Jump to content

Talk:Ernest Rutherford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Discovery of protons and neutrons

Presently, the article states that Rutherford's discovery of the proton ("hydrogen atom") occurred during his time at Cambridge. This page, however, states that this work was performed while at Manchester. It seems to me that the research may have begun at one institution and ended at another. I'm having a hard time deliberating as to how this discrepancy may be noted concisely and whether it is significant to the validity and structure of the article. Doughbo (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Whittaker starts his Vol II<ref name="Whittaker 1989 p.87">{{cite book | last=Whittaker | first=Sir Edmund | title=A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity | publisher=Courier Dover Publications | date=1989-01-01 | isbn=0-486-26126-3 | volume=2 | page=87}}</ref> with a chapter called "The Age of Rutherford".
He says that Rutherford published his idea that the "positive electron" was the "hydrogen atom" 1913-1914 and references the original articles.
Indeed we can read:
Rutherford, Ernest. "The structure of the atom." Philosophical Magazine 27 (1914): 488-498.
http://www.ub.edu/hcub/hfq/sites/default/files/ruth1914%285%29.pdf

It is well known from the experiments of Sir J. J. Thom- son and others, that no positively charged carrier has been observed of mass less than that of the hydrogen atom. The exceedingly small dimensions found for the hydrogen nucleus add weight to the suggestion that the hydrogen nucleus is the positive electron, and that its mass is entirely electro- magnetic in origin.

Therefore the concept that linked the hydrogen nucleus to the unit positive charge dates from 1914. From 1914-1918 Whittaker states that Rutherford was involved in WWI issues. In early 1919 he did a series of experiments pinning down the earlier "suggestion". In particular he showed that particles ejected by alpha particles colliding with hydrogen have unit charge and 1/4 the momentum of alpha particles.
The abstract of one of the key papers is available here:https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786440608635917?journalCode=tphm17
In Summer of 1919 he moved to Cambridge and continued the work. But these experiments were to confirm that alpha particles breakdown Nitrogen nuclei and the nature of the products.
Therefore my conclusion is that the article mixes up the timeline. The proton discovery was in Manchester; the naming came after he was in Cambridge.
HTH Johnjbarton (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC) Johnjbarton (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your illuminating research. I've augmented the article text and cited your sources where appropriate. Doughbo (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NP, hit me up if you run into a similar issue in the area of history of science of light and early QM. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. SilkTork (talk) 08:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ernest Rutherford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 09:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer (the GA Bot doesn't notify nominators when I start a review because of this) - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting an independent copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.

Nominators and interested users are free to response however they wish - inserting responses directly under each point I make is probably the best way, but please do whatever suits you. The thing that can get problematic is if someone other than me ticks off my query points as done and/or crosses out my text. If you have done something, please say so under my query, but allow me to check and make the decision as to if it is done or not - that way I know what I have checked and what I haven't. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

</noinclude>

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:
    B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
    D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?
    A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass
Query
Images - resolved
Like you I suspect that the lead image is OK, however it is not clear, and the issue of licensing was not raised during the featured image discussion: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ernest Rutherford. The licensing from the Library of Congress of "no known copyright restrictions" is vague. Given the picture's age, it is almost impossible that the photographer is still alive, but some countries require an additional 70 years after the death of the author, which is possible. SilkTork (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this to be the photographer. He's long gone, lucky for us (deepest condolences). Doughbo (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After a reverse image search, the third image appears to have originated here, but does not have a watermark in the source. It is likely that the watermark was added for use with Wikipedia by the user. I'm unsure how to verify whether the appropriate permissions were gathered. Doughbo (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. Well, that appears to settle that the image is copyrighted as the page is copyrighted. SilkTork (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removing it from the article. I'm not sure how to request a Commons deletion. Here's the entry (so I don't lose it). Doughbo (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How pertinent are the images toward the end of the article? The stamp, the statue, the grave stone, the blue plaque, and the five title page images. SilkTork (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While the images at the end of the article are not pointedly irrelevant per MOS, I understand the concern. MOS does not give many clear guidelines on image relevance, so I elected to compare the article to other GAs or FAs. Commemorative artworks and memorabilia appear to be commonplace and accepted as enriching towards the article content. See example.
    I do think the five title page images could be done without. They are not really present in other GA examples and I will probably remove them, unless further discussion occurs. Doughbo (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed title pages Doughbo (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Decided to get rid of the plaque and the stamp. Keeping the statue. Doughbo (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks more organised and professional with the removal of so many of those unnecessary images. Well done. I still have some quibbles - though these are not deal breakers, just observances to be discussed. We have three images of Rutherford, one after the other, in the first part of the article. All show the same profile, and he looks the same in each image, except for normal aging. As such, do we actually need three images to show us what he looked like? The second image in placed in Early life, but pushes into Scientific career and is placed opposite the lead infobox, and so squeezes the text. These are things that MOS guides against - MOS:LAYIM, MOS:IMAGELOC, MOS:SANDWICH. My feeling is that one of the three images should be removed, so we are left with the lead image, and one image from when he was younger so people can note that he had established his appearance early on, and didn't change it. That younger image would be better placed in the Scientific career section where there is more room, and aligned to the right as recommended by MOS. SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the third image and placed the second image in Scientific Career, right-aligned. Doughbo (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure of the value of the image of Lord Rutherford's grave, and its size and shape is distracting - it pushes out of its section, and having two images of different shape in close proximity is awkward. SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Doughbo (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the image of the statue. However, it doesn't give much of a sense of its size or location. Indeed, it could be a giant statue overlooking some trees. There is another one of the statue, but it's a bit murky, so I've uploaded a cleaner one, cropped from the larger image: File:Brightwater Rutherford Monument 004 crop.jpg. What do you think? SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the angle and lighting on the image already present are a bit prettier. Some of the background structures are also comparatively unsightly and detract from the statue itself. I would prefer to keep the existing image. Doughbo (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not finished reading (just skimming though), so I may have more to say on the writing, however, at this point, I am noting short paragraphs and sections, which inhibit flow of reading, coupled with poorly presented information: "Ernest Rutherford was the son of James Rutherford, a farmer, and his wife Martha Thompson, originally from Hornchurch, Essex, England. James had emigrated to New Zealand from Perth, Scotland, "to raise a little flax and a lot of children". Ernest was born at Brightwater, near Nelson, New Zealand. His first name was mistakenly spelled 'Earnest' when his birth was registered. Rutherford's mother Martha Thompson was a schoolteacher." (this could be presented as "Ernest Rutherford was born at Brightwater, near Nelson, New Zealand, to James Rutherford, a farmer, and his wife Martha Thompson, a schoolteacher....") a presentation that reads like bullet points or notes toward an essay - such as the McGill years section with successive paragraphs starting "In 1903,"; "In 1903,"; "In 1904,"; "In 1904,". There are obscure sentences such as "Rutherford was accepted, which meant that in 1900 he could marry his fiancé of two years, Mary Georgina Newton (1876–1954)". The reason why the acceptance meant he could marry is left unstated, so the reader has to make an assumption. SilkTork (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've begun to make changes for readability, particularly in the first half of the article, keeping in mind your suggestions. Feel free to check the article history for a detailed account of my revisions. Doughbo (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've finished my initial round of changes for readability, added probably over a dozen citations, and removed others where necessary. Doughbo (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking again at the lead section, I think it does a poor job of summarizing and merely includes information which would read better within the biographical sections. I'll likely move over several of these statements and reword them in a more succinct way within the lead. Doughbo (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Finished cleaning up the lead. Doughbo (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focus. There are some items such as a section of the coat of arms, and a section on buildings named Rutherford, which appear undue. SilkTork (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These sections are undue in the context of scientific achievement, yes, but to remove them might risk stepping on some toes. Rutherford was extremely involved in British institutions and these items appear to be of importance to several Wikiprojects which have fostered the article's development. It's not uncommon to see these items displayed for members of the British gentry, particularly in Rutherford's era.
    I am not personally invested in such topics but do believe they are important to certain communities and networks across the site. Doughbo (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading the lower comments I did remove the coat of arms in particular. Another comment has been left regarding further miscellany. Doughbo (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Fail
  • There are a good number of statements unsourced, and once such statement has been tagged. This is grounds for a quick fail, though I will finish the review to see how much work the article needs. SilkTork (talk) 10:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added two citations to the flagged paragraph. I will continue to research unsourced material and revise as needed. Doughbo (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs to comply with WP:LEAD and be an overview of the article. A rough rule of thumb is that all major sections should be summarised in the lead. And that the lead should not contain anything that is not detailed in the main body. Essentially, the lead is a mini article. It is a quick guide to all the essential information about Rutherford. If people want more, they can read the appropriate sections in the article, or the entire article if they wish (very few people read the entire article, most only read the lead and the section they are most interested in). A general rule of thumb is that there will be four paragraphs. The first paragraph gives the absolute essential information - name, dates, and why the person is notable. Second and third paragraphs of a biography generally give biographical details in chronological order alongside a summary of the most important developments in that person's life. The final paragraph generally sums up awards and achievements. Generally I pass the lead last of all because a lead may change during a GA review as the article changes in response to the requirements of the review. However, it's worth getting to work on the principles of the lead as early as possible. Get the shape right, and then it's only a matter of tinkering. SilkTork (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've coerced the lead to a four-paragraph structure as requested. I believe the only section not represented therein is "Early Life and Education," in which I did not find anything considerably notable. I've checked to be sure that all of his major accomplishments are summarized, but if you find anything missing, let me know. Doughbo (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well done on putting the lead into four paragraphs. At the moment I'm not seeing a relationship between the lead and the structure of the article. For example - the article has placed Rutherford's life into Cambridge years, McGill years, Manchester years, etc. How do these years relate to the info in the lead? If the term "Manchester years" is significant, I would expect Manchester to be mentioned in the lead - either that or name that section something more appropriate, or merge it with another section. I'm not really getting from the lead the sense of Rutherford's biography. "Rutherford's discoveries include the concept of radioactive half-life..." in the second paragraph is a summary statement I would expect either in the first or last paragraph, not as an introduction to what is commonly the biographical section. See Edward Wright (mathematician), Rod Steiger, Elvis Presley, J. Robert Oppenheimer, etc, as examples of setting out the lead. SilkTork (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the last paragraph of the lead it is common to include a summary of notable honours, achievements, legacy, etc. Material from Later years and honours could be used to help build that. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

  • Items named in honour of Rutherford's life and work. How relevant/important is this section? Which is mostly unsourced anyway. SilkTork (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The scientific entries definitely appear to be relevant, but could be folded into another section. The rest of the entries vary in relevance (lower: elementary schools, small landmarks; high: specific prizes and products).
    Most of the "high" relevance entries have their own Wikipedia pages. Do you think it is appropriate to have their namesake article link to these pages? I think maybe not, but they don't strictly seem to be irrelevant either. I agree that it might be a good idea to pare them down for the sake of focus. Doughbo (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OOS affirms the idea that article contents should be very general, to avoid the loss of relevant information. All the information seems to be of "medium" relevance under WP:REL, however, just about every item already has or belongs to a separate page. IMO, the section is redundant. I'm going to remove it. Doughbo (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was awarded an MA in Mathematics and Physical Science from the Canterbury College in 1893 and received a BSc from the same institution in 1894." Would you check that. It would be unusual to be awarded a Masters degree before being awarded a Bachelor degree. And also unusual to be given an art degree for a science subject. SilkTork (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This source, though old, provides more details: Rutherford By A. S. Eve. He acquired a complex B.A in Latin, English, Maths, etc in 1892. A year later he got an M.A. in Maths and Science. And then in his fifth year at Canterbury he got his B.Sc. So your statement is correct, but misses out his first degree. SilkTork (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a better source which also lists his BSc. The article has been amended. Doughbo (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pass/Hold/Fail

  • Wider reading will be needed to deal with broad coverage, original research, fair representation, etc. Meanwhile I'm putting the review on hold in order for the matters regarding appropriate sourcing, prose, and focus to be dealt with. The hold is for a nominal seven days, though I'm always happy to extend the hold as long as productive work is being done, and it appears the work can be done in a reasonable time. SilkTork (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're doing good work. Give me a ping when you feel the prose and lead have been tightened, and the sourcing has improved to GA level, and I'll resume the review. SilkTork (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still seeing a fair number of short sections and short paragraphs, some containing only one sentence. I'm also still seeing bullet notes, rather than developed paragraphs - In 1903 - In 1903 - In 1904 - In 1904. If the paragraph is leading with "In 1903", one assumes that the information in that paragraph will be about what happened in that year - so why do we have a following paragraph which starts with the same year? In the section named McGill years, it may help to start with something like: "From 1898 to 1906 Rutherford was a professor of physics at McGill University in Montreal, Canada; a position found for him by Thomson who had agreed to swap Rutherford for another academic from McGill as his assistant. During his time at McGill he worked with Soddy on thorium, and with Owens he discovered the principle of half-life...." Having set up what the section is going to be about (his time at McGill, and the work and discoveries he made there), it will be easier to organise that section. Then in the article lead you can use a shortened version of the lead paragraph of that section - "From 1898 to 1906 Rutherford was a professor of physics at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, where he discovered the principle of half-life with Owens, and worked with Soddy on thorium...". Give me a ping when the article is more organised, and I'll do the background research needed to complete the review. SilkTork (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my opinion that several discoveries, which might have been made in the same year, are better separated into their own paragraph than consolidated by timeframe. This is for clarity and distinction of thought. In this case, I see no problem in leading with the year as it provides an easily-referenced timeframe. I previously experimented with sentence structures stating the year later in the object and found that this negatively impacted readability.
    I will work on building out or consolidating some stubby paragraphs.
    Will also work on including more information in the lead. Doughbo (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The section Scientific career is no longer subdivided by his various tenures. Headings are instead noted per his research areas and discoveries. Fortunately, this scale is quite consistent along a linear timeframe. I also think these titles are better for most readers since the historical focus on this individual will regard his discoveries higher than his institutional connections. Doughbo (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article still needs a copyedit as prose needs tightening in order to assist presentation of information. If you don't feel able to copyedit yourself, then it may be time to ask for assistance.
  • There are sources, though citing needs tightening to reassure readers that information is accurate (move cites nearer to the statements they are supporting), and where possible secondary sources should replace tertiary sources. Tertiary sources (encyclopedias) are allowed, though those sources are getting their information from secondary sources, so it is worth looking for those secondary sources (which would provide greater detail).
  • The lead is still problematic. See my above comments on how to get the lead to follow the guidance in WP:Lead.
  • Though I feel the article is by and large neutral, there are some unsupported statements such as "Rutherford continued to make ground breaking discoveries long after receiving the Nobel prize in 1908" which feel like fancruft.
  • I'm not seeing evidence for original research - I'd prefer closer citation, and better quality sources, but checks on information in the article are supported by sources.
  • In my reading so far I've not noticed major areas in coverage.
  • My concerns remain the prose, the presentation of information, the lead, and secure citing. My recommendation is that the article is given a serious copyedit by one or more experienced editors, and that some further research is done in order to give backbone and depth to what is here. Research in specialist books on Rutherford rather than general encyclopaedias. I've looked back at the history of the article, and there are few authors who have really taken responsibility for it and developed it. And it is essentially the same now as it was back in 2011. However, it might be worth approaching User:Billyshiverstick, who has done some recent editing on the article, and User:Dirac66, User:Sbharris, and User:Chris55 who have made significant contributions over the years. It is also worth asking for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors and at the WikiProjects listed on the talkpage. I am interested in the topic and am willing to help out, though my time is limited right now so I may not be able to do much in a short space of time. Given the slow development so far, it might well be best to fail this GAN, develop the article over the next few months (and I'll help), and then resubmit. However, I'm also prepared to keep the review open if progress is being made. SilkTork (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stumbled across this article and I agree this should be heavily revised and resubmitted. I don't see a single biography on Rutherford cited more than once... an instant fail alone in that regard. The reliance on primary sources and The Nobel Prize website (??) is equally as revealing. Aza24 (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I've done my best for this article, but you're right that I lack the experience necessary to fit the article to some of the finer criteria. Let's contact some more experienced copyeditors and proceed with another GA review later on, as you suggested. I'll continue to pitch in where I can, but will need others with the time and resources to look into specialist books. Doughbo (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll close this review, and give some help with working on the article toward a future GAN. SilkTork (talk) 08:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dismissal of practical use of nuclear energy

Shouldn't Rutherford's famous dismissal of the practical use of nuclear energy in 1933 be included in the article? It reportedly inspired Szilard to come up with his theory of a nuclear chain reaction. 90.143.21.126 (talk) 11:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged doctoral student supervision

Greetings.

A recurring theme on the pages of Nazir Ahmed, Daulat Singh Kothari and Rafi Muhammad Chaudhry are the claims they studied under Ernest Rutherford.

  1. The claim for Ahmed is definitely unsupported by what-was allegedly the reference that claimed he studied under Rutherford ("apparently at the University of Manchester").
  2. For Muhammed Chaudry, we are given an incredibly simple website that provides no citations and makes a similar claim. How is this proof?
  3. For Kothari, I could not find any evidence he was supervised by Rutherford.
* I did find that he had a PhD from a PRS paper, but this paper actually suggests he was supervised by Meghanad Saha (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rspa.1937.0200), who communicated/vouched for his work.
* I encourage readers to also view this critique of one of Kothari's later papers *at the time he published it* https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.1655874
In my view, this type of work would not have met the expectations of Lord Rutherford.

In short, I continually find these names listed under Lord Rutherford, who is now stated as among the greatest scientists of all time, and yet each of these individuals' pages does not provide any adequate citation or evidence that they were indeed supervised by him.

To me, it seems politically motivated to keep these names on the list. There is no proof. The supplied proof is far from what we accept for other pages, why are they deemed acceptable here?

We require a very high bar to modify influences on scientists like Isaac Newton or Archimedes, so why aren't the same stringent criteria being applied to individuals allegedly supervised by Rutherford?

If this is all true, surely there's a wikipedian at Cambridge or the-likes who can provide us with the citation cards.

This question has been asked before Talk:Ernest_Rutherford/Archive_1#Doctoral_Students and no one had an answer. What is going on? 172.219.6.108 (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: Rafi Muhammad Chaudhry
---
"Concrete Quarks" George Zweig
"All told, eleven of Rutherford's students, collaborators, and members of his laboratory went on to receive the Nobel Prize in Physics or Chemistry. Many more made remarkable but less recognized contributions. Rafi Muhammad Chaudhry went on to pioneer experimental nuclear physics in Pakistan, and with his student Mustafa Yar Khan, founded Pakistan's successful nuclear weapons program."
Status Of Theoretical Understanding And Of Experimental Power For Lhc Physics And Beyond - 50th Anniversary Celebration Of The Quark - Proceedings Of The International School Of Subnuclear Physics. Singapore, World Scientific Publishing Company, 2016.
--- Johnjbarton (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also confirmed by:
Mahaffey, James. Atomic Adventures. United States, Pegasus Books, 2017.
Here is an online link the Zweig's chapter.
https://www.epj-conferences.org/articles/epjconf/pdf/2014/08/epjconf_icnfp2013_00146.pdf Johnjbarton (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The critique of Daulat Singh Kothari is completely bogus. The title of the linked article is "Comments on the Paper ``Grain Growth during Sintering of Tungsten" It concerns a paper by NC Kothari in 1967. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cantor, Geoffrey. “The Making of a British Theoretical Physicist: E. C. Stoner’s Early Career.” The British Journal for the History of Science, vol. 27, no. 3, 1994, pp. 277–90. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4027599. Accessed 27 Aug. 2023.
Places Nazir Ahmed (physicist) in Rutherfords group. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, based on reliable sources, this claim that these eminent Pakistani nuclear scientist did not get their PhD with Rutherford is completely unfounded.
I am puzzled, based on the evidence that I found easily, what motivated this bogus claim?
Johnjbarton (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of the original poster: "seems politically motivated". I'd bet this unregistered account is an experienced user seeking to mask their islamophobia. Doughbo (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A recent edit on Nazir Ahmed (physicist) from the same account has the edit summary:
(he wasn't pakistani either, just fyi. he ran with us for 25 years, so he's one of us. he's not one of them. pakistan's existence came at our expense and a broken promise) Johnjbarton (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We now have sources showing that these three people got Cambridge PhDs and worked with Rutherford. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I admit error on Kothari. I didn't pay attention to the first initials.
Secondly, your claims about Ahmed are not supported by any WP:RS. Pegasus books? is that a joke?
The claim about Ahmed being supervised by Rutherford are allegedly in the "The Making of a British Theoretical Physicist: E. C. Stoner’s Early Career." is incorrect. The passage which you cunningly refer to as evidence is this:

It is significant that his closest friend at the Cavendish was another outsider, a Muslim student from India named Nazir Ahmad, who likewise felt neglected by Rutherford and his inner circle.

However the beginning of this passage merely states the person-of-interest, Stoner, was at Cambridge. So all this does is place Ahmed at Cavendish but it does not support any claim that he was supervised by Rutherford.
The Zweig source merely shows that Chaudhury was apart of the research group. It is established practice in Wikipedia that being in specific individual's research group does *not* constitute supervision. So, this would be "other students"
So correct me if I am wrong, you have not provided any reliable sources refuting my claims. You merely provided secondary sources, none of which conclusively state they were his students. What they state is that
  1. Chaudhury was a part of the same research group as Rutherford
  2. Ahmed was a member of the Cavendish laboratory at the same time as Stoner
  3. Kothari miraculously remains unaddressed because apparently my request for real evidence is founded by politics.
It is YOUR job to show they were his students. the easiest way to do that is to pull the theses from the archives. the fact no one has proves they were not SUPERVISED by rutherford.
edit: I have done some more reading on E.C. Stoner. The source you provided suggests he was supervised by Rutherford, but I am not sure if that was the case. I know that your source does say Rutherford and Wilson were his co-supervisors. Anyways, I did follow some of that material which lead me to this:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rspa.1924.0050
but, this merely suggests that Ahmad and E.C. Stoner worked in the laboratory together, closely.
This is also supported by the source you are mainly relying on for Ahmad.
If we are to use inference, [b]then Stoner went on to complete his thesis shortly after the publication I've shared (Early 1924), with Rutherford as his examiner (September 1924). So, we could probably add this to Stoner and Rutherford's infobox.[/b]
That is a nice addition on your part, but we cannot infer something similar for Nazir Ahmad. It does move the goalposts, yes, but now Ahmad is in the category as Chaudhry, where you can say they were in the research group but not directly supervised by Rutherford. Kothari also needs support.
edit2: Again, more digging. This time I found something by Chadwick[1] that I thought you would try to use as a weapon. Specifically Chadwick stated

We naturally speculated about the properties of the new nucleus formed in this way, and Rutherford suggested, taking up an idea he had had in Montreal, that the new nucleus might be unstable and so radioactive. This idea was tested by Shenstone, who looked for the emission of heavy particles which might produce scintillations, and by Ahmad, who looked for the emission of any radiation by an ionization method.

So, naturally, being who I am[2], I looked further.
I ended up at Shenstone's memoir because I figured if I can show he wasn't a student of Rutherford's, in spite of investigating an idea spitballed by Da Baron, then you could not use this as an argument to support supervision for Ahmad.
Indeed the memoir[3] conclusively states that while Shenstone intended to do research under Sir J.J, it never materialised because of the war, and Sir J.J. had retired and been replaced by Da Baron.
so my argument is getting stronger. I am NOT disputing that Kothari, Chaudhry or Ahmad were members of Rutherford's research group. I am arguing they were NOT supervised by him. It is one thing to investigate a few phenomena under recommendation of a principal investigator, and entirely another to be supervised by such a figure. I think Stoner's case is an eye-opener into this.
If someone at Cambridge wasn't lazy, we'd have the answer by now. As it stands it looks like we'd have to do some digging in Stoner's archives to better understand the relationship between himself and Ahmad, hoping this secondary source verifies supervision.
All you have is membership of a research group for Ahmad and Chaudhry, and nothing but (correctly) stated I was wrong about the author whom I thought was Kothari. I would appreciate that you do some deep research and come back with similar sources to the ones I've provided. No pegasus book crap.
edit3: it is EXTREMELY likely Kothari was supervised by Meghanad Saha, MAYBE Wilson, which would not be unusual given Wilson's prominence in both the memoirs for Stoner and Shenstone."a-one punch, a-two punch, a three-punch for Doughbo". doi:10.1017/S0305004100023033. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)</ref>[4][5]
found the knock-out punch. Kothari must be removed, in his own words for the Memoir for Saha:

Amongst his earliest associates in research mention may be made of P. K. Kichlu (now Professor of Physics in the Delhi University), K. Majumdar and N. K. Sur. The Department attracted students from all over India. R. G. Majumdar, now Professor of Physics in the Delhi University, S. Basu, the present Director-General of the Department of Meteorology, and D. S. Kothari were Saha’s students at Allahabad

[6]
what's my name Dougie? YOU KNOW MY NAME.
172.219.6.108 (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have used the reference https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rspa.1937.0200 to update Daulat Singh Kothari with information on his PhD. That page already points to his MS work with Saha in Allahabad University. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Nazir Amhed:
"University of the Punjab - Science". pu.edu.pk. Retrieved 15 September 2023. The expedition included Professor James Martin Benade (Professor of Physics at Forman Christian College Lahore) and Dr. Nazir Ahmad (a PhD student of Ernest Rutherford at Cambridge who later on became the First Chairman of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission in 1956).
http://pu.edu.pk/home/department/55/Department-of-Physics Johnjbarton (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted the Cambridge University Library and they provided information on the PhD year and thesis title for the three people discussed here. I have updated the corresponding pages with the now referenced material. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
none of what User:Johnjbarton states satisfies the WP criteria of evidence of supervision by Ernest Rutherford. what they do demonstrate, is that these individuals graduated from Cambridge. as i stated at the beginning i don't care, or dispute, they were members of the Cavendish Laboratory (kothari's case seems difficult to make).
i'm betting that ahmed and chaudry were probably supervised by Wilson or the likes, and kothari probably milne or fowler. these aren't bad names to be under, but they are not Ernest Rutherford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.6.108 (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Kothari:
"He went to Cavendish Laboratory on a U.P. Government fellowship in 1930 and worked with Ernest Rutherford, P Kapitza, and R H Fowler"
Roy, A. Daulat Singh Kothari (1906–1993). Reson 25, 1179–1184 (2020). https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s12045-020-1037-4 Johnjbarton (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Chaudhri:
"The development of research in Physics started in 1948 with the immigration of Prof. Rafi. M. Chaudhri to Pakistan. He was a well known Atomic/Nuclear Physicist and a student of Rutherford at the Cavendish Laboratory of the University of Cambridge, U.K. He did his Ph.D under supervision in 1932."
Page 37:
Khan, H. A., Qurashi, M. M., Hussain, E. T., & Hayee, M. I. (2006). Physics in Developing Countries: Past, Present and Future. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i'm sorry, a website from pakistan and another source (all of whom are pakistani) are not enough evidence. why not just get the info from the theses themselves and get this over with? i also find it comical that you deliberately omit the publisher of "Physics in Developing Countries: Past, Present and Future.", also pakistani. what an absolute joke.
so, as far as i can see, aside from your theft of my sources (you're welcome), you have provided three theses cards (my idea, you're welcome, alleged "nuclear physicist") that demonstrate they graduated from cambridge.
that's as far as those cards go. they do not support anything more than that. you should now provide more information.
for ahmad and chaudri, you rely on sources from pakistan.
i am sorry but that's not going to fly here. not for this calibre of supervisor. you should know better than that. they are not WP:RS, and that's what is required here. the best thing to do is to get the first few pages of each thesis to establish your claim (you're welcome, helping you out again.)
barton is using a source equivalent to this one: https://www.amazingpakistanis.com/dr-rafi-muhammad-chauhdry.html and claiming it's WP:RS. it's not. amazing pakistanis lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.6.108 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

new topic for readability, continuing the topic above (supervision of ahmad, chaudrhI and kothari

unlike john, i am committed to an impartial assessment of the alleged students-in-question. i have shown that, no one can question my dedication to the truth and facts. i started out with a gut feeling, yes, but then i went and consulted the sources [i]fairly[/i] and with a level of diligence far above User:Johnjbarton.

if i really had an axe to grind, why did i share additional information about Ahmad that john could not? it did not help my case at all, did it? so, why?

further to this point, if i really had an agenda, why would i share these two articles authored by chaudrhI (notice his name is spelled with an I, not a Y? big difference on google search) communicated by Da Baron?[7][8]

both are communicated by Da Baron, again which do not help my case at all.

  • conversely, a paper authored by Shenstone, also communicated by Da Baron,[9] shows that being in Da Baron's laboratory does not, in itself, establish supervision.
  • Ahmad and Stoner was also communicated by Da Baron, so this does not establish anything (just using it as an example.
  • Shenstone's case is a little more obvious, however this is why i keep insisting upon the theses cover pages because it's not unreasonable (at all) to think ChaudrhI and Ahmad were members of the laboratory and supervised by someone else (my bet is Milne for Kothari, not sure about the other two, but it could easily be Lennard Jones or Fowler)

i think what's being lost here, in spite of my innumerable efforts to emphasise it: [b] i never disputed these individuals studied at cambridge or cavendish laboratory[/b]. however, as i have repeated time and time again, these two criteria:

  1. receiving a PhD at cambridge
  2. studying in the group of Da Baron

[b] do not imply [/b] they were doctoral students supervised by Da baron. why is the example of Allen Shenstone, in this particular case, being overlooked? Shenstone wou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.219.6.108 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "I'm being lazy. Punch Doughbo in the face (the DOI is legit)". doi:10.1098/rspa.1954.0171. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ someone who you clearly underestimated with the poor sourcing, obviously; are you sure you are proficient in the arts you claim to be, John? Just asking questions.)
  3. ^ "A second pow in Doughbo's kisser, to make sure he understands 'just because they keep your lights on, doesn't mean they are Our Light'". doi:10.1098/rsbm.1981.0020. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. ^ "a-two punch, a-three punch for dougie, a-four". doi:10.1098/rspa.1941.0049. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  5. ^ "a-three punch, a-four punch for Dougie, a-five". doi:10.1098/rspa.1942.0048. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. ^ Kothari, Daulat Singh (1 Feb 1960). "Meghnad Saha, 1893-1956". Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society. doi:10.1098/rsbm.1960.0017.
  7. ^ . doi:10.1098/rspa.1933.0125. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. ^ . doi:10.1098/rspa.1932.0162. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. ^ . doi:10.1098/rsta.1936.0002. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

The section concerning the re-evaluation of the transmutation credit is factually correct in that Rutherford saw long-range protons from which he understood that there was a disintegration of the nitrogen nucleus. And it is the case that Patrick Blackett was the first to understand the details of the nuclear reaction from cloud chamber photographs. But as written, it suggests that Rutherford had no input into Blackett's finding at all. In fact, the idea to look for the reaction in cloud chambers was Rutherford's. Rutherford, as head of the Clarendon, has come up with the idea and the project has been first assigned to a Japanese physicist Shimuzu before Blackett even started work in the Clarendon. Shimuzu developed parts of the apparatus, before unexpectedly having to return to Japan. Blackett took over the project and used some of Shimuzu's apparatus.

This is well documented in Blackett's own words (Rutherford Memorial Lecture 1958 PMS Blackett Proc. Royal Society Volume 251 A (1959) 293). Blackett's publication of the cloud chamber results also indicates that it was done at Rutherford's suggestion and he assisted with help and advice in its execution (Proc. Royal Society Volume 107 A (1924) 349). Given the words that Blackett uses in his Memorial Lecture, one might guess that he would be uncomfortable with the entire credit being allocated to him.

It would therefore seem appropriate to acknowledge Rutherford's influence in this work and I recommend adding the following words in CAPITALS to this sentence:

"Beginning in 2017, many scientific institutions corrected their versions of this history to indicate that the discovery credit for the reaction belongs to Patrick Blackett - ALTHOUGH BLACKETT UNDERTOOK THIS RESEARCH AT RUTHERFORD'S SUGGESTION AND BENEFITTED FROM HIS HELP AND ADVICE." 2001:1458:204:1:0:0:101:2289 (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: All caps is not allowed per MOS:ALLCAPS. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: per MOS:ALLCAPS. M.Bitton (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that what editor 2001:1458:204:1:0:0:101:2289 meant was "I recommend adding the following words WHICH I HAVE PLACED in CAPITALS to this sentence." I don't think he actually meant to use ALLCAPS in the article. The edit seems constructive if the capitals are removed. So I have gone ahead and added a slightly shortened version to the article, but NOT in capitals. Dirac66 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

New Zealand Physicist to Kiwi Physicist 49.207.195.125 (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, not happening. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does New Zealand have a peerage?

In the 3rd lead paragraph, it states: "Rutherford was recognised as a baron in the peerages of New Zealand and Britain." Does New Zealand have a peerage? At the time, Rutherford's peerage gave him a right to sit in the British House of Lords, but did it give him any rights in New Zealand? Note that there's nothing stopping a British peerage from having a name drawn from outside the territory, to commemorate the reason for awarding the peerage, but that doesn't mean that there is a separate peerage for that country. For example, General Byng was ennobled as Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy for leading the Canadian and British troops in the Battle of Vimy in France in WWI; that didn't make him a French peer. Arthur Wellesey was given the British titles of "Viscount Wellington of Talavera, and of Wellington in the County of Somerset" and "Marquess Douro". Talavera is in Spain and River Douro is in Portugal, but these were British peerages, not Spanish or Portugese. The fact that Rutherford was given the title of "Baron Rutherford of Nelson", with Nelson being the town close to his birthplace, doesn't make it a NZ peerage, does it? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to match the refs, which is all we can do. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life - Manchester

Whilst working at Victoria University of Manchester, Rutherford lived in the Withington district of Manchester, close to many other eminent academics. Both the University building in which he worked, and his home have a Blue Plaques reflecting his presence in the area. Source https://sebastienfritsch.wixsite.com/ernestrutherford150/manchester?lang=en Philip5dw (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Famous quote timeline

In this edit, @TenzilKem moved a famous quote that includes "It was almost as incredible as if you fired a 15-inch shell at a piece of tissue paper and it came back and hit you." from 1921 when Rutherford reportedly said this, to 1911 when the event he was discussing occured. He didn't say it in 1911.

The detailed history of Rutherford's work for the 1911 paper says about Marsden's result:

  • "But though surprised and perhaps even puzzled, Rutherford could hardly have been as flabbergasted at the positive outcome of Marsden's enquiry as his later hyperbolical accounts of the episode implied."
  • Heilbron, John L. “The Scattering of α and β Particles and Rutherford’s Atom.” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, vol. 4, no. 4, 1968, pp. 247–307. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41133273. Accessed 19 July 2024.

Thus the quote is not even characteristic of the time described. It was reflection.

I think the quote should be left in 1921 and context should be added to clarify that it was retrospective of the 1908 work. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left the quote in 1908 but change the context a bit. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I read your text now, it doesn't actually say when he said these words - 1908 or 1921 or some other time. If it is true that we actually don't know, then perhaps it is best not to say. Dirac66 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Andrade source says "In one of the last lectures that Rutherford ever gave,...". Heilbronn says "In retrospect..." I wrote "Years later..." Johnjbarton (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! So instead of "Years later Rutherford was quoted as saying", I suggest "In one of his last lectures, Rutherford said ..." Dirac66 (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I did that, but it assume the reader recognizes that his last lecture was not in 1908. Johnjbarton (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving my edit. TenzilKem (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the quotation has no relevance to the ideas about solving the problem of unaccounted-for mass in the 1921 section. The clarification on the timing of it covers the issue as it stands now. TenzilKem (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting that and fixing it! Johnjbarton (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transmutation myth section.

I replaced section that tried -- unsuccessfully in my opinion -- to describe how some history websites incorrectly gave Rutherford credit for showing that

14N + α → 17O + p.

Rutherford showed the proton emerged but not the oxygen. (Blackett did that 5 years later). According to Steven B. Krivit on his own site the history sites were fixed when Krivit complained.

Rutherford did not create a myth so it's not directly relevant to his bio. The old section had no references to support the story, not even Krivit. Rather than repair the content I replaced it with a description of the work by Rutherford and Blackett with refs. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected edit request on 24 August 2024

Second line, replace Rutherford with He. Should look like “He has been described as "the father of nuclear physics", and "the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday" 2603:8080:D03:89D4:4978:A625:B69B:869E (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ttwaring (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

legacy

No mention of him appearing on the nz bank note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_one_hundred-dollar_note 118.93.154.96 (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I have now added a sentence, with a link to the article on the bank note for more details. Dirac66 (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To this day

The article cites a web site that cites

  • Nobel Lectures, Chemistry 1901-1921, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1966

for this sentence:

  • "The resulting Rutherford–Bohr model was the basis for quantum mechanical atomic physics of Heisenberg which remains valid today."

In my opinion this does not reflect the modern understanding of the history of the atom. The Rutherford–Bohr model was an Old Quantum theory model completely revolutionized by Heisenberg and especially Schrodinger. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ernest_Rutherford&oldid=1267824971"