Talk:Michael Faraday/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

LOST?

Seems as if the writers of the hit show on ABC, Lost, created the character Daniel Faraday with this important historical figure in mind. Was just wondering if there should be some brief mention of this at the bottom of this page and the connections of the ideas of electromagnetism and religion to the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.28.80 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

--I stumbled across this page and thought the same thing. There should be a mention to his somewhere in the article. Savre (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Misc

Seems to have been slightly vandalized? Look for the word 'cheese'. 83.147.187.157 11:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this a typo, or is there something really neat about a 'nbote' that I don't know about? Hey - it's a science article and I'm an art historian, but I *tend* to understand these things up to about 1900.

'After he sent Humphrey Davy a sample of nbote that he had made'

No, It's note. I actually typed that line ages back, and the typo slipped through. - look at the keyboard... -- {{Malcolm Farmer]]

Don't be silly! There is no such verb as 'to apprentice'.

---

i seem to faraday was a 'mathematical illiterate' which was mentioned to me by some professors at one time or another to teach, i suppose, that knowledge is not limited to the way it is taught from a textbook. perhaps this could be researched and added, if true.

---

I added a note to that effect, based on Silvanus Thompson, “Michael Faraday, His Life and Work”, 1901, reprinted 2005, which says "he who had never had any schooling beyond the common school of his parish had not advanced beyond the simplest algebra in his mastery over symbolic reasoning. Several times in his :”Experimental Researches” he deplores what he termed “my imperfect mathematical knowledge.” …Certainly it is that he went through the whole of his magnificent researches without once using even a sine or cosine, or anything more recondite than the simple rule- of -three.”" The biography by Hamilton, 2002, agrees, saying "despite his great talent for sciences, mathematics always evaded him (p28).” and "P132” ..Faraday had no real talent for mathematics”. Part of the problem is that he did not receive an advanced education as a young man, but there likely was a lack of aptitude for advanced mathematics. He expressed his regret for his limited math in his "Experimental Researches," and he ceretainly cannot be accused of intellectual laziness. I think he would have mastered algebra trigonometry and calculus had he been able, since he learned many complex subjects. Yet he out-theorized his mathematical superiors such as Gauss in his researches on electromagnetism, and devised laws of electromagnetics which Maxwell said agreed completely with his own mathematical laws. He may have been dyslexic, and used a mental picture or physical reasoning, like Edison. Edison 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

The phrase 'mathematical illiterate' seems to carry a negative connotation, although your teacher probably did not intend it that way, that is probably not appropriate, although the point about textbooks is well made. It is unlikely to be literally true. He seems to have a good grasp of geometry, for instance. Faraday's experimental work was outstanding, and this may obscure some of the important abstractions that he pioneered, such as lines of force. Apparently, one of his great gifts was an ability to convey important concepts in clear terms to laymen. He was also embedded in a very strong class system, and he probably found it advantageous to play to the prevailing predjudices that existed. Richard Feynman comes to mind as a possible modern exemplar of these traits.

Could somebody just write a summary of What Faraday did in his life that was important. Thank You.

Says here, "he lacked a good background in mathematics." 'Here' being "The 100" by Michael H. Hart. Brutannica 01:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

--

The second sentence in the paragraph beginning with "In 1845" seems way too complex a sentence for an article of this nature. Also, why isn't there anything in here about the Bunsen burner when it's mentioned in the first sentence?

I also find it odd no one mentioned much about his chemistry work... it could probably use more about that from someone more adept at chemistry than I am. Brutannica 01:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to an informal rule concocted by Dandrake at the Galileo Galilei talk page, someone needs to back up the Bunsen burner reference in the intro or delete it. I don't want to delete it, so can ANYONE WHO'S READING THIS PLEASE TAKE NOTE? Brutannica 03:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--- It is misleading to call electricity an energy source. Its only a source at the point of delivery. Its a means of transmitting energy from a true source to another point. I have changed this wording . Lumos3 13:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have a house with a very old doorbell labeled Faraday. Is there any connection with the turn of the century electrical company?66.126.85.130 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Christmas Lectures

Does anybody know, when the first Christmas lecture was held? Thanks in Advance, --Wendelin 16:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I read this in a book (ISBN 1400060168) but I later returned the book to the library. You might want to check out a copy from your local library and skim through to see if you can find it. That book is, in my opinion, the most comprehensive book available on Faraday. You will find it, guaranteed. — MATHWIZ2020 ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 18:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

1825, I believe. See Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. SimonMenashy 04:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Non Trivial dates

The manual of style does not intend that there should be no linking of dates. Only to avoid linking non trivial ones. 1821 was the year that Faraday first built devices which converted electricity to motion. In 1831 he discovered electromagnetic induction. These dates are not trivial. The reader deserves to be able to see the wider political events taking place in those years to be able to place them in an historical context. They must be linked to do this. Lumos3 20:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Sounds convincing. Sillybilly 02:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This paragraph:

At this stage, there is also evidence to suggest that Davy may have been trying to slow Faraday’s rise as a scientist. In 1825, for instance, Davy set him onto optical glass experiments, which progressed for six years with no great results. It was not until Davy's death, in 1829, that Faraday stopped these fruitless tasks and moved on to endeavors that were more worthwhile.

appears to have been lifted direct from the BBC History "Historic Figures" bio of Faraday - or is it the other way around?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/faraday_michael.shtml

Mikedash 15:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of the Wikipedia article on Michael Faraday

Someone who is more familiar with Michael Faraday than I might want to look at the criticisms of the Wikipedia article on Michael Faraday in this blog that I stumbled upon today. 4.232.105.80 09:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's a better link. I wrote a comment and it is now "awaiting moderation." Hope it works! --M@thwiz2020 23:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Buried in Westminster Abbey?

According to the Royal Institution of Great Britain's website, Faraday was not buried at Westminster Abbey. Even Wikipedia's own article on Westminster Abbey doesn't list him as interred there. Does anyone have any knowledge to refute this, or should it be changed? —Fenoxielo 20:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct, he was not buried in Westminster. --M@thwiz2020 19:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed that bit. —Fenoxielo 01:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bank note

Is it just me, or is the following passage vaguely incomprehensible?

His picture was printed on British £20 banknotes from 1991 until 2001[6]. Faraday was the first, and most famous, holder of this position to which he was appointed for life. - qp10qp 13:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC), qp10qp 13:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the nonsense part It related to his post as Fullerian Professor of Chemistry . Lumos3 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon User:81.132.24.237 Talk contributions has deleted the bank note image with the comment "- Under section 18(1) of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 it is a criminal offence for any person, without the prior consent in writing of the Bank of England, to reproduce on) " The Pound sterling article uses only images marked "cancelled" so there might be a point here. I have delayed restoring it until we discuss the situation. See Reproducing Banknotes at the Bank of England websiteLumos3 12:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cornish

Quote: Faraday attended lectures by the eminent English (Cornish) chemist and physicist Humphry Davy of the Royal Institution and Royal Society,

Is the claiming here of Davy for Cornwall some sort of Mebyon Kernow stunt? Why do we need to know he's cornish and "NOT" English here, when he has his own article? -- 81.105.251.160 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Weasel

I thought editors were supposed to avoid weasel words such as "Some historians of science consider Faraday to be the best experimentalist ever." It is my understandind that we are to identify specifically who makes such claims and provide evidence. Maybe I'm being pedantic. 129.15.127.254 20:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Michael Faraday

• I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia'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 15:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I added a Cultural References section today to provide a recently confirmed reference to Faraday in the show Lost. I had previously added this information to the Miscellaneous section, which I now realize was completely erroneous. Someone removed it for me, which I appreciate. Anyone know of any other cultural references to or depictions of Faraday? --VooLaLa (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hologen lamp

I have removed the false claim that Faraday invented the halogen lamp which was invented in the 1950s by the General Electric company. see http://www.mts.net/~william5/history/hol.htm Lumos3 11:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Rosicrucian

I have also removed the false claim that Faraday was a Rosicrucian. There are no sources for this that I can find which are not promotional material from Rosicricians themselves. Lumos3 11:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Zantedeschi

This article, the one on Zantedeschi, and similar websites mirror Wikipedia's claim that Faraday's discovery of electromagnetic induction "may have been" anticipated by the other scientist. It is easy to find Faraday's original writings, and detailed books about them by Tyndall and others, but not so easy to find reliable sources about Zantedeschi. The claim of his priority should be removed unless sources such as articles in peer-reviewed journals and books on the history of physics can be found to provide substantiation of the claim that Zantedeschi's claimed experiments with magnets and coils anticipated Faraday's. Every legitimate 19th century electrical discovery has a number of claimants who are said to have done something similar earlier, but with little or no documentation. Edison 20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have to rule on the validity of this claim , only note that it is made and where it is made. Lumos3 21:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It has to be made in a reliable source to be included in Wikipedia. We need to find the most authoritative source reporting the work and cite it properly. Edison 04:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. I may substantially change the Francesco Zantedeschi article to minimize or remove unverified claims, unless someone adds references than can be reasonably checked. See my comments on the Francesco Zantedeschi talk page. - Astrochemist 13:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

My previous comment (above) was written a month ago. I checked several Faraday biographies of the past 100+ years, as well as Bence Jones' 1870 book of Faraday's letters, and found nothing to back up this Wikipedia article's statement about Zantedeschi. I removed the Zantedeschi sentence from the article. It was added on 15 August 2005 and lacked a supporting citation. - Astrochemist 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added a source for this and reinstated it. Lumos3 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

TedHuntington (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC): The 1829 Zantadeschi source is in the "Biblioteca Italiana",1829, vol53, pp398-402, I have it here, but it is in Italian and so I can't yet verify the claim of Zantadeschi recognizing current arising from moving a magnet in a coil of wire.

TedHuntington (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC) I have tried to make a translation of Zantedeschi's text, but it needs to be translated by somebody fluent in Italian:

Here is the Italian (taken from http://books.google.com/books?id=fngtAAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage#PRA2-PA398,M1): ... And here is a translation (with many mistakes): ... I call out to those fluent in Italian and English to translate this very important text accurately for English speaking science historians. Thank you! Ted Huntington

I removed the two long passages you left since this is a page devoted to the Michael Faraday article and since both passages are on the Wikipedia talk page for Zantedeschi. I share your hope that others will get involved in this project. As I wrote last summer, there is essentially nothing on Zantedeschi in Faraday biographies of the past 100+ years. -- It makes me wonder if Wikipedia's volunteers have stumbled onto something that professionals have missed for the past century. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's interesting to consider. - Astrochemist (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Still needed

I've recently added new material to the article and tried to remove some errors, without making too many new ones. Several sections still read rather poorly. Here are some points which need a lot of work:

• Faraday's connection with the Sandemanians (very important!)
• Honors and awards received by Faraday
• Faraday's professional memberships
• Faraday's non-scientific interests
• References for the quotations (I tracked down one.)

Help will be appreciated. - And if you run out of things to do, as of right now the Humphry Davy article doesn't even mention his discoveries of sodium or potassium! - Astrochemist 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Something else worth mentioning as part of his legacy are the publications, lectures, and awards that bear his name (Faraday Lectures, Faraday Transactions, Faraday Medal, etc.) --Itub 08:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. - Astrochemist (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"He was elected a member of the Royal Society in 1824, appointed director of the laboratory in 1825; and in 1833 he was appointed Fullerian professor of chemistry in the institution for life, without the obligation to deliver lectures." Please distinguish between the Royal Society and the Royal Institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

Help response... Background to Electromagnetic controversy found in Hamilton (2004). Please follow the link for discussion on next paragraph in this section as much of it contradicts opening statements in Faraday article. JamAKiska 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Help continued...cited Thompson (1901) to support controversy discussion and continued to use this source to bridge from Faraday's early and later works with light and electromagnetic phenomenon. JamAKiska (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Help continued...Modified paragraph as proposed in last entry to buttress Faraday's early work in EM to his later work. JamAKiska (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Cantor and Thompson both record the date of Michael Faraday's and Sarah Barnard's marriage as 12 June. On page 59, Cantor specifies the register at St. Faith-in-the-Virgin near St. Paul's Cathedral, and 12 June was the date their licence was issued. The witness was Sarah's father, Edward. Their marriage was 16 years prior to the Marriage and Registration Act of 1837. It seems reasonable to me that the first transcribed date from the Oxford dictionary a leading one was missed in the tens place. JamAKiska (talk) 13:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Only source I could find on James' movement south is Cantor on pages 57-8. James Faraday was an apprentice blacksmith in Outhgill (he must have learned the trade well as he became foreman some time after relocating to London working for James Boyd) and a member of the Sandemanian meeting house located there. His wife and two children moved south during the harsh winter of 1790-1. During this winter he visited London in search of work. The Sandemanians were quite good at helping each other find employment. James joined the London meeting house on 20 February 1791, and shortly thereafter moved his family south from Outhgill to London. Seven months later Michael was born. JamAKiska (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Referencing Sandemanian connection. CUoD (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Found two sources that illuminate quite a bit. Pages 465-6 in the Inquirer section of The British controversialist: and literary magazine published in London 1867 by Houlston and Wright. Pages 175-83 of EVERY SATURDAY: A JOURNAL OF CHOICE READING, Vol III published at Cambridge in 1873 by Osgood & Co. CUoD (talk) 13:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Relocated prior Faraday research notes to Talk:Michael Faraday/Archive 2.CUoD (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed "cultural" material

I removed the section concerning a character named Daniel Faraday on a US-made television show. See the Wikipedia:TRIV page and links therein. Also see Wikipedia:Guide to layout for a suggested format for articles. -- My fear is that there will be no end to additions of such pop trivia, detracting from this article's main emphasis on Michael Faraday's life and work. Also, I don't find pop-culture sections on the Wikipedia pages of Antoine Lavoisier and Charles Darwin, the James C. Maxwell and Thomas Edison pages don't contain references to Maxwell Edison of Beatles silver-hammer fame, and Isaac Newton's page doesn't mention his appearances on The Simpsons and Star Trek. -- Perhaps an article on Michael Faraday in popular culture would be more appropriate for listing and describing TV shows with the name "Faraday", Max Faraday comics, Faraday fire alarms, and so forth. (See Joan of Arc's page called Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc for an example of what might be included.) -- Astrochemist (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC).

I agree with these comments. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

Read the guideline you've cited before you remove it: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format." I understand your qualms about including information about someone so prestigious in connection with popular culture, but whether you like or dislike it the connection exists and is pertinent information. Wikipedia:Handling trivia is probably more direct on this issue. I do like your idea of a Faraday in popular culture article if no integration of his influence on modern culture can be arrived at though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.45.186 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that therei is no need to discuss Daniel Faraday in this article, or to discuss Fig Newtons in an Isaac Newton article or to discuss the Edison Twins in the Thomas Edison article or to cite the lyrics of "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" in the James Maxwell article. That seems like a grasping at fame to show that the subject is important enough for an article, hardly necessary or appropriate in these cases. There are some cases where such mention might have a role to play in establishing notability of more marginally notable scientists or inventors. Edison (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement as well. Fans of Lost (which includes yours truly) will easily come across a link to this article if they're interested in the fictional character Daniel Faraday, as there are links on both the series and character pages. If there were legitimate references to Faraday's work in the series, I might opine differently, especially if it was a crucial element of some storyline or another. (But with the way the series trades legitimate physics for drama, I can't see that happening.) Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Electrochemistry

Could Faraday's role in the development of electrochemistry not do with some expansion?

One sentence is very little considering his huge influence Anareon (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Faraday cage

I have reverted removal of the Faraday cage because it is explained in the text alongside. These articles on eminent scientists are seriously deficient in the technical details of what exactly they achieved, and I think that simple diagrams help to explain and educate casual readers (this is after all a Wiki policy). Peterlewis (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I support the removal of the picture of the Faraday cage by 71.16.62.34. The picture is over-large and clumsily drawn. It is not comprehensible without the accompanying text, which is in its own article. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC).

Is this an article about Faraday which describes his scientific achievements or not? I have re-inserted the diagrams of technical effects which demonstrate and illustrate the principles he established. The editor who removed the pictures should argue his or her case here, as I have already done above. If not , then it is just vandalism. Peterlewis (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree in part with both of you. These articles are, in general, mostly about an individual's life, but with links to detailed descriptions of his or her work. It's neither necessary nor desirable to add pictures of each significant person or topic mentioned in an article. To do so will just be to clutter the lay-out, reduce the space available for more-significant and more-relevant illustrations, and set up arguments down the road about replacing material. ~ For Faraday, why use a stock picture of a battery (etc.) when something from one of his papers would be better? You can always link to the modern explanation and use the modern schematic there. -- To go against this practice will open this and other articles to lots of additions and make the whole thing a mess of text and pictures. That's not done with other good quality Wikipedia articles. - That said, maybe what's needed is something like a Faraday gallery. - 71.16.62.34 (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are defining an article about a scientist in terms which excludes or minimises their contributions, and also fails to appreciate the educational element in good Wiki articles. This is an absurd position to take in the modern world, in my opinion. To illustrate their major contributions is part and parcel of a good encyclopedia. The original 1911 Britannica was very deficient on science and engineering, and when it discussed practitioners, often failed to discuss the science in any detail (probably because they were written by non-scientists) and now is the time to update and Wikify the articles dealing with major engineers and scientists. Peterlewis (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the above comments by Xxanthippe and me. Just because someone doesn't agree with your personal position doesn't make them vandals. Moreover, just because someone doesn't support your addition of lots of big pictures to this and other articles doesn't mean that they don't support using Wikipedia as an educational tool. Hyperlinks (wikilinks) help readers find content without clutter. - Maybe some of the people who have edited this article in a major way over the years will now weigh in. 71.16.62.34 (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just find it curious that neither of you have a talk page and use pseudonyms or an anonymous URL. Pictures which are directly relevant to the achievements can hardly be called "clutter". I personally find numerous pictures of the subject (and his gravestone) irrelevant to the subject, but have let them stand in respect to other editors. Peterlewis (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

An article about a scientist or inventor should be able to stand alone, without the need to visit a series of other articles to see illustrations of his major discoveries. In this article, illustrations of Faraday's major discoveries and work should be included. As an example, I objected to removal of an illustration of his Christlmas lecture, since he was famous for his popular lectures on science. But it is appropriate to have only a brief coverage of the operating principles of any one discovery such as the Faraday Cage. Edison (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Number of Images

The article definitely now has too many images and has become noisy and unfocussed. Wikipedia is not paper (see Wiki is not paper) and we do not need to illustrate every subject the article tangentially touches on. A wiki allows a reader to access background information at one click , it does not need to be presented in the one article. e.g. Because Faraday built his own voltaic cell as a young man does not mean we need a diagram of a cell. Take a look at Wikipedia featured articles for the level of illustration and focus on its subject expected of good articles on Wikipedia. Especially the articles on scientists Isaac Newton , Johannes Kepler and Edward Teller. Lumos3 (talk) 08:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So can we remove all the images of Faraday and an irrelevant pciture of a gravestone? Articles on scientists need discussion and illustration of their acientific achievements and not endless discussion of what they ate as a children or where they went on holiday. If readers want this then they can access the original 1911 Britannica article for free. Peterlewis (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We need to get the balance right and gratuitous images for images sake misleads the reader. Faraday did not discover the ring structure of benzene. A bar magent does not illustate diamagentism.Lumos3 (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No he didn't, but he did discover the compound which we now represent by the ring formula. So it is not a gratuitous image and doesn't mislead anyone. And Faraday certainly pioneered the use of lines of force which is what the bar magnet shows, and the article says. I would rather delete the picture of his grave and cut the number of pictures of him than lose scientific content. After all, he is famous because of his great discoveries, and his contribution to public life by lectures and investigations. Peterlewis (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The use of an image can make a reader jump to a conclusion unless it is carefully qualified. We need to be careful what images we include and ensure they are part of the description of Faraday's life , not just there to make the page pretty.

The images I think are superfluous are

• Chemistry: Faraday did not discover the ring structure of benzene - this is misleading. Faraday did not understand its ring structure . Illustrating it as such carries the message that he did.
• Chemistry: This is a Hofman voltameter not faradays apparatus - Implies this was the cell Faraday used when this is Hofmans. If you have an illustration of the cell faraday used that would be good
• Diamagnetism: This illustrates ferromagnetism not Diamagnetism . There is no supporting text as to why it is relevant. Need to add detail on Faradays work on magnetic lines. A diagram authored by Faraday on the subject would be good.
• Electricity and magnetism: Why Henry and not Francesco Zantedeschi . Why show images of some scientists and not others . There is implied meaning in giving prominence to an individual. Best to leave out pictures of others unless they are central to Faradays life like Davy. This also goes for William Whewell. There is a case for Maxwell, not sure how close their collaboration was. This needs to be added.
• Electricity and magnetism: Faraday did not invent the Voltaic pile, he merely built one himself .This gives the impression he invented it. Lumos3 (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My Wikipedia time is very limited, so let me just contribute a few brief lines with some obvious (?) points:

1. Collaboration is at the heart of Wikipedia, or any wiki-based effort.
2. Collaboration nearly always means compromise.
3. Compromise nearly always means that not everyone gets 100% of what he or she wants.
4. This article, like most things on Wikipedia, risks turning into a mess if all the editors aren't willing to compromise.
5. Hyperlinks are an advantage of a web-based encyclopedia over a printed one.

Some very good points are made above by several recent contributors. The question of whether contemporary pictures are appropriate reminds me somewhat of the arguments among musicians as to whether classical music should be played on period instruments or on modern ones. My preference in scientific biographies is for original material (e.g., images) when possible. Is it worth yay/nay votes on some of the recently-added pictures? -- Astrochemist (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just now located and uploaded a clean, crisp version of the Christmas-lecture image to Wikimedia Commons, and then added it to the Faraday article. I vote "yay" for keeping this version. -- Astrochemist (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Case for images

The case was made already and supported by other editors. If images are to go then remove multiple images of Faraday (one only is needed) and a gravestone. We are now concentrating on his achievements and not peripheral items. If this is to be a serious article then more work is needed on his work and not more social history of the kind shown by many other articles on scientists (which reflect their authorship). Peterlewis (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the reasons given by other editors why not all the undoubtedly well-meaning edits of Peterlewis have improved the article. I have removed those diagrams that are irrelevant, incomprehensible or crude. Faraday's achievements are too extensive to be fully explained in one article, just as Einstein's are. However they are all noted here and hypertext links to the fuller explanations are given. That is the value of hypertext. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC).

After thinking on this a few days, I'd like to vote "nay" for Joseph Henry, since he and Faraday never met and apparently had little influence on each other. I'll vote "aye" for a diagram of one of Faraday's most elegant and influential experiments, electromagnetic rotation. - I've just added a little on Faraday's early attempt to find what's now called the Zeeman effect. The section header could use a change. -- Astrochemist (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the image of Faraday holding a glass bar in place of the image of the bar magnet. I am not sure how the bar magnet directly relates to Faraday's work, he did not invent it or the method of showing its "lines of force " using iron filings. Faraday developed the special optical glass for the glass bars he used himself , a rather boring menial task assigned to him by Davy. It was Faraday's genius that he then used the glass to discover a fundamental physical effect, that magnetism influences the plane of polarisation of light. This image is very appropriate at this point in the text. Lumos3 (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure that he is holding a glass bar? It should be transparent but is clearly not so in the image. It looks like a bar magnet to me. Peterlewis (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Other images which describe it as a glass bar are here: http://www.jamd.com/search?assettype=g&assetid=3330537 and http://www.phy.hr/~dpaar/fizicari/faraday.html. I have revised my view of iron filings according to this ref he was the first to image magnetic force lines in this way see 1830-1835 in http://www.math.yorku.ca/SCS/Gallery/milestone/sec5.html . I think we should use the original Faraday diagram though. Lumos3 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The image of Farraday in old age File:Faraday Michael old age.jpg has a description that says that it is a "Picture of Alexander W. Williamson" in 1906, which is after Farraday's death, but the file name says it is Farraday. The book referenced on the image file page needs checking if anyone has access to it. Perhaps that image should be removed in order to reduce the number of images, just because it is notionally suspect. Cruickshanks (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Refused a knighthood"? Why?

The entry states that Faraday refused a knighthood. This statement raises more questions than it answers. Does anyone know why he refused a knighthood? Bricology (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You could read the biographies or try the Reference desk. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The quick response would be his deeply rooted Christian beliefs. According to Geoffrey Cantor on page 101 of his Faraday biography, the 19th century scientist opposed national awards and honors that were tainted by either "hereditary power or gross worldly ambition". This author indicates Faraday turned down a British knighthood, but accepted one from the King of Prussia (Cantor p. 98), and a Chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur from Napoleon III. According to Cantor, Faraday valued awards that were given in honor of achievements that were attained through lifelong service. Cantor captures the essence of Faraday's Sandemanian beliefs on pages 100-101. Most of the original reference material seems to be letters kept in private collections. The notable exception being the letter from Faraday to Lord Wrottesley on 10 March 1854.JamAKiska (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

faraday torch + dup drive(could be source to unlimeted self renewalbe energy)

recently through my maths teacher i found out about a project called the DUP DRIVE. i had an idea of fusing this project with the dup drive which in theory would create self renewing energy

but i cant find much about the dup drive. please if ANYopne knows anymore about the drive please post here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.72.214 (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

vandalism

Seems someone had some fun. Gonna try and put an earlier version back. Robin.lemstra (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, I'm kinda new at this, should this article now be locked? Seems several of these edits were made recently, so it's not an isolated incident. Robin.lemstra (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Electrochemistry

I have put the pic of Faraday and Daniell back into the header: it is too important to be dropped. Peterlewis (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

micheal faraday

micheal faraday is rlated to the WIDDAS' AND NOW AFEW ISHERWOODS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.157.12 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Gentleman

The sentence "In the class-based English society of the time, Faraday was not considered a gentleman" gives the mistaken impression that Faraday was uncouth. Better to rewrite the sentence to indicate something like "In class-based English society, Faraday, 21 years old at the time, had not yet attained the stature of a gentleman" instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.179.39 (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Student, trying to help

Hi, my name is Brad Wyant and I'm a student at Santa Clara University. I have been assigned to make a contribution to this page in some way. I've read Alan Hirshfeld's biography on Faraday, and see some potential to add something about Faraday's personal life later into his career. I'll be doing some more work and putting more concrete ideas here later, but just wanted to give you all a heads up. Thanks.Bradfordwilliamwyant (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The article has been in a very mature state for a long time, so you should check with your professor whether the edits you propose are likely to be useful and acceptable to other editors. You may find it more profitable to try out your editing skills on a more undeveloped topic, such as one on motor vehicles which you have previously edited. Alternatively, you could find some member of the National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society who does not yet have an article about them and create one. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC).

These are the edits I'd like to make to the page; I've begun to go over them with my teacher, and I've confirmed the source the bibliographer (Alan Hirshfeld) used. Both quotes are from Faraday himself, if that's unclear.

(To be inserted under Royal Institution and Public Service, before the list of Faraday’s lectures. This edit is meant to simultaneously give the reader a better idea of the nature of Faraday’s lectures and describe Faraday’s passion for science)

The objective of Faraday’s Christmas lectures was to present science to the general public in the hopes of inspiring them and generating revenue for the Royal Institution. They were notable events on the social calendar among London’s gentry. Over the course of several letters to his close friend Benjamin Abbott, Faraday outlined his recommendations on the art of lecturing: Faraday wrote “a flame should be lighted at the commencement and kept alive with unremitting splendour to the end”. His lectures were joyful and juvenile, he delighted in filling soap bubbles with various gasses (in order to determine whether or not they are magnetic) in front of his audiences and marveled at the rich colors of polarized lights, but the lectures were also deeply philosophical. In his lectures he urged his audiences to consider the mechanics of his experiments: “you know very well that ice floats upon water . . . Why does the ice float? Think of that, and philosophise”.

(To be inserted at the end of the fourth paragraph of Electricity and Magnetism)

Faraday would later use the modern principles he had discovered to construct the electric dynamo, the ancestor of modern power generators and the electric motor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.115.10 (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your edits will do any harm but you need to provide an in-line source for your added material and make it clear that the quotes are from Faraday himself. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC).

Commerations

Small edit, but there is also a building at Lancaster University named after him, as well as the other learning institutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.147.62 (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Should like to point out that there is also a statue to Michael Faraday at The University of Birmingham link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Learning_Center.jpg

Could you please get this fabulous Brummy landmark a mention? Ta! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrdiki (talk • contribs) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC) farady a biker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.57.194.147 (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible change of images

There's a lovely portrait of Faraday at File:M Faraday Th Phillips oil 1842.jpg I'd be inclined to put it in the infobox and move the 1861 image to replace the "Faraday in old age" image lower down. Would that be acceptable? Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Creationist

One notable thing about Michael Faraday that is missing from the article is the fact that he was a Creationist. --41.151.87.186 (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact is implied by the sentence stating that he was a devout Christian. Also I don't see what's notable about his being a creationist. It's not as if being a creationist automatically turns you into some kind of mental cripple. YellowLeftHand (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

YellowLeftHand, I beg to differ. I agree that it's not notable, but you said it's "implied by the sentence stating he was a devout Christian." I'm a devout Christian, but I'm most definitely NOT a creationist. These sort of assumptions are the reason people argue over this so much. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Notes on Davy's Lectures

A link to Faraday's notes on Humphrey Davy's lectures would be most interesting and informative, indeed, a fine thing to include in this article. Is there a pdf. of Faraday's notes on the internet that could be linked to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.228.2 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Typos maybe?

I quote from http://www.theiet.org/resources/library/archives/biographies/faraday.cfm "...In 1832 he proved that the electricity induced from a magnet, voltaic electricity produced by a battery, and static electricity were all the same..." So 1939 written earlier at "...In 1839, he completed a series of experiments aimed at investigating the fundamental nature of electricity ... of electricity were illusory..." is amended to 1932 in absence of alternative sources. Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Faraday and patents

• Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey (2014) says: He had absolutely no interest in patenting his ideas or personally profiting from them.
• This web site says: Although Faraday did not patent anything himself, this chimney was patented by his brother Robert.

On the other hand,

• John Walker (inventor) article says: Already comfortably well off, he refused to patent his invention, despite being encouraged to by Michael Faraday and others, making it freely available for anyone to make.

Which is a bit conflicting with the first two statements. If anyone has reliable information, I think it's worth to add into the article if he did patent his inventions or not. —  Ark25  (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Faraday and balloons

Faraday invented the balloon. I would think that would warrant some mention somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearsca (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Magnetism and light

There are plenty of sources elsewhere that document that magnetic fields don't affect light (until you get into QM, which is well after his time), so the page seems wrong for "Faraday also established that magnetism could affect rays of light and that there was an underlying relationship between the two phenomena." Although the citation for this sentence uses a broken link, I did find what may be a copy of the article in Wikisource which talks about changing light polarization via magnetic effect on 'heavy glass', which isn't the same as changing light directly. I could probably have just changed the wording, but not confident enough to do so. TimOertel (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Faraday rotation. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC).

Religion in infobox

@Xxanthippe: I removed the religion parameter from the infobox because the infobox template does not support such a parameter. Putting it in causes an error message to be displayed in preview mode. The parameter was removed many years ago as a result of this discussion and many other preceding ones. Religion is often a highly nuanced question making it unsuitable for a simple infobox summary, it can be controversial, and for the most part, it has little to do with a scientist's work.

Why did you remove the disambiguation hatnote? Did you have a reason for that, or was it just a knee-jerk revert of everything? SpinningSpark 09:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2017

Link to Maxwell:

JamesClerkMaxwell 2601:645:4000:2ADD:75F0:48B9:DAAF:588 (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

James Clerk Maxwell is already linked in the lead. DuncanHill (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the nationality of Faraday 'British' or 'English'?

James Clerk Maxwell is shown a having Scottish nationality. Should Faraday be English? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Point. The article says English. I'm changing the infobox. St.nerol (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I do not think that this is correct. The nationality of both should be 'British'. There simply is no nationality, English or Scottish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually Britain as a nationality is wrong. the Act of Union created a union, not a new country, and so neither England nor Scotland ceased to exist as independent nations. As nationality is based on nation of birth, Faraday is English.

Wrong. Since 1707 there has been no other officially recognised nationality in the British Isles (excluding Eire) other than 'British', and if you don't believe me, try getting a passport for one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.161 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017

Replace: In 1813, when Davy damaged his "eyesight in an accident with nitrogen trichloride", he decided to employ Faraday as an assistant. To: In 1813, when Davy damaged his "hand in a nitrogen trichloride explosion", he decided to employ Faraday as an assistant.

See citation 33 on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphry_Davy Johntiancili (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: While the Humphry Davy article does state Davy's injury was to his hand, the nitrogen trichloride article says it was Davy's sight and at least one source says it was a corneal injury. The quote form the source given in the Davy article ("My sight, however, I am informed, will not be injured") seems to confirm that there was at least a question of optical injury. Better sourcing to clarify the discrepancy is needed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Faraday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091213214256/http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Institute.php to http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Institute.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040312015850/http://www.rigb.org/rimain/heritage/faradaypage.jsp to http://www.rigb.org/rimain/heritage/faradaypage.jsp

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Faraday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111173539/http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/faraday-institute-for-science-and-religion-interdisciplinary-research-and-projec to http://www.templeton.org/what-we-fund/grants/faraday-institute-for-science-and-religion-interdisciplinary-research-and-projec

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Faraday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329005025/http://michaelfaradayschool.co.uk/about_us/ to http://michaelfaradayschool.co.uk/about_us/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a section bout the friendship/professional relationship twixt Maxwell and Faraday?

I understand that Faraday lived long enough for Maxwell to show him that light was, as Faraday had suggested years before, electromagnetic waves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.99.82 (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2018

Faraday was in many ways influential in the works of James Clerk Maxwell as early as 1855 during his investigation of electricity and magnetism. Although their encounters at King's College, London, 1860–1865 were dully noted as regular during the lectures at the Royal Institution, the relationship was rather monotonous due to Michael Faraday's sign of senility and old age. Regardless of such Maxwell's respect for Faraday's idea reflected on his numerous publications which paved way for mathematical rigour in the fields of electrodynamics and vector calculus.

So, I request you to add the field of "Influenced - James Clerk Maxwell" as Faraday's early works were the inspiration for Maxwell's works on electromagnetism.

Thank you. RadeX-QuaNT MGNx0 (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2018

I don't understand what it means in his later life: "He had some years before turned down an offer of burial..." Can someone who understands clarify it in an edit? PennyJim1 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I had to google "interred." I feel it should link to the Wikipedia article on burial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial. PennyJim1 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2019

I'd like to edit please. 110.145.137.42 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC) PPPLLLLEEEEAAASSSSSSEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.145.137.42 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)