. --Killuminator (talk) 11:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
• How about William Thomson, Lord Kelvin? Dirac66 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  That falls afoul of WP:CONCISE. There is only one holder of the title "Lord Kelvin", the guy in this article. Hence, per WP:NCBRITPEER, an exception should be made to the "Personal name, Peerage title" scheme. Because Lord Kelvin is "the unambiguous name by which the subject is clearly best known" the use of the title is appropriate (WP:TITLESINTITLES). Mathnerd314159 (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a biographical article, not a history of science article, so useful to be clear. Every baron in English history is "commonly known" as "Lord X", but we don't use that form in article titles. "Lord Byron" is an exception, as that was his contemporary nom de plume. "Lord Kelvin" is not. Most of his works are signed "William Thomson". The term "Kelvin" make very little appearance in this article. Walrasiad (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

  Again, per WP:NCBRITPEER, the question is whether "one holder of a title is overwhelmingly the best known". Most barons in history share the title with a lineage. However, there is only one Lord Kelvin. Regarding the appearance of Kelvin, the article calls him Kelvin or Lord Kelvin 46 times, vs. 111 for Thomson, so roughly a 30/70 split. I wouldn't call that "very little". Similarly, the article has a lot of history of Kelvin's work in science; it is not purely a biography. But AFAICT article content plays little role in naming decisions, it is mainly the lead that matters, and having a statement "Absolute temperatures are stated in units of kelvin in his honour." while titling the article "William Thomson ..." is confusing. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The term "Kelvin" is already contained in the article title, so it's not either/or. What you are proposing is to remove "William Thomson" and let Kelvin stand alone. If you say he is known purely as "Lord Kelvin" (like "Lord Byron"), then I'd expect to see "Kelvin" used through 100% of the article (like Byron is). But it's not. The biographical parts of the article refer to him almost exclusively as "William Thomson". It is unsurprising that the only parts that refer to him as "Kelvin" are non-biographical parts, that seem to be written by scientists and not biographers nor historians.

That later scientists later named other things in his honor, using his title rather than his name, does not mean that should be the exclusive name for this article. The state of Virginia is named in honor of Queen Elizabeth I of England. Should we change the title of her monarch article to "Queen Virginia"?

This is primarily a biographical article about a person. William Thomson is the name he which he was known through most of his life, the name biographers use, and is the name used through most of this article. Scientists may use the title for their honorific purposes - it is simpler for them to say "Lord Kelvin" than try to remember his actual name. And that's fine for their ends. They're scientists, not biographers. They don't much care about the man himself, and don't need to. But this article is not written by nor for scientists. This article is about the man, a biography, not about things scientists name things after. Walrasiad (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I would agree that Thomson is the most common name used to refer to him, but there are a lot of Thomsons (and William Thomsons). Meanwhile there is only one Lord Kelvin. So another way to justify it is that Lord Kelvin is an alternative, somewhat less common name that is a WP:NATURAL disambiguation. He was called Lord Kelvin during his lifetime, e.g. this letter, so it's not like it's a title created by later scientists. The biographical section "Later life and death" uses Kelvin almost exclusively. I don't think Lord Byron is a fair comparison because that article mostly uses "Byron" and that refers to both the title and his last name. Similarly, the Virginia - Elizabeth I connection isn't even confirmed, so using it to name the article would be foolish. The actual naming discussion that decided on "Elizabeth I" removed based the argument on WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT, as here. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Virginia was clearly tongue-in-cheek. I hope you don't take that proposal seriously!

Byron isn't his last name, it is "Gordon". But nobody referred to him that way. I suppose you can say Byron was lucky to get his title while still very young, and so never used Gordon.

The current title has "William Thomson" and "Kelvin" included, so it already disambiguates him from other Thomsons. Englishmen like referring to their lords by lordly names once they get them. Thomson didn't receive his title until very late in life. It shouldn't displace the name by which he was known throughout his life, and under which he made most of his contributions.

[fun personal anecdote: I worked for some time the assistant to a professor whom about half-way through my service, was suddenly made an English lord. Despite his strident "leftist" political credentials and his causal "oh, just call me John" camaraderie, his innate love of grandeur couldn't resist, and soon I was dealing with correspondence to & from "Lord S". To tease him, I would sometimes subtly address him in person as "Milord" (as in, "Yes, Milord", "Can I help you, Milord?"). He didn't bat an eyelid or correct me. He was thoroughly enjoying it.] Walrasiad (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I have to disagree regarding Byron. This old version says "Gordon was a baptismal name, not a surname". The current article corroborates that by saying he was christened as "George Gordon Byron", per [1]. It really was pretty much Byron from birth.

Getting back to the topic at hand, the question is not whether the current title is sufficiently precise - the issue is that it is too long. Sometimes I type in article titles from memory and "William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin" really is not something I'd get in one try. "Lord Kelvin" is easy to use and has been a redirect for a long time, but I'd rather it be the title. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Hm. Maybe right on Byron. Still, received his title early, and was "Lord Byron" from his teens. Not so Thomson.

I disagree. Again, "Lord Kelvin" maybe used by scientists for frankly lazy reasons - many only know the modern scientific things named "kelvin" and attach a "Lord" to it simply because it is easy, they don't need to bother to remember his name. But to biographers, and historians, and that includes historians of science, and those who know and read his works, he is William Thomson, first and foremost, and referred to as Thomson when describing his work. e.g. the Treatise of Natural Philosophy, one of the greatest and most influential scientific textbooks, is known widely as "Thomson & Tait", or just "T & T", not "Kelvin & Tait".

The name "William Thomson" and "Kelvin" are included in the current title, and satisfies both needs. Nobody - not even the laziest of scientists - is going to be surprised to discover that "Lord Kelvin" is actually just a title, and not his first & last name. Sure, many scientists may simply say "Lord Kelvin" for shorthand. Military aficionados also say simply "Duke of Wellington" for shorthand, but his article is Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington here.

It doesn't take up too much brain space. If keeping the longer form cements that "William Thomson" and "Lord Kelvin" are one and the same person in the mind of lazy scientists, so much the better.Walrasiad (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Walrasiad. We use full names by default. Barack Obama, not Obama. No reason to make an exception here when the term already redirects. Srnec (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. His WP:COMMONNAME is "Lord Kelvin", so policy supports the move. It's not comparable to Barack Obama either, otherwise we'd just call him William Thomson.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2023 (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.