Talk:John Tyndall

Tyndall's nationality

• This is a conscious strategy to distinguish the contributions of "Anglo-Irish" people from those of "Irish" or Gaelic ethnicity, according to the definition of the editor. Thus, the same strategy is applied to George Berkeley, George Johnstone Stoney and other notable figures. Where "Anglo-Irish" is not accepted, such as in the bio of John Tyndall, then the nationality is removed after a lot of back and forth posturing. I would have thought that nationality reflects place of birth, therefore John Tyndall was Irish, and that the further bio details can refer to his ancestry and ethnicity, if that is relevant. The interim solution, not listing the nationality (Irish) at all is inconsistent, and a fudge to reflect the sectarian bias apparent by the wish to claim him as somehow more connected with a previous political entity, "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" rather than the present reality, the Republic of Ireland. LiamJamesIII (talk) 15:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

See the "context" statement about the opening paragraph of biographies at MOS:BIO, which is the Manual of Style guideline for biographies. Among other things it says "the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless relevant to the subject's notability". The purpose of mentioning location, citizenship or nationality in the opening paragraph is to give a bit of "context" to the biography. It's needless to give this "context" as subject's citizenship or nationality when "location" or some other context information is provided and it provides suitable context. In this particular case, the context given is that for 35 years he was professor of physics at the Royal Institution. Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But following your logic, according to your comments below, he was British! Since that argument is difficult to win, you have decided that his "Irishness" is not relevant, and thus this entry contrasts with nearly every other autobiographical entry, except those of other Irishmen strongly connected with the history of the former Union between Britain (whence British...) and Ireland that you may have also edited, as is your right. It would be useful if others could weigh in on the topic for what is essentially an identity dispute related to a territorial issue. LiamJamesIII (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• People from Carlow are British now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K wilson1980 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• If Tyndall was British, then so was every man, woman and child born in this country between the Act of Union to Independence. He is no more British than a person of British American descent is British. Let's please move away from this "I consider myself British, therefore I am" nonsense. Carlow is not in Britain. Gaul was not in Rome. Egypt was not in Greece, examples of nationality and empire abound, let's not be petty about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killmallock1 (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• Is it so difficult to understand that Tyndall, like Wilde, Shaw and so many others, was Irish and not British? if you insist on propagating "knowledge" via the Internet, please try to get your basic geography in order. - MS - (18:53, 28 September 2003 80.200.132.74)

• Tyndall describes himself as British. He strongly believes that there is no such distinction. Whether or not you think he is "technically" irish, it is perhaps worth mentioning that he considered himself british. (19:05, 28 September 2003 80.255)

• At the time when he lived, Ireland and Great Britain formed part of a single state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, his family had been established already for several centuries in Ireland (see article on Tyndall family), and as such he was as British as Robert Emmet, Wolfe Tone, Charles Stuart Parnell, and as Irish as the 1st Duke of Wellington, etc. Let us agree then that he was Anglo-Irish! - Seneschally yours! (15:55, 4 June 2006 Seneschally)

• Everyone in Ireland was considered British at that time, since Ireland was a British colony. Yes, including all of those rebels who fought to have that title removed. But that doesn't mean they weren't Irish. And there IS a distinction between Ireland and Britain - one is an independent country and the other is a collective English colony. Even in the context of the 19th century, he was Irish. I don't see why you felt the need to make that comment. Do you accept the IRA as British then? (14:23, 7 November 2006 62.221.5.234)

• John Tyndall worked in the Irish ordinance survey. Upon completion he transferred to the English survey, where he was in fact dismissed. Reason - he lodged a formal protest to the survey regarding its inefficiency and its treatment of the Irish. After working on the railroads for some years, he went to Germany to further his research, before returning to England as a lecturer at the Royal institution, where he is noted to have made vast contributions to his field. He later went on to lecture in America. He was Irish. Too bad he couldn't get a fair deal at home under British colonial rule. (16:21, 8 November 2006 62.221.5.234)

• For the last year we've been transcribing Tyndall's correspondence for eventual publication (we're historians of science at York University in Toronto). You're both half-right - but what really animated Tyndall, at least in his first years, was religion, which was inextricable from his communal / national identity. Tyndall considered himself an Irishman when writing his letters to the *Liverpool Mercury* complaining about the treatment of his co-workers on the English survey. But in his early years he also followed his father John, a staunch Orangeman, in his dislike of the Catholic majority with whom his fellow Protestants lived in an uneasy truce. Tyndall (jr) enjoyed debating various theological principles, like transubstantiation, with local Catholics. Sometimes the truce was broken. During a contentious election in 1840 or 1841 his uncle Caleb shot into a Catholic mob that had surrounded his house and was chanting insults - the bullet hit a woman in the leg, and he was put in jail, though more for his own protection. Around the same time his father was struck in the head by another large gathering of Catholics. In his private correspondence with his father he was very disparaging of Catholics, using awful names to describe them - but Tyndall still saw himself as an Irishman. (01:13, 14 March 2007 24.141.232.123)

Tyndall's nationality was British; that applies to any citizen of the UK irrespective of whether they were born in England, Scotland, Wales or (19th Century) Ireland. It is a matter of legality, not editorial whim. In addition, JT was an Orangeman, and would most certainly have described himself as British, born in Ireland. Macdonald-ross (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you are partly correct about the citizen issue but what he would have described himself is conjecture and therefore unencyclopaedic, but the link to United Kingdom in the infobox is not correct because that entity did not exist when he lived. The proper link should be British which was the legally extant entity into which he was born and died. I have changed it. ww2censor (talk) 03:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Indeed you are partly correct about the citizen issue but what he would have described himself is conjecture"[No, I don't think it is; there's plenty of evidence that Tyndall was a huge Empire loyalist Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)]

Footnote on ethnicity: English, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, French &c. are not ethnic categories. Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Gallic, Nordic &c. are ethnic categories, though not very useful ones in view of degree of the hybridisation in Europe. Personally, I would suggest leaving that blank in most European biographies. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care but wouldn't that mean that Robert Burns was a Briton born in Scotland? You should try and add that to his wiki page, see what happens (change Scottish poet into British poet etc). Oh and for the record Macdonald-ross DO NOT EDIT IN SOMEONE ELSE'S COMMENT....Thefirstgolfoffer (talk) 04:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tyndall is properly labeled British, not Irish. He departed to England at age 21 and never lived in Ireland again. Thoughout his lifetime Ireland and Britain were a single country and everyone in that country was a British national. Irish nationalists may reject the British label, but Tyndall was vehemently anti-Irish-nationalist. He believed that a nation of Ireland would be an "unspeakable crime". His father was an Orangeman, and he married the daughter of an Orangeman. He was not Orange himself in the religious sense, but was Orange in the political sense of defining himself as British first and foremost. (The Orangemen in Ulster today define themselves as British first and foremost as well). Tyndall strongly self-identified himself as British. As one illustration, the biography of him in Nature (magazine), August 20, 1874 is based on information he supplied about himself, and in it he chooses to spend nearly as much time talking about his father's Gloucestershire ancestry as he does talking about his immediate family and boyhood in Ireland. Tyndall can be said to be Irish only in the sense that a man who spent his boyhood in Yorkshire and lived his adult life in London can be said to be a Yorkshireman. Such a man is properly labeled British at Wikipedia. As another analogy, consider an Anglophone Canadian Unionist today, who grew up in Quebec and moved over to Ontario at age 21, who self-identifies himself as Canadian, and who believes that an independent Quebec dominated by the Quebecois would be an unspeakable crime. Such a man is properly labelled Canadian, not Quebecois (and that will stay true regardless of whether Quebec ends up becoming a separate country in the future).Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The following is excerpted from John Tyndall's pamphlet Mr Gladstone and Home Rule published in 1887. It provides information about Tyndall's nationality in Tyndall's own words.

"It is my privilege to have been born in Ireland. Twenty years of my life were spent continuously in that country; and many times since striking root in England I have revisited the 'Emerald Isle'.... The [Irish] people as a whole, when I knew them, were kind, unselfish.... In my early youth my political colour was taken from my environment; it was 'orange' in hue. This faded as manhood was approached and my politics became liberal -- in some respects, indeed, radical. At no time, however, could I accept the creed of the 'Separatist'; and to speak of Home Rule as distinct from complete separation implies either mendacity or delusion [i.e., Tyndall believed the Home Rule proposal, if enacted, would obviously and inevitably be followed by complete separation of Ireland from Britain].... We, sturdy British Protestants, glorying in the freedom of our private judgment, sneered at the [Catholic] bishops who opposed the decree of the Pope's infallibility [in 1869], and afterwards caved in [in 1870]. We pointed to the occurence as an illustration of the cowardice of clericals and of the grinding despotism of Rome...."

There you see him speaking of the Irish people as a whole as "them", and British Protestants as "we". In the same pamphlet, by the way, Tyndall says several times that if the proposed Home Rule legislation were enacted then a war of resistance waged by Ulster Protestants against Irish Catholics would be justified and winnable. Seanwal111111 (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He acknowledges that he was Irish, see IMOS, (not British, not Anglo-Irish, not Irish-born British). One's political ideology and religion does not supercede anything, plenty of Irishmen saw themselves as Irish and as unionists. Sheodred (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That IMOS was never adopted and in fact was rejected. See the discussion about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Ireland-related_articles#Anglo-Irish .

In addition to the demonstration I gave above that Tyndall himself labelled himself "British", here are a few examples of reliable sources labelling him "British":

The Columbia Encyclopedia labels him a "British physicist" -- http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0849844.html

The 2011 Encyclopedia Britannica labels him a "British experimental physicist" -- http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/611577/John-Tyndall

The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica labels him a "British natural philosopher" -- http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/John_Tyndall

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia written in the Russian language labels him an "English physicist" -- http://slovari.yandex.ru/%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C/%D0%91%D0%A1%D0%AD/%D0%A2%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%20%D0%94%D0%B6%D0%BE%D0%BD/ . The English translation published around 1980 of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia changed the label to "British physicist" -- http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/John+Tyndall . Since Tyndall lived in England for almost all his adult life and did all of his physics output in England except for a little bit in Germany, it's not wrong to say he was an "English physicist" even though "British physicist" is more on target.

In the Wikipedia article about Tyndall for the past several years at least, Tyndall's nationality label has been "British". But the edit dated 29 Nov 2011 by editor "Sheodred" changed it to "Irish". I'm now going to undo Sheodred's edit. Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Blavatsky quotation from Tyndall?

In response to a question someone placed at the Wikipedia Reference Desk, can anyone find if Tyndall said the following, and where, as quoted by H.P. Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled"(1877): [1]("It is not so long since Professor Tyndall ushered us into a new world, peopled with airy shapes of the most ravishing beauty. "The discovery consists," he says, "in subjecting the vapors of volatile liquids to the action of concentrated sun-light, or to the concentrated beam of the electric light." The vapors of certain nitrites, iodides, and acids are subjected to the action of the light in an experimental tube, lying horizontally, and so arranged that the axis of the tube and that of Vol. 1, Page 128 THE VEIL OF ISIS. the parallel beams issuing from the lamp are coincident. The vapors form clouds of gorgeous tints, and arrange themselves into the shapes of vases, of bottles and cones, in nests of six or more; of shells, of tulips, roses, sunflowers, leaves, and of involved scrolls. "In one case," he tells us, "the cloud-bud grew rapidly into a serpent's head; a mouth was formed, and from the cloud, a cord of cloud resembling a tongue was discharged." Finally, to cap the climax of marvels, "once it positively assumed the form of a fish, with eyes, gills, and feelers. The twoness of the animal form was displayed throughout, and no disk, coil, or speck existed on one side that did not exist on the other." This does not sound like the down to earth prosaic researces by Tyndall described in the Wikipedia arricle. Edison 04:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Blavatsky was a cheap conwoman. Chug enough laudanum and you'll see serpents heads, tulips and all kinds of stuff. 83.70.35.39 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't sound at all like Tyndall, but I'm open to correction, as I trust we all are. -- Astrochemist 00:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tag removed

This article had a tag saying that its neutrality was in question and to "Please see the discussion on the talk page." No discussion was here, so I removed the tag. -- I understand that there are about six comments on this page (all unsigned) concerning Tyndall's nationality. Is that why the article was tagged? Does the article contain anything that is questionable concerning John Tyndall's life and work? I also can understand if there is debate on British vs. Irish, but that would seem to be a question of accuracy and not neutrality. A response will be appreciated. -- Astrochemist 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Another slant on Tyndall

Working on the T.H. Huxley page I made some notes on his closest friends. These were my notes on Tyndall:

Huxley's closest friend throughout his adult life was the physicist John Tyndall. Tyndall was born in an Irish Protestant family, and after quite a good school education and a PhD under the great Bunsen at Marburg in Germany, spent the rest of his life in London. The PhD, a German invention, could be done in two years, and was by Tyndall (therefore the degree represented a standard more like the MSc today).

Despite this good start he had every bit as hard a time as Huxley to get a scientific appointment. When it came, it was as Professor of Natural Philosophy at the Royal Institution: later Tyndall succeeded the experimental genius Michael Faraday as the Superintendant of the R.I. and worked with Huxley in many ways to improve science and science education. Like Huxley he wrote articles and gave lectures for a wide audience (McMillan & Meehan 1980). He was a fit man, and went climbing in the Alps regularly; and though his religious views changed he was always an Orangeman:

"Sooner than hand over the Loyalists of Ireland to the tender mercies of the priests and Nationalists I would shoulder my rifle among the Orangemen." (The Times, London, 3rd June 1886).

His wife accidentally killed him in 1893 when she gave him chloral intead of magnesia; in her grief she delayed his biography by many years (Eve & Creasey 1945).

I think this raises a few questions about the Tyndall page as is:

1. "Tyndall was to a large extent a self-made man" is quite wrong. How can you talk about him not having any advantages when he had a great deal that Huxley and Wallace did not have? Good schooling followed (albeit by a few years of work) by a PhD under Bunsen is about as good a start as anyone ever had in those days!

2. The issue of his background has been burked. He was both Irish and British; and furthermore he was about the strongest supporter of the Empire as you can get. He was an Orangeman, and if anyone doesn't like it, that's just too bad. Wiki must be in the business of truth or it is going to be in trouble all over the place.

3. Text considerably under-rates the significance of his work on diamagnetism.

4. Also (minor points): not sound to link Darwin with him in any way; just happened to be alive at the same time!! And the intense application over his PhD is largely rhetoric; Germany invented the PhD, but its content was far more modest than would be the case today.

I leave the page untouched at the moment, but it can't stay like it is, hiding under a bush! Macdonald-ross 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Some Photos of John Tyndall

probably early 1850s

Image dated July 1873. More avail.@ . Fred ☻ 22:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

At left is a photo of Tyndall at the start of his scientific career. The portrait at right is Tyndall at the height of his fame. More portraits of Tyndall are available at the Smithsonian Institution's website here.
Seanwal111111 (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Christmas Lectures

I've taken out this sentence: (The Royal Institution commemorates Tyndall with a series of eponymous BBC-televised Christmas lectures by eminent scientists) because 1. they are now on Channel 5, not the BBC 2. they do not bear Tyndall's name; they are just called the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, and 3. they were instituted by Faraday (in 1825), not JT. OK? Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

House, Hindhead, and Haselmere

Page 339 of English Literature (1905) has a picture of Tyndall's house. However, it is said to be in Haselmere, not Hindhead as stated in this Wikipedia article.

1. Is Hindhead in this Wikipedia article correct? - I haven't checked many other sources, but I think it is.
2. Is it worth adding the picture to this article? I'm generally in favo(u)r of pictures if they can be added without crowding and congestion. -- Astrochemist (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hindhead and Haslemere are right beside each other in southwest Surrey. Haslemere had a train station and Hindhead didn't, so Haslemere was the better known name. I saw in the preface to a late edition of one of his books that Tyndall designated himself as living in "Hind Head" (two words). I consider Hindhead and Haslemere as interchangeable.

I wasn't able to see the picture you're talking about, but I imagine that it's too mundane and lacking in notability. A picture of something scientific would be preferable, I think. Even a picture of his chalet in the Alps would be more of an eyeful than another photograph of another boring house in Surrey, I suggest. Another consideration is that Tyndall only lived in that house from 1885 on. His scientific career was effectively over in 1885. During nearly all the years that he's remembered for today, he lived in an upstairs apartment at the Royal Institution on Albemarle Street, London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwal111111 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

******************************************************

Maybe or maybe not the following picture could be used. It's not a high-quality picture.

The Illustrated London News in 1870 printed this illustration of John Tyndall giving a public lecture at the Royal Institution. The theatre held up to 600 people. Women were more numerous than men at most lectures according to according to [2]. Tyndall presented physics in experimental terms and normally had lots of demonstration apparatus in his lectures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanwal111111 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

New file File:John Tyndall by John McLure Hamilton.jpg

Recently the file File:John Tyndall by John McLure Hamilton.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

demarcation

I don't know if i'm right here. but the link to DEIST is not correct in connection to John Tyndall. It is linked to a Death Metal Band and not to a propper DEIST (religion) article. 14:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.149.68.80 (talk)

Needs another section on the demarcation from mechanics and the important relation of this to the demarcation of science from religion. Turkeyphan^t 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Issue about linking to a list of Books in Print by Tyndall

The following text has been deleted from the article twice by 144.15.255.227 for the reason that it links to a commercial website (amazon.com):

The majority of the books have been re-issued in recent years by a variety of publishers and can be bought new.

To justify the deletion, 144.15.255.227 cites a Wikipedia policy statement about external links. But that statement begins by saying: "This guideline does not apply to inline citations." What's an inline citation? "An inline citation is placed in text, often at the end of a sentence or paragraph, to substantiate and catalogue the information's origin source." The information that most (and probably all) of Tyndall's books are currently in print is remarkable and surprising, and the external link to amazon.com exists to substantiate and catalogue the information's origin source.

The policy statement about external links is irrelevant since it does not apply to inline citations. Still, here's what it says: "Links normally to be avoided include... links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services.... Instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format." That language is allowing an override of the usual rule when there's a good reason for the override. In this case there's a good reason. Namely, the only sites on the Internet today that will provide a list of Books in Print at no cost are sites that sell books.

Regarding Tyndall's books, Amazon.com currently has new printed books in stock from these publishers:
Nabu Press
General Books LLC
Kessinger Publishing, LLC
Adamant Media Corporation
University of Michigan Library
Cornell University Library
BiblioBazaar | BiblioLife
Read Books
Braithwaite Press

The length of that list tells you something about the low-volume royalty-free book printing industry, but it's also saying something about a continuing market for Tyndall's books.

BTW, the talk page at User talk:144.15.255.227 has the warning: "Attention: This IP address, 144.15.255.227, is registered to Medtronic, Incorporated (medtronic.com) and is shared by multiple users.... If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of a proxy server...." The warning goes on to advise that an editor with IP address 144.15.255.227 should create a login name.

Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Who was Pope?

I see my edit concerning Pope Pius IX was reverted claiming he was not Pope in 1888 (which is correct). However, the sentence starts "In 1864 the Pope declared..." and only later continues "and in 1888 he declared...". So, reverting my edit was, at least partly, correct. Yet, shouldn't we make clear that it is not the same Pope declaring something in 64 and 88 but indeed two different ones? Shouldn't we furthermore indicate which ones those were? Janfrie1988 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of recently inserted critique of Tyndall's measurement of infrared absorption by gases

I have deleted the following paragraph inserted by Special:Contributions/114.78.183.180:

Tyndall explained the heat in the Earth's atmosphere in terms of the thermal opacities of the various gases in the air, whose IR blocking effect he mistook for absorb of radiant heat, a.k.a. infrared radiation. His measuring device, which used thermopile technology to measure the infrared opacity of gases is described in his 1861 paper[8]. He was the first to measure the infrared opacity of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, ethene, etc. Although he concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere, Tyndall only ever measured opacity and radiative emission in gases. The experimental setup depicted here, is only capable of measuring transmission and opacity, as it has no means of determining the proportion of opacity due to reflection. Tyndall concluded that opaque gases had a moderating effect on temperature, making the days cooler and the nights warmer. However, his work on the thermo-optical properties of gases was further undermined by its dependance on the supposition of luminiferous aether which, consequently, lead to his confusion of kinetic and conductive heat transfer. This aethereal heat transfer concept along with its attendant confustion of kinetic heat transfer and conductive heat transfer later propagated into Arrhenius' work.

With regard to the concern that the gas can reflect radiant heat, you can measure the reflection using essentially the same system that Tyndall used to measure the transmission and the opacity. The word reflect occurs over two dozen times in his book about measuring the radiant heat absortion of gases, mainly because he's very attentive to the issue of reflections from the surface of the tube in which the gas is being contained. The reflections from the gas itself are relatively negligible compared to the transmissions and absorptions -- and the comment from 114.78.183.180 above doesn't give any grounds to suspect otherwise.

I'm unsure about whether I understand the last two sentences from 114.78.183.180 above. But in any case, assuming it's valid to make a distinction between "kinetic" heat transfer and "conductive" heat transfer, I don't regard it as appropriate to have in Wikipedia article. It's self-published theorizing. I see it's also posted at http://tyndall1861.geologist-1011.mobi/. It's okay to have it there, but not in Wikipedia. By the way the 1861 article "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, Conduction.-The Bakerian Lecture." is in Tyndall's 1872 book at [3] and that book contains lots more from Tyndall about the subject. I have restored what 114.78.183.180 deleted on the subject in Wikipedia. Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at ELN

There is a discussion regarding external links in this article at the EL noticeboard. Your insights may be helpful.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about Tyndall's nationality

• Please see the result of a report at the edit-warring noticeboard on 'British' versus 'Irish' for Tyndall. All editors who are tempted to change his nationality again are warned that they should have previous talk-page consensus for their action. Otherwise they are risking a block.

• Editors may strongly disagree with the current nationality (British or Irish, whichever). Feel free to open a discussion here on what should be done, either here or at a more central page. There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#John Tyndall and possibly that is the right place for it. There was also a discussion at WT:BIOG but it seems to have ended with no result. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• There has been prior discussion about nationality on this page. This discussion began in 2003 and is still continuing this month. See Talk:John Tyndall#Tyndall's nationality. The one thing which has not been tried yet is a formal WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC posted at Wikiproject Ireland. RashersTierney (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

He was an Orangeman that said that talk of an Ireland not part of the UK implied "mendacity or delusion". I would propose a wording somewhere along the lines of was a prominent British 19th century physicist from County Carlow, Ireland". — JonC^ॐ 13:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

All I have to say in this matter is that being an Orangeman and Irish were not mutually exclusive back then, as Irish Unionists obviously saw themselves as Irish and British in the context of supporting Ireland remaining in the Union, and on a case by case basis British in terms of their heritage. The Irish Unionist identity in Northern Ireland changed to a large extent in recent history due to sectarian strife but fortunately those attitudes are reverting once more but that is a different story altogether. Regards. Sheodred 15:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like Anglo-Irish to me.86.42.202.67 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has been pipelinked to Irish in the infobox to avoid any misconceptions that he was not just Irish but British at the time since Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, he was still a native of Ireland which was part of the UK that is historical fact but it does not make him any less Irish or less British, and was he part of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy. Maybe all of that should be included in the lede as well.

See discussion here.

Consensus anyone? TheFortunateSon (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nationality

There are an overwhelming amount of reliable sources that state that Tyndall is Irish. In university we are informed in our science lectures not just by our lecturers byt by various text books that Tyndall himself is Irish. I do not understand why this fact is left out here, is it due to envy and disdain for homegrown successful Irish scientists from a British perspective?

References

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15874560
• http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/611577/John-Tyndall
• http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/0922/1224304515089.html
• http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/23757-irish-scientist-john-tyndal
• http://www.tyndall.ie/content/john-tyndall-0
• http://www.yale.edu/graduateschool/writing/forms/Pre-writing.pdf
• http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/tyndall_2.php
• http://books.google.ie/books?id=T5AD2c-CiHQC&pg=PA190&dq=Defenders+of+the+Union:+A+Survey+of+British+and+Irish+Unionism+Since+1801,+John+tyndall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SQ8AUJ60LoSKhQfM7pH-Bw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
• http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-fire-strikes-stop-drop-and-sing
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.500-the-man-who-discovered-greenhouse-gases.html
• Ireland and her people; a library of Irish biography, by Thomas W. H. Fitzgerald
• http://books.google.ie/books?id=e2kW7Ta6Q8wC&pg=PA443&dq=what+about+darwin,+john+tyndall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tA8AUNTlBYrDhAfpk4CBCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=what%20about%20darwin%2C%20john%20tyndall&f=false
• The Cabinet of Irish literature, by Charles Anderson Read, Thomas Power O'Connor

If this issue is not resolved perhaps a different approach should suffice, perhaps dispute resolution or mediation.

A user by the name of SeanIIIIII told me to come to talk page, this the most recent one about nationality, judging by all these sources, I guess he is Irish, I don't see how that is irrefutable like he is suggesting. There is overwhelming evidence here to suggest that he is Irish given all the sources listed above by an editor, even BBC and Encylopedia Brittannica, two staunchly British institutions state it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.179.142 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

For any selected set of sources that says Tyndall was "Irish" there is an equal and larger set that says Tyndall was "British" or "English". This is one of reasons why the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article says Tyndall was "a 19th century physicist" and does not say he was "a 19th century British physicist" nor "a 19th century Irish physicist". And this is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines for the opening paragraph of biographies at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. See also what's said above on this talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Tyndall#Tyndall.27s_nationality dated 2008 and 2009. Seanwal111111 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

He is considered Irish in mainstream scientific and media circles in Ireland, Britain and internationally. The article should reflect that, just because there is a small scrap of sources that claim otherwise does not contradict the fact that he is considered and is Irish should be omitted. Just because you don't like it does not mean the article should adhere to your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.179.142 (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, he is a British physicist and he is not an Irish physicist. But the Wikipedia article is just saying he is a physicist, and leaving the reader to read the facts of his biography. The word "Irish" that you want to insert in the lead paragraph is entirely unnecessary, and inserting it would not be consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines about "context" in the opening paragraph that I referred to. Under the guidelines the opening paragraph is to provide some background biographical "context", such as where he lived and worked, as well as summarizing what he's notable for. The opening paragraph already does that. Regarding his nationality, once again, please see my comments above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Tyndall#Tyndall.27s_nationality . Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Tyndall's opinion about God

Today an editor with IP address 122.61.61.161 has inserted into the John Tyndall article the following quotation from Tyndall:

"I do not fear the charge of Atheism; nor should I even disavow it." http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/24527/pg24527.txt

It's a misleading quotation because what Tyndall actually said was:

"I do not fear the charge of Atheism [from my critic]; nor should I even disavow it, in reference to any definition of the Supreme which he [the critic], or his order, would be likely to frame."

That statement by Tyndall is only saying that Tyndall doesn't accept a traditional definition of the Supreme Being. A few paragraphs earlier in the same essay Tyndall said:

"Were the religious moods of many of my assailants the only alternative ones, I do not know how strong the claims of the doctrine of "Material Atheism" upon my allegiance might be. Probably they would be very strong. But, as it is, I have noticed during years of self-observation that it is not in hours of clearness and vigour that this doctrine commends itself to my mind; that in the presence of stronger and healthier thought it ever dissolves and disappears, as offering no solution of the mystery in which we dwell, and of which we form a part."

Tyndall's opinions on God and religion were only a tiny part of his written output, and they contained nothing original. But anyway here are additional quotations from Tyndall to help make clear what his opinion was. All of these quotations are in Tyndall's book "Fragments of Science" Volume II, a copy of which is at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/24527/pg24527.txt

Tyndall: "In our day the best-informed theologians are prepared to admit that our views of the Universe and its Author [God] are not impaired, but improved, by the abandonment of the Mosaic [Biblical] account of the Creation.... Thus religion survives after the removal of what had been long considered essential to it.... From the earliest times to the present, religion has been undergoing a process of purification, freeing itself slowly and painfully from the physical errors which the active but uninformed intellect mingled with the aspirations of the soul. Some of us think that a final act of purification is needed, while others oppose this notion with the confidence and the warmth of ancient times. The bone of contention at present is the physical value of prayer.... It is not my habit of mind to think otherwise than solemnly of the feeling which prompts prayer. It is a power which I should like to see guided, not extinguished -- devoted to practicable objects instead of wasted upon air. In some form or other, not yet evident, it may, as alleged, be necessary to man's highest culture."

Tyndall: "The order and energy of the universe I hold to be inherent, and not imposed from without, the expression of fixed law and not of arbitrary will, exercised by what Carlyle would call an Almighty Clockmaker.... If you should urge that if the Builder and Maker of this universe chose to stop the rotation of the earth, or to take the form of a burning bush, there is nothing to prevent Him from doing so, I am not prepared to contradict you. I neither agree with you nor differ from you, for it is a subject of which I know nothing."

Tyndall wrote very little about God and religion, as I said. When he did write about it, the fundamental thing he had to say was that it was a big "mystery" and "a subject of which I know nothing". He said:

"When I attempt to give the Power which I see manifested in the Universe an objective form, personal or otherwise, it slips away from me, declining all intellectual manipulation. I dare not, save poetically, use the pronoun 'He' regarding it; I dare not call it a 'Mind;' I refuse to call it even a 'Cause.' Its mystery overshadows me; but it remains a mystery, while the objective frames which some of my neighbours try to make it fit, seem to me to distort and desecrate it."

Furthermore Tyndall NEVER said words to the effect of "The existence of God is dubious". Instead, like in the above quotations, what he said was words to the effect of "The existence of any specific, itemized, attributes of God are dubious." And he said that lots of what's in the Bible is "credulous prattle". That is the view of a Deist, not an agnostic, and not an atheist.

Tyndall also said, and readers have interpreted it as agnosticism: "Let us lower our heads, and acknowledge our ignorance, priest and philosopher, one and all.... The phenomena of matter and force come within our intellectual range; but behind, and above, and around us the real mystery of the universe lies unsolved, and, as far as we are concerned, is incapable of solution." I repeat that Tyndall NEVER said "we do not know whether a God exists or not." Seanwal111111 (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it could be interpreted as deism; or (even as you have summarised his views) they could be interpreted as agnosticism or even atheism. He seems to be careful to avoid having his views being put into any sort of box. So why put his views into a box labelled "deism" with all the properties that might imply?Orbitalforam (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Bickerton attended lectures by Tyndall in 1867. So what?

Today the editor Omnipaedista inserted into the John Tyndall article that Alexander Bickerton was a notable student of John Tyndall. Alexander Bickerton moved to London in 1867 and took classes at the Royal School of Mines, where the teachers included Edward Frankland, Thomas Henry Huxley, and John Tyndall. But Tyndall quit teaching at the School of Mines in 1868 (ref), so could only have lectured to Bickerton for one year. Moreover Tyndall's primary place of work in 1867 was the Royal Institution, where Tyndall had a laboratory with paid assistants. At the School of Mines Tyndall was basically only a lecturer who came in, gave the lecture, and returned to the Royal Institution. There are other notable people who attended lectures by Tyndall in London in the 1850s or 1860s at one venue or another, and we don't count them as "notable students". Likewise I don't think we should count Bickerton as a "notable student". At Wikipedia Bickerton is not listed as a notable student of Edward Frankland nor of Royal School of Mines. I think that's appropriate as well. Thus I'm going to undo today's insertion. Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Tyndall's monetary wealth: Put in terms meaningful to today's reader and not misleading

The Wikipedia article about John Tyndall says: "When he died, his wealth was £22,122" (and there's a footnote that this number was assessed in probate court soon after his death). We want to briefly convey to the reader how much wealth that was. Until this week, the article said: "For comparison's sake, the income of a police constable in London was about £80 per year at the time." This week, editor Gareth E Kegg deleted that sentence and put in its place "(£2.14 million as of 2014)", citing the website MeasuringWorth.com, which arrives at £2.14 million number by just rescaling the £22,122 by an index of inflation of prices of retail goods from 1893 to 2013. However, the same website warns that this is NOT a good way to arrive at an indicator of wealth. The following is my summary of what is said at MeasuringWorth.com : Measuring the worth of £22,122.

In 2013, the relative value of £22,122 from 1893 ranges from £2,141,000.00 to £24,920,000 depending on what measure you use. If you want a feel for the value of £22,122 wealth in 1893 there are these indicators:

--> historic standard of living value of that wealth (based on index of retail prices) is £2,141,000 in 2013

--> labour value of that wealth (based on index of wages) is £9,038,000 in 2013

--> economic status value of that wealth (based on index of the per-capita GDP) is £15,050,000 in 2013

--> economic power value of that wealth (based on the share of GDP) is £24,920,000 in 2013.

Discussion of these measures and which one may be best is at Five Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a UK Pound Amount and "Explaining the Measures of Worth". The first option, which simply adjusts the wealth amount by the historical price inflation of retail goods, is NOT a suitable measure for quantifying historical wealth.

Notice above that the inflation of wages' prices has been much bigger than inflation of retail goods prices. An additional point, which I didn't see mentioned at MeasuringWorth.com, is that much of wealth is in the form of real property and the real property price inflation has been much bigger than the retail prices inflation since 1893. Meaning that if you were to rescale £22,122 by a real property inflator instead of a retail goods inflator, you'd be using a better inflator and it would be a bigger inflator.

I propose to restore the deleted sentence about the early 1890s policeman's annual salary, and I propose to refer the reader in a footnote to the MeasuringWorth.com website, and I propose that no conversion to today's money be quoted in the Wikipedia article's main text, because any such conversion is a sausage that cannot be intelligently digested without a lot of background knowledge that most readers don't have. Seanwal111111 (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

PS: In my view the best available indicator of 1893 wealth in 2013 pounds is the ratio: (£22,122 wealth in 1893 / GDP per capita in 1893 in 1893 pounds) = (such wealth in 2013 / GDP per capita in 2013 in 2013 pounds). Or in other words (GDP per capita in 1893 in 1893 pounds / GDP per capita in 2013 in 2013 pounds) = (£22,122 wealth in 1893 / such wealth in 2013). Using the data at MeasuringWorth.com, this means £36.54 / £24,862 = £22,122 / £X which means £X = £15,050,000. This is framing the wealth amount as a portion or share of the UK's annual GDP (with the GDP adjusted to remove the factor of the growth in the number of people, and otherwise unadjusted). Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, make the change and BE BOLD!!! Could you please also add "...a substantial amount for the time" for ignoramuses? Also, PLEASE consider writing a book on Tyndall or pitching an article on him to a major magazine or newspaper, podcast or history journal etc. Half this unread talk page consists of YOUR amazing research of this sadly forgotten man's life and times, and it needs a wider audience. You are a brilliant writer as well as an editor, keep up the good work :) Thankee Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Tyndall. 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/20130502145330/http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html to http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

One more Experiment by Tyndall: "Bar breaker"

In the German Wiki article de:Bolzensprenger a yet unmentioned but impressive experiment on heat expansion invented by Tyndall is described. There is language neutral graphics available (see thumbnail).

Tyndall's bar breaker

Maybe some one likes to integrate this here or in a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xorx (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I translated de:Bolzensprenger to English: Tyndall's bar breaker. I am wondering which place in this article it might be linked best. I could imagine that a section about his most famous and/or impressive experiments would be an enhancement. -- Dr. George (T) 08:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

typo in note 61

There is a typo in the last sentence of note 61, (reproduced in it's entirety below) but I'm not confident enough about what it should be changed to, to make the change directly. I believe that the "M" should probably just be deleted, that at least results in a coherent quote, but perhaps the "M" is part of something that accidentally got deleted.  :

John H. Lienhard (2006). How Invention Begins: Echoes of Old Voices in the Rise of New Machines. Oxford University Press. p. 204. ISBN 9780195305999. The agnostic physicist John Tyndall once remarked that Faraday drank from a fount on Sunday that "M" " refreshed his soul for a week."

DlronW (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the "M" is a reference to (Michael) Faraday? ie, Tyndall was referring to Faraday by the abbreviation 'M'? If so, I'd still say the sentence makes a lot more sense if the "M" is just deleted, but I will defer to the experts.

DlronW (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Tyndall. 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/20080907075712/http://www.gkbenterprises.org.uk/thesis/ch05.htm to http://www.gkbenterprises.org.uk/thesis/ch05.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Eunice Foote and discovery of CO2 as GHG

The article now states: "Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth's atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapour strongly absorbed infrared radiation."

I think we should nuance this statement with the recent discovery of the 1956 paper by Eunice Foote. While he was the first to rigorously prove it, her experiments had already demonstrated the effect three years before his discovery, see for instance: https://www.rolandjackson.co.uk/single-post/2018/05/19/The-saga-of-Eunice-Foote-and-John-Tyndall. I'm on two minds whether she should be mentioned. On the one hand, it is good to make a distinction between their work, on the other hand it is quite likely he was quite onaware of her work.. Femkemilene (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense to mention her/her paper to me. It's highly related (in time and content), and the sentence could include a phrase like "It is not known whether Tyndall was aware for Foote's work", with a reference to that link. -- naught101 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)