| This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia articles by working in any useful content from their Citizendium counterparts. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | | | | This article is out of date with its Citizendium counterpart and needs to be updated. | | Current with its Citizendium counterpart article as of: Never | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. | | ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. | | | |  | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved. | [edit] Notes on Davy's Lectures A link to Faraday's notes on Humphrey Davy's lectures would be most interesting and informative, indeed, a fine thing to include in this article. Is there a pdf. of Faraday's notes on the internet that could be linked to? [edit] Still needed I've recently added new material to the article and tried to remove some errors, without making too many new ones. Several sections still read rather poorly. Here are some points which need a lot of work: - Faraday's connection with the Sandemanians (very important!)
- Honors and awards received by Faraday
- Faraday's professional memberships
- Faraday's non-scientific interests
- References for the quotations (I tracked down one.)
Help will be appreciated. - And if you run out of things to do, as of right now the Humphry Davy article doesn't even mention his discoveries of sodium or potassium! - Astrochemist 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC) - Something else worth mentioning as part of his legacy are the publications, lectures, and awards that bear his name (Faraday Lectures, Faraday Transactions, Faraday Medal, etc.) --Itub 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yes indeed. - Astrochemist (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- "He was elected a member of the Royal Society in 1824, appointed director of the laboratory in 1825; and in 1833 he was appointed Fullerian professor of chemistry in the institution for life, without the obligation to deliver lectures." Please distinguish between the Royal Society and the Royal Institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC).
Help response... Background to Electromagnetic controversy found in Hamilton (2004). Please follow the link for discussion on next paragraph in this section as much of it contradicts opening statements in Faraday article. JamAKiska 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Help continued...cited Thompson (1901) to support controversy discussion and continued to use this source to bridge from Faraday's early and later works with light and electromagnetic phenomenon. JamAKiska (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Help continued...Modified paragraph as proposed in last entry to buttress Faraday's early work in EM to his later work. JamAKiska (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC) - Cantor and Thompson both record the date of Michael Faraday's and Sarah Barnard's marriage as 12 June. On page 59, Cantor specifies the register at St. Faith-in-the-Virgin near St. Paul's Cathedral, and 12 June was the date their licence was issued. The witness was Sarah's father, Edward. Their marriage was 16 years prior to the Marriage and Registration Act of 1837. It seems reasonable to me that the first transcribed date from the Oxford dictionary a leading one was missed in the tens place. JamAKiska (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Only source I could find on James' movement south is Cantor on pages 57-8. James Faraday was an apprentice blacksmith in Outhgill (he must have learned the trade well as he became foreman some time after relocating to London working for James Boyd) and a member of the Sandemanian meeting house located there. His wife and two children moved south during the harsh winter of 1790-1. During this winter he visited London in search of work. The Sandemanians were quite good at helping each other find employment. James joined the London meeting house on 20 February 1791, and shortly thereafter moved his family south from Outhgill to London. Seven months later Michael was born. JamAKiska (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Referencing Sandemanian connection. CUoD (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Removed "cultural" material I removed the section concerning a character named Daniel Faraday on a US-made television show. See the Wikipedia:TRIV page and links therein. Also see Wikipedia:Guide to layout for a suggested format for articles. -- My fear is that there will be no end to additions of such pop trivia, detracting from this article's main emphasis on Michael Faraday's life and work. Also, I don't find pop-culture sections on the Wikipedia pages of Antoine Lavoisier and Charles Darwin, the James C. Maxwell and Thomas Edison pages don't contain references to Maxwell Edison of Beatles silver-hammer fame, and Isaac Newton's page doesn't mention his appearances on The Simpsons and Star Trek. -- Perhaps an article on Michael Faraday in popular culture would be more appropriate for listing and describing TV shows with the name "Faraday", Max Faraday comics, Faraday fire alarms, and so forth. (See Joan of Arc's page called Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc for an example of what might be included.) -- Astrochemist (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC). - I agree with these comments. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC).
- Read the guideline you've cited before you remove it: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format." I understand your qualms about including information about someone so prestigious in connection with popular culture, but whether you like or dislike it the connection exists and is pertinent information. Wikipedia:Handling trivia is probably more direct on this issue. I do like your idea of a Faraday in popular culture article if no integration of his influence on modern culture can be arrived at though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.45.186 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that therei is no need to discuss Daniel Faraday in this article, or to discuss Fig Newtons in an Isaac Newton article or to discuss the Edison Twins in the Thomas Edison article or to cite the lyrics of "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" in the James Maxwell article. That seems like a grasping at fame to show that the subject is important enough for an article, hardly necessary or appropriate in these cases. There are some cases where such mention might have a role to play in establishing notability of more marginally notable scientists or inventors. Edison (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Faraday cage I have reverted removal of the Faraday cage because it is explained in the text alongside. These articles on eminent scientists are seriously deficient in the technical details of what exactly they achieved, and I think that simple diagrams help to explain and educate casual readers (this is after all a Wiki policy). Peterlewis (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC) - I support the removal of the picture of the Faraday cage by 71.16.62.34. The picture is over-large and clumsily drawn. It is not comprehensible without the accompanying text, which is in its own article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC).
- Is this an article about Faraday which describes his scientific achievements or not? I have re-inserted the diagrams of technical effects which demonstrate and illustrate the principles he established. The editor who removed the pictures should argue his or her case here, as I have already done above. If not , then it is just vandalism. Peterlewis (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree in part with both of you. These articles are, in general, mostly about an individual's life, but with links to detailed descriptions of his or her work. It's neither necessary nor desirable to add pictures of each significant person or topic mentioned in an article. To do so will just be to clutter the lay-out, reduce the space available for more-significant and more-relevant illustrations, and set up arguments down the road about replacing material. ~ For Faraday, why use a stock picture of a battery (etc.) when something from one of his papers would be better? You can always link to the modern explanation and use the modern schematic there. -- To go against this practice will open this and other articles to lots of additions and make the whole thing a mess of text and pictures. That's not done with other good quality Wikipedia articles. - That said, maybe what's needed is something like a Faraday gallery. - 71.16.62.34 (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- You are defining an article about a scientist in terms which excludes or minimises their contributions, and also fails to appreciate the educational element in good Wiki articles. This is an absurd position to take in the modern world, in my opinion. To illustrate their major contributions is part and parcel of a good encyclopedia. The original 1911 Britannica was very deficient on science and engineering, and when it discussed practitioners, often failed to discuss the science in any detail (probably because they were written by non-scientists) and now is the time to update and Wikify the articles dealing with major engineers and scientists. Peterlewis (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please reread the above comments by Xxanthippe and me. Just because someone doesn't agree with your personal position doesn't make them vandals. Moreover, just because someone doesn't support your addition of lots of big pictures to this and other articles doesn't mean that they don't support using Wikipedia as an educational tool. Hyperlinks (wikilinks) help readers find content without clutter. - Maybe some of the people who have edited this article in a major way over the years will now weigh in. 71.16.62.34 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I just find it curious that neither of you have a talk page and use pseudonyms or an anonymous URL. Pictures which are directly relevant to the achievements can hardly be called "clutter". I personally find numerous pictures of the subject (and his gravestone) irrelevant to the subject, but have let them stand in respect to other editors. Peterlewis (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
An article about a scientist or inventor should be able to stand alone, without the need to visit a series of other articles to see illustrations of his major discoveries. In this article, illustrations of Faraday's major discoveries and work should be included. As an example, I objected to removal of an illustration of his Christlmas lecture, since he was famous for his popular lectures on science. But it is appropriate to have only a brief coverage of the operating principles of any one discovery such as the Faraday Cage. Edison (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC) [edit] Number of Images The article definitely now has too many images and has become noisy and unfocussed. Wikipedia is not paper (see Wiki is not paper) and we do not need to illustrate every subject the article tangentially touches on. A wiki allows a reader to access background information at one click , it does not need to be presented in the one article. e.g. Because Faraday built his own voltaic cell as a young man does not mean we need a diagram of a cell. Take a look at Wikipedia featured articles for the level of illustration and focus on its subject expected of good articles on Wikipedia. Especially the articles on scientists Isaac Newton , Johannes Kepler and Edward Teller. Lumos3 (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC) -
- So can we remove all the images of Faraday and an irrelevant pciture of a gravestone? Articles on scientists need discussion and illustration of their acientific achievements and not endless discussion of what they ate as a children or where they went on holiday. If readers want this then they can access the original 1911 Britannica article for free. Peterlewis (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- We need to get the balance right and gratuitous images for images sake misleads the reader. Faraday did not discover the ring structure of benzene. A bar magent does not illustate diamagentism.Lumos3 (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- No he didn't, but he did discover the compound which we now represent by the ring formula. So it is not a gratuitous image and doesn't mislead anyone. And Faraday certainly pioneered the use of lines of force which is what the bar magnet shows, and the article says. I would rather delete the picture of his grave and cut the number of pictures of him than lose scientific content. After all, he is famous because of his great discoveries, and his contribution to public life by lectures and investigations. Peterlewis (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The use of an image can make a reader jump to a conclusion unless it is carefully qualified. We need to be careful what images we include and ensure they are part of the description of Faraday's life , not just there to make the page pretty.
-
-
-
-
-
- The images I think are superfluous are
- Chemistry: Faraday did not discover the ring structure of benzene - this is misleading. Faraday did not understand its ring structure . Illustrating it as such carries the message that he did.
- Chemistry: This is a Hofman voltameter not faradays apparatus - Implies this was the cell Faraday used when this is Hofmans. If you have an illustration of the cell faraday used that would be good
- Diamagnetism: This illustrates ferromagnetism not Diamagnetism . There is no supporting text as to why it is relevant. Need to add detail on Faradays work on magnetic lines. A diagram authored by Faraday on the subject would be good.
- Electricity and magnetism: Why Henry and not Francesco Zantedeschi . Why show images of some scientists and not others . There is implied meaning in giving prominence to an individual. Best to leave out pictures of others unless they are central to Faradays life like Davy. This also goes for William Whewell. There is a case for Maxwell, not sure how close their collaboration was. This needs to be added.
- Electricity and magnetism: Faraday did not invent the Voltaic pile, he merely built one himself .This gives the impression he invented it. Lumos3 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
My Wikipedia time is very limited, so let me just contribute a few brief lines with some obvious (?) points: - Collaboration is at the heart of Wikipedia, or any wiki-based effort.
- Collaboration nearly always means compromise.
- Compromise nearly always means that not everyone gets 100% of what he or she wants.
- This article, like most things on Wikipedia, risks turning into a mess if all the editors aren't willing to compromise.
- Hyperlinks are an advantage of a web-based encyclopedia over a printed one.
Some very good points are made above by several recent contributors. The question of whether contemporary pictures are appropriate reminds me somewhat of the arguments among musicians as to whether classical music should be played on period instruments or on modern ones. My preference in scientific biographies is for original material (e.g., images) when possible. Is it worth yay/nay votes on some of the recently-added pictures? -- Astrochemist (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC) - I just now located and uploaded a clean, crisp version of the Christmas-lecture image to Wikimedia Commons, and then added it to the Faraday article. I vote "yay" for keeping this version. -- Astrochemist (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Case for images The case was made already and supported by other editors. If images are to go then remove multiple images of Faraday (one only is needed) and a gravestone. We are now concentrating on his achievements and not peripheral items. If this is to be a serious article then more work is needed on his work and not more social history of the kind shown by many other articles on scientists (which reflect their authorship). Peterlewis (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC) - I have to agree with the reasons given by other editors why not all the undoubtedly well-meaning edits of Peterlewis have improved the article. I have removed those diagrams that are irrelevant, incomprehensible or crude. Faraday's achievements are too extensive to be fully explained in one article, just as Einstein's are. However they are all noted here and hypertext links to the fuller explanations are given. That is the value of hypertext. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC).
- After thinking on this a few days, I'd like to vote "nay" for Joseph Henry, since he and Faraday never met and apparently had little influence on each other. I'll vote "aye" for a diagram of one of Faraday's most elegant and influential experiments, electromagnetic rotation. - I've just added a little on Faraday's early attempt to find what's now called the Zeeman effect. The section header could use a change. -- Astrochemist (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the image of Faraday holding a glass bar in place of the image of the bar magnet. I am not sure how the bar magnet directly relates to Faraday's work, he did not invent it or the method of showing its "lines of force " using iron filings. Faraday developed the special optical glass for the glass bars he used himself , a rather boring menial task assigned to him by Davy. It was Faraday's genius that he then used the glass to discover a fundamental physical effect, that magnetism influences the plane of polarisation of light. This image is very appropriate at this point in the text. Lumos3 (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Are you sure that he is holding a glass bar? It should be transparent but is clearly not so in the image. It looks like a bar magnet to me. Peterlewis (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Other images which describe it as a glass bar are here: http://www.jamd.com/search?assettype=g&assetid=3330537 and http://www.phy.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/faraday.html. I have revised my view of iron filings according to this ref he was the first to image magnetic force lines in this way see 1830-1835 in http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/milestone/sec5.html . I think we should use the original Faraday diagram though. Lumos3 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Refused a knighthood"? Why? The entry states that Faraday refused a knighthood. This statement raises more questions than it answers. Does anyone know why he refused a knighthood? Bricology (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC) - You could read the biographies or try the Reference desk. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- The quick response would be his deeply rooted Christian beliefs. According to Geoffrey Cantor on page 101 of his Faraday biography, the 19th century scientist opposed national awards and honors that were tainted by either "hereditary power or gross worldly ambition". This author indicates Faraday turned down a British knighthood, but accepted one from the King of Prussia (Cantor p. 98), and a Chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur from Napoleon III. According to Cantor, Faraday valued awards that were given in honor of achievements that were attained through lifelong service. Cantor captures the essence of Faraday's Sandemanian beliefs on pages 100-101. Most of the original reference material seems to be letters kept in private collections. The notable exception being the letter from Faraday to Lord Wrottesley on 10 March 1854.JamAKiska (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] faraday torch + dup drive(could be source to unlimeted self renewalbe energy) recently through my maths teacher i found out about a project called the DUP DRIVE. i had an idea of fusing this project with the dup drive which in theory would create self renewing energy but i cant find much about the dup drive. please if ANYopne knows anymore about the drive please post here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.72.214 (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
