This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Midgley Jr. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 18, 2018, May 18, 2023, and May 18, 2024. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
if im correct CFCs are still used in asthma inhalers and are one of the acceptable applications-Ricky(barcode)
Is the ironic death line really necessary? I think it could be worded better.
I'd say that if we wanted to remove the comic slant it would be more appropriate to get rid of the two topics "career" and "aftermath", as though he were some kind of natural disaster. I think they should stay, given the damage he's done to the planet. - Patrick
Do you think anybody at DAYTON laboratories believed they were inventing something that ruined the planet? Give me a break. Maybe we'll find out that the soles of your shoes are spreading poison in 20 years. Shall we call you an instrument of death because of this? -J.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.27.93 ( talk) 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There's one explicit reference (and a few implicit ones) to the "environmental danger of CFCs", but the word "ozone" does not appear in the article. I'm not saying the whole CFCs article needs to be duplicated here, but surely there's somewhere appropriate to insert the phrase "ozone depletion". - Roy
A physics teacher of mine once told us that the work with petrol and lead meant that Midgley was not someone you would want to share a railway carriage with. Any corroboration on this? GraemeLeggett 11:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interesting biographical oddment here, about the catacombs Midgley had built on his estate. 86.143.209.12 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be right to mention his impact on the atmosphere at large? Since both leaded gasoline and chlorofluorocarbons had been invented by this guy, there have been historians quoting that he "had more impact on the atmowphere than another other signle organism" in the history of the world. - 134.71.133.216
They said he was "the one human responsible for more deaths than any other in history", beating Hitler, Stalin and Mao (apparently), due to the impact of leaded petrol and CFCs. -- 81.105.176.121 13:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
He was just part of the problem. What is amazing is that leaded gasoline was allowed at all and then for so long. I can maybe see that there was a time when cars were relatively rare --no one anticipated how big a part of life they would become -- but even so, there were doctors who opposed TEL.
The knowledge of the toxicity of lead is fairly old -- when Wedgewood put it in glazes people even then (late 1700s) were complaining. -- Jrm2007 ( talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I had read that he in fact became disabled due to neurological effects of tetraethyl lead. Never heard the polio thing before. Is there a reference that discusses his contracting polio?-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am a passing reader, a science faculty member, with no strong bias in favor of this man or his life's work. If I have any bias, it would be against the failures in foresight that occurred in industrial and commercial practice that contributed to lead and CFC pollution issues.
That stated, it is nevertheless my opinion that this article on T Midgley, Jr is rife with scholarly issues, which lead to the appearance of sloppiness and potential bias. It therefore, I believe, needs immediate editorial attention.
Issues include [a] factual information without citation (e.g., Synthesis of Freon, paragraph 3), [b] historical information drawn from inappropriate references (Bryson humor volumes being unsuitable sources for biographical writing), [c] principle and over-reliance on sources with clear bias—e.g, drawing "Development of leaded gasoline" from The Nation, self-described "flagship of the left" (source, Wikipedia), where other references with this interpretive direction include Markowitz (6) and Bellows (10), with counter-leaning references absent, [d] citation of clusters of references making it impossible to attribute specific facts to sources (Later life and death, paragraph 2), [e] text relying on a single citation, including where that citation is questionable in relation to content (Sneader's drug discovery chapter, sole source for most of Midgley's role in chlorofluorcarbon refrigerant discovery), and [f] selection of sources without view of their inherent informational/scholarly strength (refs 12-14, in support of the unassailable matter of lead toxicity), perhaps to support a predetermined point.
Apart from the sourcing issues and questions they raise, the article is a poor historical account (in this academic's opinion) because of the failure to report and document when understanding of deleterious impact of the chemical agents discovered by Midgley et al became established (in relation to the research and introduction of the agents), or similarly to clarify the context of dangers associated with industrial production of these materials versus any chemical manufacture in that time period. As well, it fails to engender understanding of the context of the discoveries discussed—why there was a strong demand for anti-knock agents and better refrigerants, to which Midgley et al responded. (It is easy to fall prey to the error of overlaying clear current understandings of scientific matters onto the past, and far more difficult to provide a balanced account of a scientific matter in the past, based on best historical information.)
These missing pieces lead to a seeming superficial presentation, and alongside the clear interpretive leanings imposed by the narrow selection of sources, they lead to an overall appearance of bias in this discussion. I would suggest an immediate strong edit, or redaction of some material and a followup slow edit—both with the aim to provide a balanced and historically informed biography of one who was clearly, in his time, an award winning scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.5.163 ( talk) 17:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This is one of the most distinctly Lefist articles I have stumbled across in the Wikipedia. Its biases are too blatant for even a tolerant individual such as myself to ignore. Midgely's breakthroughs in chemistry and mechanical engineering had a positive effect on the lives of everyone reading this article, yet there is no mention of the good he accomplished. Brothernight ( talk) 18:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Thomas Midgley Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
what is TEL? it is not defined in the article.
"Environmental historian J. R. McNeill opined that Midgley "had more adverse impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history"
Bro literally killed the vibe more than anything 😭😭😭 88.111.95.74 ( talk) 07:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Does he qualify as a candidate? 206.84.252.154 ( talk) 01:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thomas Midgley Jr. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 18, 2018, May 18, 2023, and May 18, 2024. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
if im correct CFCs are still used in asthma inhalers and are one of the acceptable applications-Ricky(barcode)
Is the ironic death line really necessary? I think it could be worded better.
I'd say that if we wanted to remove the comic slant it would be more appropriate to get rid of the two topics "career" and "aftermath", as though he were some kind of natural disaster. I think they should stay, given the damage he's done to the planet. - Patrick
Do you think anybody at DAYTON laboratories believed they were inventing something that ruined the planet? Give me a break. Maybe we'll find out that the soles of your shoes are spreading poison in 20 years. Shall we call you an instrument of death because of this? -J.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.27.93 ( talk) 23:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There's one explicit reference (and a few implicit ones) to the "environmental danger of CFCs", but the word "ozone" does not appear in the article. I'm not saying the whole CFCs article needs to be duplicated here, but surely there's somewhere appropriate to insert the phrase "ozone depletion". - Roy
A physics teacher of mine once told us that the work with petrol and lead meant that Midgley was not someone you would want to share a railway carriage with. Any corroboration on this? GraemeLeggett 11:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Interesting biographical oddment here, about the catacombs Midgley had built on his estate. 86.143.209.12 02:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Would it be right to mention his impact on the atmosphere at large? Since both leaded gasoline and chlorofluorocarbons had been invented by this guy, there have been historians quoting that he "had more impact on the atmowphere than another other signle organism" in the history of the world. - 134.71.133.216
They said he was "the one human responsible for more deaths than any other in history", beating Hitler, Stalin and Mao (apparently), due to the impact of leaded petrol and CFCs. -- 81.105.176.121 13:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
He was just part of the problem. What is amazing is that leaded gasoline was allowed at all and then for so long. I can maybe see that there was a time when cars were relatively rare --no one anticipated how big a part of life they would become -- but even so, there were doctors who opposed TEL.
The knowledge of the toxicity of lead is fairly old -- when Wedgewood put it in glazes people even then (late 1700s) were complaining. -- Jrm2007 ( talk) 23:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I had read that he in fact became disabled due to neurological effects of tetraethyl lead. Never heard the polio thing before. Is there a reference that discusses his contracting polio?-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 19:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I am a passing reader, a science faculty member, with no strong bias in favor of this man or his life's work. If I have any bias, it would be against the failures in foresight that occurred in industrial and commercial practice that contributed to lead and CFC pollution issues.
That stated, it is nevertheless my opinion that this article on T Midgley, Jr is rife with scholarly issues, which lead to the appearance of sloppiness and potential bias. It therefore, I believe, needs immediate editorial attention.
Issues include [a] factual information without citation (e.g., Synthesis of Freon, paragraph 3), [b] historical information drawn from inappropriate references (Bryson humor volumes being unsuitable sources for biographical writing), [c] principle and over-reliance on sources with clear bias—e.g, drawing "Development of leaded gasoline" from The Nation, self-described "flagship of the left" (source, Wikipedia), where other references with this interpretive direction include Markowitz (6) and Bellows (10), with counter-leaning references absent, [d] citation of clusters of references making it impossible to attribute specific facts to sources (Later life and death, paragraph 2), [e] text relying on a single citation, including where that citation is questionable in relation to content (Sneader's drug discovery chapter, sole source for most of Midgley's role in chlorofluorcarbon refrigerant discovery), and [f] selection of sources without view of their inherent informational/scholarly strength (refs 12-14, in support of the unassailable matter of lead toxicity), perhaps to support a predetermined point.
Apart from the sourcing issues and questions they raise, the article is a poor historical account (in this academic's opinion) because of the failure to report and document when understanding of deleterious impact of the chemical agents discovered by Midgley et al became established (in relation to the research and introduction of the agents), or similarly to clarify the context of dangers associated with industrial production of these materials versus any chemical manufacture in that time period. As well, it fails to engender understanding of the context of the discoveries discussed—why there was a strong demand for anti-knock agents and better refrigerants, to which Midgley et al responded. (It is easy to fall prey to the error of overlaying clear current understandings of scientific matters onto the past, and far more difficult to provide a balanced account of a scientific matter in the past, based on best historical information.)
These missing pieces lead to a seeming superficial presentation, and alongside the clear interpretive leanings imposed by the narrow selection of sources, they lead to an overall appearance of bias in this discussion. I would suggest an immediate strong edit, or redaction of some material and a followup slow edit—both with the aim to provide a balanced and historically informed biography of one who was clearly, in his time, an award winning scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.5.163 ( talk) 17:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
This is one of the most distinctly Lefist articles I have stumbled across in the Wikipedia. Its biases are too blatant for even a tolerant individual such as myself to ignore. Midgely's breakthroughs in chemistry and mechanical engineering had a positive effect on the lives of everyone reading this article, yet there is no mention of the good he accomplished. Brothernight ( talk) 18:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Thomas Midgley Jr.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
what is TEL? it is not defined in the article.
"Environmental historian J. R. McNeill opined that Midgley "had more adverse impact on the atmosphere than any other single organism in Earth's history"
Bro literally killed the vibe more than anything 😭😭😭 88.111.95.74 ( talk) 07:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Does he qualify as a candidate? 206.84.252.154 ( talk) 01:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)