Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:05, 30 November 2014

	James Clerk Maxwell has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 5, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 11, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 24, 2013 Peer review Reviewed August 28, 2013 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics: Biographies Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mathematics Top‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Top This article has been rated as Top-priority on the project's priority scale. Template:Vital articlePlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia / Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Scotland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Philosophers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophers Citizendium Porting (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Energy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Electrical engineering Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electrical engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electrical engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Electrical engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Electrical engineeringelectrical engineering Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WPCD-People Template:V0.5

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Game of Life, Klingon, demons and perl?". O'Reilly Developer Weblogs. July 27, 2004.

older entries

Upon arriving at Cambridge University, he was told there would be a compulsory 6am church service (now discontinued, fortunately!) He stroked his beard thoughtfully, and slowly pronounced, in a thick Scots Brogue?, "Aye, I suppose I could stay up that late""

I wish all the biographies could be as humanizing as this one!

I think it should be mentioned at least in the introductory paragraph that James c.Maxwell took the first permanent colour photo. Honestly i think that is at least worth a mention. It'd also be fantastic to actually have a replication of it on here, but hey..

Question about Thomas Sutton reference

I have a question about the reference to Thomas Sutton having made the photographs for Maxwell's 3-color photography demonstration. It has been several years since I read a transcript of Maxwell's report of the experiment, but I don't recall a mention of Sutton making the plates. I'm not challenging the accuracy of this; I just didn't recall it or didn't know it, and I would like to know the source of the Sutton information. It's actually of some consequence, because of questions about the color sensitivity of the plates (see my discussion at http://www.greatreality.com/ColorDidMKnow.htm).

Because this article's history is so long, and I've done very little editing on Misplaced Pages, I wasn't readily able to learn who submitted the Sutton reference. I would appreciate knowing the source of that information, if that's possible. Please contact me via muser@ecentral.com. (At some time, I do intend to add a few lines about the color sensitivity issue to this article.) Thanks, J. C. Adamson

http://notesonphotographs.org/index.php?title=%22The_Theory_of_the_Primary_Colours.%22_The_British_Journal_of_Photography,_August_9,_1861 includes an account of the lecture and of Sutton's role as the photographer. Substantial treatments of the matter in photographic histories, e.g., E. J. Wall's classic History of Three-Color Photography (1925, reprinted by Focal Press in 1970), usually make at least passing mention of the fact that Sutton did the photography, but less scholarly reports tend to be sloppy and say that Maxwell "took" the "first color photograph". Photography was a messy, hands-on business in 1861. One didn't leave exposed plates -- flexible film had yet to be invented -- at the corner drug store ("the chemist's" to readers of the British persuasion) for developing and printing, and I have yet to encounter any evidence that Maxwell himself ever took a photograph of any kind.

It is not even certain that including this demonstration among the projected presentations at the lecture was Maxwell's idea. It is possible that Sutton had become enthused by learning of the thought-experiment Maxwell had included in his 1855 paper and was the one most interested in making a practical trial of it. The 1861 volume of Sutton's own publication Photographic Notes, which might shed light on that and other matters, is nearly inaccessible except in the form of the enlightening quotation from it included in the British Journal of Photography article (the mystifying mention of "the Notes" in that article is a reference to Sutton's periodical). AVarchaeologist (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

featured article candidate

Some things holding back this article from featured article status:

• 1. It would appear from the title "Later years and afterwards" that the section would relate not only to the last years of Mr Maxwell's life, but also to his lasting legacy and events occurring after his death. Nevertheless, a mere sentence relating to his literary works concerning him appears. Thus, the "Later years and afterwards" section warrants expansion.
• 2. In the "Early Years" section, the following sentence appears: "The family name Maxwell was adopted by the terms of a legal requirement made upon his father to inherit an estate." The sentence's structure is awkward; furthermore, it does not mention whose estate is to be inherited (an individual from Clerk's maternal family, perhaps?). I would suggest something such as: "When Clerk inherited the estate of name (his relation), he adopted the latter's surname, as was required by the will," or words to the same effect.
• 3. The article uses single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks.
• 4. The article contains many unexplained names and terms, such as "elastic solids," "oscillating electric charge," "the progressive condensation of a purely gaseous nebula," "temporary double refraction produced in viscous liquids by shearing stress," and so on. Such phrases are unintelligible to those not well-educated in science. At a minimum, links to articles on such topics should be placed, if not a minor explanation.
• 5. Unlinked names, including "Herapth, Joule, and particularly Clausius," "Faraday," and several others, appear. Not only should links be provided, but also should one use full names for first references.
• 6. Several passages appear opinionated (possibly being from the 1911 Britannica): for instance, "valuable papers," "original and powerful essay," "a man whose knowledge was co-extensive with his ingenuity," "most profound admiration and attention," "the ideas of that master," "great treatise," "admirable generalized co-ordinate system," "munificent founder," "distinguished alumni," "excellent elementary treatise" and "great contributions."

I do not ask that all of these be changed, but the level of subjectivity now present must definitely be reduced. -- Emsworth 01:48, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

quaternion equations

I looked at James Clerk Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" 1873 First Edition. I could not find the "linked set of twenty differential equations in quaternions". Where are these quaternions?

Please respond to:

dcliffordlee@hotmail.com

James Clerk Maxwell ... a set of twenty differential equations in quaternions. ... Oliver Heaviside enormously reduced the complexity of Maxwell's forty quaternion equations ...

20 or 40 ? Need to go back to the book. It was 8.

--DavidCary 13:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are eight original Maxwell's equations in his 1864 paper 'A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field'. They are numbered A to H and they are discussed in this article http://www.wbabin.net/science/tombe4.pdf which includes web links to both Maxwell's 1861 paper and his 1864 paper. When people talk about twenty equations it is only because they are multiplying six of them by three in order to have a separate equation for each of the X, Y, and Z directions. David Tombe 4th February 2007 (124.217.42.163 10:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Yes, there were eight equations. You can make it twenty if you like simply by splitting six of them into their three cartesian coordinates. But it's a bit like saying that Newton had nine laws of motion, ie. three laws in the X-direction, three laws in the Y-direction, and three laws in the Z-direction. (222.126.43.98 19:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Featured Article candidacy comments (not promoted)

(Contested -- Jul 4) James Clerk Maxwell

Good article with a good deal of information on his life and discoveries.--Alsocal 20:11, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• No vote, but the image needs source/licensing information (probably PD as he died before 1923). anthony (see warning)
  • It's a photo. No way it's not PD - David Gerard 21:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I've marked the photo PD (can't not be) and have added several more - David Gerard 22:03, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • There are many ways this could not be PD, but whatever. anthony (see warning)
• Can I second this having worked on it? If so, second. - David Gerard 21:36, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• I oppose this nomination: 1. It would appear from the title "Later years and afterwards" that the section would relate not only to the last years of Mr Maxwell's life, but also to his lasting legacy and events occurring after his death. Nevertheless, a mere sentence relating to his literary works concerning him appears. Thus, the "Later years and afterwards" section warrants expansion. 2. In the "Early Years" section, the following sentence appears: "The family name Maxwell was adopted by the terms of a legal requirement made upon his father to inherit an estate." The sentence's structure is awkward; furthermore, it does not mention whose estate is to be inherited (an individual from Clerk's maternal family, perhaps?). I would suggest something such as: "When Clerk inherited the estate of name (his relation), he adopted the latter's surname, as was required by the will," or words to the same effect. 3. The article uses single quotation marks instead of double quotation marks. 4. The article contains many unexplained names and terms, such as "elastic solids," "oscillating electric charge," "the progressive condensation of a purely gaseous nebula," "temporary double refraction produced in viscous liquids by shearing stress," and so on. Such phrases are unintelligible to those not well-educated in science. At a minimum, links to articles on such topics should be placed, if not a minor explanation. 5. Unlinked names, including "Herapth, Joule, and particularly Clausius," "Faraday," and several others, appear. Not only should links be provided, but also should one use full names for first references. 6. Several passages appear opinionated (possibly being from the 1911 Britannica): for instance, "valuable papers," "original and powerful essay," "a man whose knowledge was co-extensive with his ingenuity," "most profound admiration and attention," "the ideas of that master," "great treatise," "admirable generalized co-ordinate system," "munificent founder," "distinguished alumni," "excellent elementary treatise" and "great contributions." I do not ask that all of these be changed, but the level of subjectivity now present must definitely be reduced. -- Emsworth 01:48, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Controversy about what Maxwell actually did/discovered in electromagnetism

The great problem was that Maxwell produced his equations, then Hertz claimed to have confirmed Maxwell's prediction. When Planck and Bohr later showed that Maxwell's equations were definitely faulty, it was too late to re-examine the theory as the physics has already been dumped (Maxwell had a false aetherial gear cog and idler wheel 'displacement current' mechanism). So Maxwell's equations were labelled classical physics instead of being corrected.

from Nigel cooks website. Why is this not discussed on the page? --Light current 06:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no controversy; the “spinning cell” (atom) / “idle wheels” (electrons) model was a conceptual mechanical-like model of how the electrical field lines, magnetic field lines, and currents could operated the way they do in terms of spins, centripetal force, pressures, and tensions. The model is quite ingenious, I must say. Read the following book:

Mahon, Basil (2003). The Man Who Changed Everything – the Life of James Clerk Maxwell. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ISBN 0470861711.

Adios:--Sadi Carnot 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It's quite amazing the number of people who criticize Maxwell's cogwheel/idle wheel model, yet when cross questioned to elaborate, they expose the fact that they know absolutely nothing whatsoever about it. Often they will quote the famous Pierre Duhem error. But it was actually Pierre Duhem himself who made the error when he alleged that Maxwell cheated. Pierre Duhem alleged that at equation 132 in Maxwell's 1861 paper 'On Physical Lines of Force' ( http://www.vacuum-physics.com/Maxwell/maxwell_oplf.pdf ) that Maxwell should have introduced a factor of 1/2 inside the square root sign on the right hand side. Duhem alleged that this factor of 1/2 is needed to account for the dispersion of light. However, we know today that a ray of light is extremely coherent. It was Duhem himself that was in error, and not Maxwell.

If the Pierre Duhem error is the best criticism that can be mustered against Maxwell's 1861 paper after all these years, then there can't be much wrong with it. It is actually quite an ingenious piece of work and much neglected in modern physics. David Tombe 4th February 2007 (124.217.42.163 10:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC))

Repeated image

The main image is repeated further down the page. Would it be sensible to remove the second one or replace it?--MichaelMaggs 07:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed it.--MichaelMaggs 12:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of James Clerk Maxwell

I've started an approach that may apply to Misplaced Pages's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed?

I don't think you need a citation for this line:

"His contributions to physics are considered by many to be of the same magnitude as those of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein."

This is common knowledge, and the next line goes like this:

"...Einstein described Maxwell's work as the "most profound and the most fruitful that physics has experienced since the time of Newton.""

Featured article status

Hey Folks,

Having just finished this round of university exams, I have decided to take this article under my wing so to speak, and attempt to bring it to FA status. It is my hope that others will help in this pursuit. It is also not my intention to step on anyones toes with my sweeping changes (see WP:BOLD), so let me know if I am and we can collaborate together on a sandbox.

All the best! - JE.at.UWO|_T 02:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad to hear it. I'll try to help more at a later time, but for now, one quick suggestion: In the intro, it speaks of Maxwell being the first to describe electricity and magnetism in a unified and concise fashion. This is only half true. Maxwell's own equations were not particularly concise; the modern, greatly simplified form came later with the work of Josiah Willard Gibbs and Oliver Heaviside. We use Gibbs' notation today, although Heaviside achieved more or less the same result independently. See Bruce Hunt's The Maxwellians (among other sources), if you haven't already.--ragesoss 03:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try and rewrite it a bit to make it correct. Best! -- JE.at.UWO|_T 04:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Biographical queries

Hello everyone. I've just looked at this article for the first time and done some style-tweaking. Having looked over the text I'm wondering if anyone could resolve the following queries.

(a) Are Perception of Colour and Colour-Blindness titles of monographs or areas of study? It's not clear from the way the article is written.

(b) How might studying at Edinburgh rather than Cambridge have improved JCM's prospects?

(c) Does 'in his eighteenth year' mean when JCM was seventeen or when he was eighteen? I only ask because this formulation is misused all the time.

That's it. Regards to all. Notreallydavid 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

What is the correct pronunciation of Mr. Maxwell's middle name? LorenzoB 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did a Google search and didn't find too much; I did, however, get this, though it's probably not at all related to your question. I've been told that Maxwell's middle name is pronounced as if it were 'Clark'. Qwerty (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely pronounced "Clark". That's because the word "clerk" in British English is routinely pronounced to rhyme with "dark", whereas in America it is pronounced to rhyme with "jerk". Jeepien (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was looking to see if this had been discussed, because I think maybe a pronuciation guide should be added, as this is not intuitive to Americans.

Of course you could argue that Americans ought to pronounce it the same way they pronounce the common noun clerk. You wouldn't expect them to affect a British accent just because they're talking about a British person. I'm not saying that's how I'd personally argue, just that it's a borderline case. --Trovatore (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've heard any literate Americans mispronounce it so, though I don't doubt it must happen sometimes. Some (less literate) ones have been known to misspell it as "Clark", however. Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm an American and consider myself to be literate. I'm also reasonably knowledgeable with regard to physics (I wouldn't be considered more than a layman, however). Indeed, I've pronounced it such that it rhymes with "jerk" my entire life. It was only by hearing a reference to Maxwell during an episode of (the consistently accurate) television show: "The Big Bang Theory" that I had any indication that I was mispronouncing it. I wrote to the show's technical director to ask what I was missing and he kindly explained my pronunciation mistake to me. In my case, a correct pronunciation on this page would have helped. Super_C (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Color photography challenged

Apparently Maxwell's claim to color photography was rather more questionable than he realised, according to a recent blog post by Ctein on Michael Johnston's "The Online Photographer" blog.

Ctein is a well-known expert on color printing and probably knows what he's talking about. Fundamentally, the position advanced in the post is that since Maxwell's photographic emulsion was not panchromatic and did not have sensitivity at all in the yellow and red ranges, it's impossible for it to have sensed anything in those ranges no matter what filters were used. Instead, Ctein argues, the red filter also passed near-ultraviolet, which the emulsion was also sensitive to, and as a fortunate coincidence the red dye used on the ribbon was also very reflective in the near-UV range.

In other words, Maxwell got the result he was expecting and thus did not question it. His emulsion's complete blindness to red light was unknown to him.

I've written to Ctein asking for his sources, since I'd rather work from the originals if I can get them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so as not to leave this dangling and sewing doubts among those who may come across it: Ctein, by his own admission, had not read the 1961 Scientific American article he was echoing at second or third hand. The contemporary published transcript of Maxwell's lecture makes it plain that he was well-aware of the shortcomings of the demonstration, although probably not of just how insensitive to red the collodion iodide wet plates used by Thomas Sutton (who did the actual photography) really were. The 1961 study itself involves at least one very debatable assumption and its findings are almost inevitably misreported in overly definitive terms, e.g., the ribbon was not available for analysis, so it was impossible to make the sort of definite statement about it which is found above. Blogs are not a reliable source for anything except the blogger's own perceptions and opinions, although they sometimes provide very valuable links or directions to more solid source material. AVarchaeologist (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Cambridge?

The sentence in the introduction "The majority of Maxwell's illustrious career took place at the University of Cambridge..." doesn't seem to be bourne out by the rest of the article. The history of Maxwell's life seems to be that he took his degree at Cambridge and didn't return to it again until he took up the Cavendish professorship eight years prior to his death, by which time virtually all of his major contributions had been made. Certainly his most famous discoveries, Maxwell's Equations and the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution were published while he was at Kings College, London.

It looks to me like this sentence is inaccurate and should be removed.--Robminchin 08:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As nobody spoke up in a week, I have now done this --Robminchin 02:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

regarding 'formulated'

I changed 'formulated' to 'aggregated', as this is more accurate. While there may have been no mathematical equations for Faraday's work at the time, Gauss of course developed mathematical equations. --ElectronicsEnthusiast 09:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement under Later Years that Maxwell was the first to make explicit use of dimensional analysis is incorrect. Please see Joseph Fourier's Analytical Theory of Heat published in 1822. In the English translation the relevant part is in Chap 2, section 9 in the Alexander Freeman translation published by GE Stechert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.107.179 (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Knighthood

Apparently Mr. Maxwell wasn't knighted. Is this true, and if so, why? LorenzoB 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Text Damage

In he section on Kinetic Energy, the section ends rather abruptly with the phrase: In the kinetic theory, temperatures and heat invol

I don't know of a way to search back versions based on specific text, so it's not easy to tell how long ago this truncation occurred, but I presume it must have made sense at one time. I mention it here and leave it in more capable hands. Jeepien (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this. It had been vandalised back on 31 January. I've restored it now. — BillC 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FA collaboration

There seemed interest in driving this article forward to FA status. It certainly would be to Misplaced Pages's benefit: Maxwell is one of the most important scientists ever, and the state this article has been in does not credit the project.

As far as sources, I have access to (i.e. own copies of) Mahon's The Man Who Changed Everything, Tolstoy's James Clerk Maxwell, Glazebrook's James Clerk Maxwell and Modern Physics (1896, so clearly out of date, but useful for contemporary references) and Campbell's The Life of James Clerk Maxwell (excellent work, though Campbell was a lifetime friend of Maxwell, so its partiality should be treated with a little caution at times). I also have Britannia's 4000-word entry, the Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Harman's thoroughly detailed entry in The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and an interesting 20-page piece on Maxwell's character that appeared in Mathematics Today in 2002. I also have more than a few electromagnetic textbooks around that can support that side of Maxwell's work, though I currently have very little on his mathematics, physical chemistry or control theory work. — BillC 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The structure I've been working to was: a fairly lengthy biography section, dealing with Maxwell's major places of education or employment, followed by a major contributions section, dealing with his work on electromagnetism, physical chemistry, control theory, and statistical physics. A legacy/impact section would roll up the article. — BillC 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

regarding correlations between religious beliefs and scientific discovery

Hasn't Faraday's Glasite heritage been connected to his initial discoveries of magnetism in the form of circular fields? After all, the Glasite's considered circles as inherently sacred and spiritual. I believe the material can be found in Five Equations that Changed the World by Michael Guilen. If such a thing holds true, then it may be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.166.248 (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Such a view seems to be that of a very small minority. I can find no reference to that on the web, in Google Books, or Google Scholar, nor can I find a mention in the biographical Michael Faraday and the Electrical Century. But more importantly, this is an article about Maxwell, not Faraday. — BillC 23:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Propose to merge the Great papers of james clerk maxwell into this article. Beagel (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support – It looks like an odd and orphaned article. I did fix its capitalization problem though. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support – I frankly had never noticed the Great Papers article before today. It is too short to merit independent existence, and will be much more useful if merged with the Contributions section of this article. Dirac66 (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with the above, and think it would be particularly good to have the Maxwell equations in the main article (cf. Newton's Laws of motion, for example). A.C. Norman (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I certainly support bringing that material in here: but it does have problems. The four Maxwell's Laws, for example are written in the vector differential form. While this is the form in which they are familiar and are taught today, this is not the manner they were set out in Maxwell's papers, but were rather recast by Heaviside and Gibbs some years after Maxwell's death. —BillC  22:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Actually the problem of historically anachronistic notation is a flaw in the Great Papers article, which could be rewritten to mention both the historical notation and the modern form, or perhaps refer the latter to the article on Maxwell's equations. This could be done whether or not that article is merged into this one. Note also that the problem is not unique to Maxwell's article; the article on Isaac Newton expresses Newton's laws in vector form, which Newton certainly did not use in the 17th century. Dirac66 (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• A late vote for support, but what to do with all of the text in "On Physical Lines of Force - 1861"? It would seem out of place in the article about Maxwell the person, and the Maxwell's equations article already seems comprehensive. (It also seems out of place in a section about Maxwell's 1861 paper, as noted above!) Maybe remove it entirely? Djr32 (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment (I've already !voted above) - Right, there seems to be good consensus here, and this has been open for 3 months (!) - let's do it. A.C. Norman (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Christianity section reads a little strangely

The section on Maxwell's belief seems rather odd - as if someone had claimed he was an atheist and the section is refuting it; I'd imagine that most people of mid-nineteenth century Britain were Christian - or am I missing something?! Apepper (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite whacky that way. I suggest you read the cited sources and fix it. Or look at the history to see when the sources were added, by whom, in support of what, and see if someone mangled it since then. Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll start thinking about how it could be phrased; my first thought is to retitle the section "Religious Belief", essentially say he was brought up as a Christian and maintained his faith throughout his life - assuming the citations bear that out. Apepper (talk)

Yes, I would certainly welcome a rewrite. Maxwell was a devout Christian, and this is attested to by his various biographers. It does not seem to have intruded into his work. —BillC  17:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... to say it did "not seem to have intruded into his work" is extremely misleading. His beliefs characterized his work, In his own words:I think Christians whose minds are scientific are bound to study science that their view of the glory of God may be as extensive as their being is capable of." (Campbell and Garnett, Life of Maxwell, 404–5.) - Logan

And on page 96 he is found explaining how Christianity alone seemed to afford the ability to scrutinise reality unhindered by the bounds of superstition. In other words, Christianity affords this since it specifically does not impose restrictions on investigations, rather than influences the directions or methods of investigation. That being said, he did address the concept of the "creation" of atoms as falling outside of the purview of science, though this is probably not a result of his theological beliefs but rather the knowledge of physics at that time.Ninahexan (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Christianity was not something merely incidental in Maxwell. His religious belief thus deserves more attention. The sophism seems to be this: Maxwell was a scientist of the absolutely highest order. Religion is something foreign to the scientific spirit. Therefore his religion is not important to his biography. This represents an intrusion of a prejudice. Another similar figure in this respect is Bernard Riemann. Absolutely important to the development of both science and mathematics in the twentieth and tweny-first centuries and a profoundly devout Christian. In both cases the religious aspect does belong to the biography. The question of whether and how religious faith influences the scientific work remains open.Cklc (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge from article

Sir James Clerk, 7th Bt seems to be an article about this person, which includes several references, that may be of help in information regarding religion. Can somebody knowledgeable take any relevant materials from that article and then propose it for deletion? Rigadoun (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a textdump from here, and I've deleted it. If anyone wants to use that material to improve this article, do feel free, but it looks potentially quite polemic - I'd recommend confirming it against the quoted sources! Shimgray | talk | 23:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Marriage and children, etc.

He was a very important person to physics and the article lacks a great deal of his personal life. What kind of man was he? 71.86.152.127 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

According to an article in Physics World biography of Maxwell-I had to sign in with a free account to view it PhysicsWorld, his wife was very important to his work. She did most of the experimental work on viscosity. He died of pancreatic cancer and his wife had become and invalid. Einstein quoted when someone remarked, "You have done great things but you stand on Newton's shoulders." His reply was, "No, I stand on Maxwell's shoulders. Some sources claimed his religious beliefs had him opposing Darwin (I didn't trace the sources) and this would be a context to put the Christianity section into. There are sources out there that have bias and unsupported conclusion but a good reliable source would be quotations from Maxwell's notes/diary. Sorry this is as much time that I can spend on this. 71.86.152.127 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

Can we please stop people making stupid regionalist edits over famous people's nationality. Maxwell, born in Scotland was British, and therefore saying that his nationality was Scottish is misleading and technically incorrect. The compromise is calling him a scottish mathematician, but can his nationality still be british. 86.154.74.121 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems obvious that Scottish is more precise than British. Do you have any evidence that Maxwell was not Scottish? --John (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's describe George W. Bush as 'Texan' then. It seems obvious that 'Texan' is more precise than 'American'. Do you have any evidence that he is not Texan? I thought not. Clever dick, Master 'John'. or as you might put it 'smart arse'. 62.205.105.128 (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I should like to see two questions resolved. 1. Can "Scottish" properly and accurately be termed a nationality in its own right? 2. What nationality do reliable sources specify for Maxwell? In the meantime it seems pointless for the term in the infobox to bounce back and forth; it's not worth edit warring about. It might also be helpful to know how Maxwell identified himself, if that information can be found. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Ref provided, per official Misplaced Pages policy WP:VERIFY:

• Encyclopædia Britannica - "Scottish mathematician and physicist"

Problem is: At the time, Scotland was not a sovereign nation and still continues not to be one, just as England isn't. Thus, his nationality should be "British". Also cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/Michael_Faraday: Faraday is from England, but his nationality gives "British". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.204.59 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC) --Mais oui! (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Listing both Nationality and Citizenship seems a little like overkill and it's not clear exactly how they differ in this case. Perhaps a compromise might be to leave `Scottish' in the introduction and list Nationality as British. In any case, his citizenship would be British not `United Kingdom'! While Scottish is more specific than British geographically, in the legal sense his nationality would be British --- Scottish, English, etc, having no legal meaning it terms of nationality --- and that seems to be the sense intended here. Potahto (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Scottish nationality; British citizenship - the difference is clear to anyone who can tell the simple difference between nationality and citizenship. What 'nationality' were the English and Scots before the Act of Union? Did the Union change these 'nationalities'? Are all states mono-national? Do all 'nations' have statehood? Ceartas (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think saying Scottish is appropriate. Although British, the vast majority of English scientists, nobles and entertainers are called English. As far as I know the common use of British and Briton to refer to anyone from the island is fairly recent, and may be pushed by the less sophisticated and/or native and/or desperate for whatever reasons. That Jame Clerk/Maxwell being Scottish, when he lived, was also British should still be obvious to most educated and cultured people around the world. (I enjoy both English and Scottish ancestry, btw.) DinDraithou (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The terms British and Briton are not particularly recent. There are quotes in the OED dating from the 11th Century of this adjective and noun referring to people south of the Firth of Forth (and so including Edinburgh). But this is not my point. It is simply incorrect to list his nationality or citizenship as Scottish --- the nationality of anyone from the United Kingdom is British regardless of your political or nationalistic feeling on the matter. Using an adjective to describe someone (as in the introduction) is different to stating their nationality (as in the box). I'm not pushing any point of view, I'm just aiming for accuracy. Potahto (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The term and ethnonym are indeed old, but originally referred to the Celtic speakers of Brythonic, most of whom lost their identity after the Norman invasion and reemerged undistinguishable from the Anglo-Saxons, except in Wales and Cornwall. In what is now southern Scotland the Strathclyde Britons were eventually absorbed by the Scoto-Picts. In general academia the original uses are still common. BUT WHATEVER. Why not simply also mention his ethnicity in the infobox? To do that we need to use Infobox person like Einstein has. I've done a preview and found it will allow both nationality and ethnicity, which Infobox scientist apparently will not. DinDraithou (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure listing ethnicity is relevant for most scientists, so I imagine that's why it's not in Infobox scientist. (Einstein perhaps is an exception given the period during which he was alive, although it remains irrelevant to his work.) I'm not proposing deleting the adjective Scottish from the introduction, but just modifying the box so his nationality is correctly stated as British (both in the language of Maxwell's lifetime and now). Perhaps this is not a term you are so used to (as mistakes seem common outside the UK), but it is widely used in Britain and the correct usage. Potahto (talk) 12:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I do confess to being German in the direct line and thus something of a know-it-all. My Irish and French ancestry weaken my authority to speak on British matters even further. And worst of all, I'm American. So I'll back off. DinDraithou (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, we all believe in free speech :). Changed as suggested. Potahto (talk) 17:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between nationality and citizenship is very simple. A sovereign state can contain more than one nationality: think of the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. The UK is similar: Maxwell's nationality was Scots, his citizenship British. There are many examples of other 'nations' which do not have statehood: English, Kurds, Bretons, Tibetans. Is Potahto saying that the Germans, Italians, Irish, Poles, Armenians, Georgians, etc., were not 'nations' before they achieved statehood? Ceartas (talk) 00:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is there was no legal concept of British citizen until 1948. People were British subjects. See British Nationality Act 1948. Thincat (talk) 23:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

What did Maxwell think of himself? Surely, it is more accurate to say what nationality someone feels rather than what we now call them? For example, I was born in Bermuda, grew up in Africa/Caribbean and currently live in south east England. My family have done for generations. I have no sole connection with one part of the UK, so I feel British. I know people who are both British and Scottish. Is it not possible to have more than one nationality in this case? I am fairly sure Maxwell felt British too. Colwolyoung (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the assertion that people are being tiresomely regionalist.(Actually they are being crypto-separatist in this particular case)

In response to Ceartas on the alleged difference between "nationality" and "citizenship", what do *most speakers of the English language* think "nationality" means?

What would someone reasonable believe when they see a distinction made between "nationality" and "citizenship"?

Here is what they would believe: "Person A is from country X (their "nationality") but for some reason they hold "citizenship" of a completely different country, Y. Must be for reasons of parentage or something, or maybe it's to do with tax".

The simple fact is that Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, and was part at all times during Maxwell's life.

Readers will misinterpret this distinction as being akin to the difference between German and Italian. This is why the distinction is wrong.

Japanscot (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Scottish is not a nationality. The nationality of all UK citizens is 'British'.

For the moment I will try changing 'Faraday' to see if that is reverted. If it we need an RfC on the subject to get consistency across WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't this discussion be appended to and continue the previous "Nationality" section, above? Hertz1888 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Now done. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no consensus above to use the fictional nationality 'Scottish'. Like others, I have no objection to using the description 'Scottish' in the text, if the majority of reliable sources describe him this way but we cannot put his nationality as Scottish in the info box, regardless of how he self-identified or is described, simply because such a thing does not exists. Citizens of the UK have British nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting a bit imperialist, aren't you? Adam Cuerden 09:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I see you have started with a personal attack rather that tried to discuss the issue in question.

This has nothing to do with imperialism just with facts. 'Scottish' is not a nationality, just as 'English', 'Welsh', or 'Northern Irish' are not. These countries are all part of the sovereign state of the United Kingdom and their nationality is 'British'. People from these countries all have British passports and would have to state their nationality as 'British' on official documents, such as applications for visas.

I have no problem with describing Maxwell as Scottish, just as I would have no problem with describing a person as 'Texan' but the nationality of a Texan is US, whether they like it or not, and the nationality of someone from Scotland is 'British', whether or not they or you like it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom — Preceding unsigned comment added by FF-UK (talk • contribs) 09:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

See my comments on that article.

It is not WP policy but an essay. If you look on the talk page you will see that there is no consensus for what is written, in fact others have made exactly the same point that I have. A description of a person can be anything found in sources, for example: 'Scottish', 'English', 'Texan', or 'Londoner', but a nationality is a clearly and legally defined status which cannot be changed at whim. If you want to state that Maxwell's nationality is 'Scottish' then you need to find a source saying that just that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus?

A quick look above shows two editors in favour of 'Scottish' and four who would prefer 'British' (five including me). There is therefore a consensus to state the nationality of Maxwell as 'British'. I will change it to that until a reliable source is found that says that Maxwell's nationality was Scottish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a need to rush into this. It has already flipped back and forth too many times over the years, the essay highlights the considerable flexibility available in such matters, and consensus is not based on voting. Allowing more time for discussion couldn't hurt, and meanwhile a RS for the longstanding existing version might be found. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Have a look for a source if you like but there is no 'nationality' of Scottish and more than there is a nationality of 'Londoner' or 'Scouser'. I understand that there is indeed flexibility regarding the description of a person from the UK. Many people are very proud to describe themselves as 'English' or 'Welsh' and this is fine but nationality is a matter of fact. The current arrangement in which Maxwell's citizenship is described as 'British' and his nationality as 'Scottish' is absurd. You can see from the article British nationality lawthat 'British nationality law is the law of the United Kingdom that concerns citizenship and other categories of British nationality', in other words to have British citizenship you must be a British national.

The introductory sentence of the lead, 'James Clerk Maxwell FRS FRSE (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) was a Scottish mathematical physicist.' may well be subject to discussion based in such things as how he identified himself, where he was born, where he lived and worked, and how sources describe him, but the infobox statement of nationality is just plain wrong.

I am willing to engage in serious discussion of the subject but if all the editor who reverted my change can come up with is 'Getting a bit imperialist, aren't you?', demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the subject of nationality and of UK affairs, I will make the change. There certainly is no consensus for the current version. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Definition of Nationality: "The status of belonging to a particular nation"

Therefore, the status of belonging to the Nation of Scotland is clearly Scottish, and any suggestion to the contrary is clearly specious. FF-UK (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many different definitions of nation but the one that is relevant in this case is that of an independent nation. The Scotland article starts, 'Scotland ... is a country that is part of the United Kingdom'. It is not an independent nation. No doubt it is sometimes referred to informally as a nation but in an infobox we would expect to refer to a formal and legal definition of 'nationality' and that is 'British'. The passport for a person from Scotland will be a British passport with the Nationality showing as 'British Citizen'. If you have one, take a look. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, by what authority do you claim to dismiss the idea that Scotland is a Nation? I suggest that you listen to the widely reported speech by Gordon Brown in which he, an avowed Unionist (as I am myself) declared that Scotland was a nation. If you were to wander the streets of Edinburgh you would come across many Scottish Institutions, most of them with official status, labelled as "Scottish National...." - nothing informal about that. You keep referring to citizenship, but that is not a subject in dispute, not all nations are independent, and long may the Scottish nation remain as part of the Union. Please keep your ignorant ideas about nationhood to yourself and back-off. FF-UK (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not about the Union, this about the status of the term 'nationality' as it is likely to be understood by the majority of our readers when in an infobox.

Informally, Scotland and England, for example, may be called nations but they are not independent nations and are not recognised as separate nations from an international diplomatic perspective. People from all the countries in the UK will have British passports, be represented by the British Ambassador at the British embassy, or join the British armed forces. That is the level at which 'nationality' will be understood when in an infobox. It will answer the question as to which independent state the person belongs. It seems crazy to have an RfC on this subject when there is a clear majority 5:2 of editors here in favour of 'British' but if we must we must. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we label William Rowan Hamilton and Oscar Wilde as British while we're at it? Ireland was part of the U.K. throughout their entire lives. Is Owain Glyndwr a British leader? Wales had already been united with Britain during his life. "British" has become very mixed up with "English", and, as such, attempts to co-opt it for Scottish and Welsh people is rather controversial, as it brings up a whole hot of cultural imperialism issues, where a larger culture uses its size to subsume and deny the existence of a smaller. Adam Cuerden 15:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the relevance of William Rowan Hamilton and Oscar Wilde. The situation for Maxwell is much clearer; he was born of British parents in Britain and lived and worked in Britain all his life. Scotland was part of Britain when Maxwell was born and still is.

I do not dispute that there may be confusion of many people between Britain and England but that will not in any way be resolved by giving the nationality of Maxwell as the non-existent Scottish, in fact that is likely to increase the confusion. Note that I am only talking about the nationality in the info box. How Maxwell is described is another matter and that should depend on how he is described in reliable sources. In fact, describing Maxwell as Scottish with British nationality makes the true situation clearer, showing that Scotland is part of Britain. Giving his nationality in the infobox as 'Scottish' only serves to confuse and to give the impression that Scotland is some minor independent nation somewhere near England. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You realise that Ireland only became independent from the United Kingdom in the 1920s, right? So the exact same coule be said about Hamilton or Wilde. Adam Cuerden 17:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You clearly did not read, ' Scotland was part of Britain when Maxwell was born and still is. The same is not true for the the Republic of Ireland so there an argument for using present day nations in the infobox but that is all irrelevant here. We are talking about this page only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

And Scotland used to not be part of the UK. If you're happy with using nationalities which, by your definition of nationality, didn't exist at the time, then I don't see how you can justify applying definitions of nationality that exclude Scotland. Your claim Scottish nationality doesn't exist seems to be based on a legal, "What it says in your passport" definition, but Irish didn't exist by that definition, but you're happy with it being used. But if we're not looking at a legal "what it says in your passport" citizenship definition, then we're looking at a definition of nationality that can easily accommodate Scottish.. Adam Cuerden 18:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

You are complicating something that is very simple by giving irrelevant examples. Scotland has been part of Britain from over a century before Maxwell was born until the present day. The question of Scotland's not being part of Britain simply does not arise in the case of Maxwell. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

In that case, I take it that you don't consider "Bermudan" a nationality, and thinkt hey should be referred to as "British"? Adam Cuerden 19:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That is just another irrelevant example. Bermuda is one of the British Overseas Territories, 'The fourteen British Overseas Territories are territories under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the United Kingdom. They do not, however, form part of it'. Scotland does form part of Great Britain and the United Kingdom. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I like how you're just ignoring the points. You haven't given a real example why historic Ireland is different other than "It just is", nnor how Bermuda is different other than "It just is." Bermudan citizens hold a British passport, and Ireland was part of the UK at the time. You don't seem to actually have an argument. Adam Cuerden 23:01, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I have explained in detail with reference to relevant WP articles on the subject why Bermuda and Ireland are different. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am persuaded, on the strength of the arguments presented here, that continued use of "Scottish" is appropriate, acceptable usage, and innocuous. Hertz1888 (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I am very surprised that you want to state a non-existent nationality in an infobox and wonder how you think that will help our readers but I guess that makes it 5:3 for 'British' now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, Scottish could only be a non-existent nationality if Scotland were a non-existent nation, clearly that is not the case, so your statement is fallacious. You seem to think that there is merit in reinforcing the widespread ignorance of the complexities of the UK as a multi-nation state, but reinforcement of ignorance is not the function of an encyclopedia. FF-UK (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We have been through this before. Scotland is a nation informally but it is not a member of the United Nations for example. It does not have a nationality in any formal sense of the word. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, you base all of this on your personal determination (OR?) that Scotland "does not have a nationality in any formal sense of the word" but you ignore the reality that this is simply untrue, as evidenced by the many institutions which proclaim Scottish Nationality, do you wish to tell these august bodies that they are merely informal? A small sample-

Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service

The National Archives of Scotland

Scottish National Gallery

Royal Scottish National Orchestra

National Trust for Scotland

Scottish National War Memorial

Scottish National Jazz Orchestra

National Museum of Scotland

Scottish National Portrait Gallery

National Library of Scotland

Scotland's National Nature Reserves

Scottish National Advanced Heart Failure Service

National Mining Museum Scotland

National Theatre of Scotland

Scottish National Dictionary

FF-UK (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

None of those have anything to do with nationality as it is likely to be understood by our readers From a global perspective Scotland is part of the UK not a separate nation. We have to ask ourselves what meaning our readers expect when they see the word 'nationality' in an infobox. Do they expect it to refer to the name of a country that is just part of a sovereign state or do they expect it to refer to the independent state to which the person belongs. Many countries have regions that were once independent states but Britain is unusual in that these are still referred to as countries. Power in Scotland is ultimately held by the UK parliament. Scottish people are represented in other countries by the British embassy and by the British delegation to the UN and they are defended by the British armed forces. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, most powers are devolved, and this appears to be increasing over time. From Scottish Parliament: "The Scottish Parliament (Scottish Gaelic: Pàrlamaid na h-Alba; Scots: The Scots Pairlament) is the devolved national, unicameral legislature of Scotland." Adam Cuerden 22:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if there are any printed encyclopaedias that tackle this? Surely the National Library of Scotland can't? Guy (Help!) 07:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we need a printed encyclopedia, there is plenty on British nationality in WP, British nationality law for a start. I can find no mention of Scottish nationality anywhere.

Adam, yes many powers are devolved but the ultimate power still rests with the UK parliament. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

At the root of this problem remains Martin Hogbin's personal agenda to dismiss Scotland as not being a country or nation, this is evidenced in his remarks at the top of this sub-section when he attempts to equate Scottish with Londoner or Scouser, a clearly nonsensical idea. The list of names of institutions I provided above demonstrates clearly that Scotland is regarded in a formal sense as a Nation, and it is simply not credible to claim that someone belonging to that nation does not hold the nationality of that nation. FF-UK (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your personal remarks accusing me of having a personal agenda are unconstructive and do nothing to help your cause. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, perhaps you just cannot help it, it seems to be a sort of cultural blindness which is demonstrated, again, in your remark below where you seek to demean (either deliberately or through ignorance) the national institutions of Scotland: "and there are, mainly local, organisations bearing the name 'national'. FF-UK (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I ask you not to make personal comments about me. I do not seek to demean anyone and do not suffer from any form of cultural blindness. The fact that many worthy Scottish institutions have the word 'national' in them does not make 'Scottish' a nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, you have made it clear that such is your personal view, but it is not the view held in the nation under discussion, which is why the government and institutions of that nation have (over many years) adopted the terminology which they do. Unless you are able to convince the Scottish Government and the institutions which describe themselves as "Scottish National" that you are right and they are wrong then I suggest there is little point in continuing your campaign to deny the existence of Scottish nationality. FF-UK (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not my personal view it is a view supported by four other editors above. Neither the Scottish goverment nor any Scottish institution has the power to create a Scottish nationality. Scotland is part of the Unied kingdom and its citizens are Britsh. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we are arguing about the wrong thing

Rather than arguing about whether Scottish is a nationality I think we should be arguing about what meaning of the term 'nationality' is appropriate for an infobox.

The past discussion gives the incorrect impression that some editors are anti-Scottish and others are pro-Scottish or that some editors are Scottish separatist and others are anti-separatist. From the discussions above I hope that we can all agree that this is not what the argument is about. That is certainly true for me. The question is simply, 'What is the appropriate definition of 'Nationality' for use in an onfobox.

In an infobox I think readers expect to see nationality at the highest level of independent state (please do not mention the EU, it has not happened yet!), as per passport, diplomatic representation, armed forces, overall leader and legislative body. They do not expect to see the name of one part of an independent state, even if the part is traditionally known s a nation and there are, mainly local, organisations bearing the name 'national'. Maybe this should be put to RfC in that more general form, without specific reference to Scotland.. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is on the Template:Infobox person page: "Nationality. May be used instead of citizenship (below) or vice versa in cases where any confusion could result. Should only be used with citizenship when they somehow differ." FF-UK (talk) 17:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no confusion, it is very simple. People from Scotland have British nationality and are British citizens.

In which case the appropriate thing to do would be to have nothing against "Nationality", in accordance with the guidance. I believe that no one is disagreeing on British Citizenship, but as the Infobox has been structured to accommodate situations like this where the nationality and citizenship differ, then it is correct to continue to show Maxwell's nationality as Scottish, in accordance with the accepted norm. It is not difficult. By the way, I am proud to be English, and proud to have been welcomed into the Scottish Nation where I have lived for the majority of my adult life, and where I serve as one of the Trustees of The James Clerk Maxwell Foundation. As an aside, when I joined the Army in 1963 my papers showed my nationality as "British/English". FF-UK (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

On a more constructive topic, then, think you could get us a better image of Maxwell for the lead? I'm worried about the copyright documentation for the lead image. Adam Cuerden 20:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the British nationality page you will see that it is imposssible to have British citizenship and not have British nationality. Britsish citizenship is a sub-category of British nationality. There is no accepted norm for showing nationality as Scottish. If Maxwell was a British citizen then his nationality, by definition, was British. See the article on the subject. Once again, I have no problem in describing Maxwell as Scottish in the text but his formal nationality (which is what is appropriate for an infobox) is British.Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

opening section

"Einstein kept a photograph of Maxwell on his study wall, alongside pictures of Michael Faraday and Newton." Why would that be in the opening section? Seems more like triva to me, his influence has been mentioned. Same goes for Faraday's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.78.248 (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Statue -- a pic would be nice

A picture of the prominent new statue of Clerk Maxwell on Edinburgh's George Street would be a nice addition, perhaps illustrating the "legacy" section, if any Wikipedian in or near Edinburgh is reading this. The angle of this photograph on Flickr is nice, though it's "all rights reserved", so as things stand we couldn't use it. Jheald (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Katherine

Katherine did experimental work on viscosity. How much more did she take on in his lab? 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

She doesn't have her own page yet she played an huge part in this very important physicists life including nursing him back from near death of small pox. A little more detail about her would be appropriate. 97.85.163.245 (talk) 09:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Creationist

Why not mention that James Clerk Maxwell was actually a creationist? http://creation.com/great-creation-scientists-james-clerk-maxwell --41.15.65.42 (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The quote that's meant to refute biological evolution doesn't. In context ( http://www.victorianweb.org/science/maxwell/molecules.html ) it's clear he's talking about the creation of matter, not of life. Creation.com is not a reliable source, and our article does make it clear he was a Christian, which is all we can actually say. Adam Cuerden 16:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by User talk:92.20.237.7

User talk:92.20.237.7 recently made a change to the article that 1) was unusual (Scottish->British), and he didn't seem to care that this is not usually done in Misplaced Pages without better reasons than the ones he provided, and 2) actually broke the reference list by not using the template properly and changing the text to a phrase that is incorrect English (incompletely copied from the EB page not on JCM, but on some other page that references him with the more generic "British". Let's discuss it here and have other editor give their opinions, rather than start an WP:edit war. Nczempin (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

His original paper about ovals

His original paper about ovals was called Observations on Circumscribed Figures Having a Plurality of Foci, and Radii of Various Proportions and can be partially read on-line at:

http://books.google.com.br/books?id=zfM8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Observations+on+Circumscribed+Figures+Having+a+Plurality+of+Foci,+and+Radii+of+Various+Proportions&source=bl&ots=kldlqFc5U6&sig=rfOWmhqX-3JCtECw5yCxEzYzzec&hl=pt-BR#v=onepage&q=Observations%20on%20Circumscribed%20Figures%20Having%20a%20Plurality%20of%20Foci%2C%20and%20Radii%20of%20Various%20Proportions&f=false

The other was the one modified by Forbes. Ariel C.M.K. (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you propose your exact change here so we can discuss it? --John (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I edited the article, but it was reverted. They were discovered independently by Maxwell, and his work also presented simpler constructions. It was original, he didn't copy from others. To say it was not original may mean "not preceding all others in time" or "uncreative, uninventive" (which certainly is not the case here) or that is was a copy of an original work (not the case here too). The word original is used in many languages and in some it's almost always used to mean "creative" or "not a copy" (but I don't know how it is in English). I suggest making it clear that it was not a copy of Descartes' work about the ovals (since Misplaced Pages is read by people from all over the world — also I think that in English it can have the meaning I told too): to make clear that Maxwell didn't know Descartes' work at that time! Maybe change to that it was not "pioneer" or something like "Maxwell was not the first to discover them".

Also, by reading the article one can't know the name of the original article written by Maxwell (not the one with modifications and remarks by Forbes).

This is my last post. My English isn't good enough to discuss here. Ariel C.M.K. (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Clan Maxwell

Is he part of the Clan Maxwell family? Bubba73 01:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Improvement

It looks ghastly with all these tags. I will be able to fill in a few, but somebody with the books in the bibliography could look up some of the references quickly and neatly, and fast track it to GA or FA status. The first half is superb, but the second half needs a lot of work. Jamesx12345 (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments on referencing

• Timoshenko 1983 is not in the Bibliography
• Arianrhod 2006 is in the Bibliography but isn't cited
• Publications in the Bibliography are normally listed in alphabetical order by first author
• The title of Eyges 1972 should be in title case
• Titles of papers published in scientific journal are normally written in sentence case: see Notes 69, 78, 81, 87, 90 etc. (journal titles are in title case).
• "retrieved by" is not required for printed publications and adds unnecessary clutter
• Most FAs only provide links to google books when a Preview Full view is available. ie links are only provided to old books for which the copyright has expired.
• Note 82 should not be in caps
• The publisher is missing for Cropper 2004 cited in Note 88.

Also

• Probably better to express 6.07 km as 607 ha Aa77zz (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:James Clerk Maxwell/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 20:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This article should be fairly fun to review, though I'm not sure I'll get through all of it tonight. Certainly tomorrow, though. Adam Cuerden 20:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. I was operating on minimal sleep for a few days. Adam Cuerden 15:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. James12345 14:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Opening paragraph is a little clunky; in particular, it doesn't flow very well, and I suspect one can explain electromagnetism far more simply han that - I've understood it since I was 10 years old or so, mind you, my father's an electrical engineer. This isn't a blocker for GA, but is worth looking at before FA.
• "his foundational work on the rigidity of rod-and-joint frameworks (trusses) like those in many bridges." - rigidity is, of course, a fundamental property. You mean something like "analysing the rigidity".
  • More fundamentally, his work on rigidity is not mentioned outside the lead, making this uncited.

Early life, 1831–39

• The section beginning "His father was a man of comfortable means..." to the end of that paragraph is ambiguously cited. In particular, here's a long section after the last cite.

Education, 1839–47

• "...rediscovering the regular polyhedron before he received any formal instruction..." - I presume you mean "polyhedra", the plural?
• "but Maxwell was deemed too young for the work presented" as the next section makes clear, this should read "but Maxwell was deemed to young to present the work himself." - as it stands, the phrasing's natural reading is that people did not believe Maxwell wrote the work himself, due to being too young.

Edinburgh University, 1847–50

• "Having had the opportunity to attend the University of Cambridge after his first term Maxwell instead decided to complete the full course of his undergraduate studies at Edinburgh." - This phrasing is a little awkward in context. And could use more commas.

University of Cambridge, 1850–56

• "A considerable part of Maxwell's translation of his equations regarding electromagnetism was accomplished during his time at Trinity." - Uncited.

Aberdeen University, 1856–60

• This section is very citation-poor. There's large sections at the end of most paragraphs with no obvious citations.
• The image is from 1869. Why not have a picture of Saturn here, and move the image down a little bit? I know it's meant to show the marriage, but a little more variety in images would be nice.

Later years

• More problems with ambiguous and missing citations.

Personality

• I hate to harp on this, but... more uncited bits. "A collection of his poems was published by his friend Lewis Campbell in 1882. Many appreciations of Maxwell remark upon his remarkable intellectual qualities being matched by social awkwardness."

Electromagnetism

• "Maxwell was proven correct, and his quantitative connection between light and electromagnetism is considered one of the great accomplishments of 19th century mathematical physics." - Uncited.

Colour analysis

• "Maxwell's purpose was not to present a method of colour photography, but to illustrate the basis of human colour perception and to show that the correct additive primaries are not red, yellow and blue, as was then taught, but red, green and blue. The three photographic plates now reside in a small museum at 14 India Street, Edinburgh, the house where Maxwell was born." Uncited. Also, I need to go to India Street. An unfortunate deletion, though, as the location of the plates, and the museum, is interesting.
• The bit about the red being ultraviolet is poorly set up. It's only clear the red in the photograph is paradoxical at the point the paradox is resolved.

Control theory

• Completely uncited.

Experiments in rigidity

• Does not exist, but mentioned in lead. - Now briefly discussed, at least. Adam Cuerden 16:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Legacy

• This isn't really a GA-blocker, but Image:James_Clerk_Maxwell_statue_in_George_Street,_Edinburgh.jpg isn't particularly good. It's one of the more awkward angles to take the statue from, and seems awfully tightly-cropped at the top. Adam Cuerden 15:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Images

• File:JamesClerkMaxwell-KatherineMaxwell-1869.jpg is a bit poorly documented. Whilst very likely PD in UK, it lacks the documentation that shows this.
• File:James Clerk Maxwell.png only establishes US PD; if that's all that can be established, it needs moved to en-wiki and off Commons.
• File:YoungJamesClerkMaxwell.jpg ditto, though almost certainly PD in UK.
• File:Maxwell's demon.svg - Maxwell's demon not described in text; whilst it's perfectly legitimate (and often useful) to describe minor ideas in image captions, it'd need properly described, and cited. Adam Cuerden 15:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know much about the image process, but they look fine to me. Can it be assumed that all photos taken at that time are now in the public domain? 120 years has lapsed since his death, which is what the guideline seems to say.

There's not much, sadly, on commons for Maxwell. It's a great statue, so if you're about Edinburgh, it might make a Featured pic with the Autumn leaves, something like this. James12345 20:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The actual text is pretty good, but there's a lot of citation issues, and some infelicities in the description. Adam Cuerden 15:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any reason you removed the sentence " Maxwell would also go on to disprove mathematically the nebular hypothesis (which stated that the solar system formed through the progressive condensation of a purely gaseous nebula), which forced the proponents of that theory to account for the additional portions of small solid particles."?

The nebular hypothesis article, which is an FA, makes no mention of Maxwell, which likely means he didn't play a massive role in its development. (I left a reason in the edit summary, but in hindsight, that's not a good place to explain anything.) As a fairly conventional Christian, Maxwell attracts a lot of interest from the more modern Young Earth Creationist movement, which has a lot of rubbish masquerading as science. I didn't much like the idea that he "disproved" what is a fairly accepted theory. I couldn't find much either way, there's this and this, but neither is especially succinct. Neither was my answer :-) James12345 19:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We're nearly there, then. One more citation, and the images need either documented or moved to en-wiki. Adam Cuerden 19:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC) On the images, I've found http://www.clerkmaxwellfoundation.org/html/gallery.html which documents them better than any other site I've yet found. No photographer named, but at least the collection is. Adam Cuerden 21:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added 2 more refs to thermodynamics, so I think it's all sourced now. Maxwell and his wife now has a PD-UK template, but for young maxwell, there's this, whatever it means. I think the engraving is properly tagged already. James12345 19:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You're going to get slaughtered at the FA image check, I fear. For example, "As a work from sometime before 1890, in the public domain." - that's not how British copyright works. But, eh, easiest solution is just to reupload all the images locally, making the problem disappear, since you can just use {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and forget about it.

Still, eh, since they're all alright for use on en-wiki, I'll kick that can towards FAC. ✓ Pass Adam Cuerden 20:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. Before I think about FACs, I need to do a more research and actually read a number of bios. Thanks for the review - definitely worth 4 points (4 points!?) for the Wikicup. James12345 20:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Eh, honestly, it's something I should do anyway. It's useful. =) Adam Cuerden 21:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Natural sciences good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class physics articles
• Top-importance physics articles
• GA-Class physics articles of Top-importance
• GA-Class physics biographies articles
• Physics biographies articles
• GA-Class mathematics articles
• Top-priority mathematics articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Top-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• GA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Scotland articles
• High-importance Scotland articles
• All WikiProject Scotland pages
• GA-Class history of science articles
• Mid-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles
• GA-Class Philosophy articles
• Low-importance Philosophy articles
• GA-Class philosopher articles
• Low-importance philosopher articles
• Philosophers task force articles
• GA-Class energy articles
• Unknown-importance energy articles
• GA-Class electrical engineering articles
• Top-importance electrical engineering articles
• Electrical engineering articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press