Talk:Eunice Newton Foote

untitled
Is this line supported by any sources? It seems plausible but speculative: "Due to a myriad of reasons, mainly the fact that Foote was a woman, her work had gone unrecognized." — Preceding unsigned comment added by N mc lucy (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Editors & Happy Birthday Eunice Foote,[July 17] I very much study Eunice & Elisha and am good friends with other Eunice expert Prof John Perlin UC Santa Barbara. He has pointed out that I am responsible for a wrong fact. Eunice WAS NOT taught by Almira Hart Lincoln Phelps. She was very influenced by her textbooks, Almira was the sister to Emma Willard, but Almira had moved on to West Chester PA by the time Eunice got her education. [I am the one who tracked down her place of education.] I am sorry for the 'facto'. I am planning to open a website soon about Eunice. At that point you can expect very many additions to this page. Please look for me today to make that edit; hopefully you will have seen this notice first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James 'Jimbo' Daily (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Article claiming Eunice Foote first identified greenhouse effect
No time to work on this myself now, but this article seems interesting and relevant: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/09/02/the-woman-who-identified-the-greenhouse-effect-years-before-tyndall/ HouseOfChange (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Could someone please tell me why my external link was removed? I specifically am adding to the history of New York State with my write-up that has been linked to the internet by Katharine Hayhoe. Katharine is a very famous Climate Scientist from Texas Tech. She is the lead author of the 2nd Annual US Climate Assessment done for the National Academy of Sciences. Apparently she found my contribution worthy. Why not WikiP?

Also, there is a problem with a fact. Footnote 12 is to substantiate the claim that Eunice and Elisha Foote's house is still standing as of 2016. This is not the case. Please check the address on the map listed on the website - you will see the site is a parking lot and lawn. Confirmed with a phone call to the Seneca Falls Historical Society. Fran Barberry there confirmed this fact. Thank You, James &#39;Jimbo&#39; Daily (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My concern with this part of the article is that the experiment that Foote performed may have gotten the right result (CO2 is a warming gas) for the wrong reasons (CO2 is denser than air, not that CO2 is an infrared absorber). My source for this argument is the following 2009 article: https://rtobin.phy.tufts.edu/Wagoner%20AJP%202010.pdf. I'd be interested in the thoughts of more experienced Wiki editors whether this would be a reasonable addition to this section... e.g., something like "While Foote's work came to the right conclusions, it is possible that the actual physics behind her results was based on density, not the infrared properties of CO2. See the work by Wagoner et al (citation), which demonstrates this by using argon, a non-absorbing gas." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:8500:19A0:55A6:125A:A2AC:B324 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Photo/Sketch
Can someone check if there is a photo or sketch of her in this publication? prokaryotes (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Afraid not. Little about her at all. Fences  &amp;  Windows  06:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Early or the first?
Dang, I just read of an early theorist on C02 greenhouse effect, I think from 1780s. I'll try and dig it up. We might be better to state "a very early discoverer of..." than "the first". Kudos to Eunice though, she nailed it. 72.141.106.240 (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe you're thinking of Horace Bénédict de Saussure whose "hot box" was an early analogy of a much simplified "greenhouse effect". Foote's apparatus worked in a similar way, but I don't think there's any evidence that she knew of his work or went as far as him in appreciating "obscure heat" radiating from surfaces that had been warmed. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Colour blindness paper
Time magazine, cited in the article, includes the point: "Did Tyndall know about Foote’s paper? It’s unclear — though he did have a paper on color blindness in the same 1856 journal as hers." That seems to suggest that Foote's paper in the American Journal of Science and Arts would have been read by Tyndall because a paper by him had been republished by that journal earlier in the same year, but there's no reason for that to have been the case, or even any evidence that his permission was sought for the republication. The following sentence showed the context:
 * A paper on colour blindness, which Tyndall had published in May 1856, was republished in the American Journal of Science and Arts, which later published Foote's research.[ref name="Time"]

On review, I think it's not worth going into detail on what seems to be a misunderstanding by Time, so have removed it. . . dave souza, talk 18:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Physicist?
I'm wondering about the article lead describing her as a "physicist".

If I understand correctly she came to her work through a background in chemistry and biology. The greenhouse effect sits at the intersection of chemistry and physics. At the time would she have been seen as more of a chemist, or physicist, both, neither? Today, do people usually think of her as a physicist?

I'm genuinely curious. I've read about her contributions before and have seen her described as a scientist many times, but I think today was the first time I saw her described as a physicist. So that description seems atypical to me. Dragons flight (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Good point. I've looked through several of the better sources, and haven't found that description. Huddleston says "amateur scientist", Jackson says "scientific researcher", Sorenson says "woman scientist" and also says that evidence of other scientific work by her has not been found. I've removed the word until a good source is found. . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Anti-greenhouse effect
Her finding is described thus in the article, does anti-greenhouse effect refer to the same thing? . dave souza, talk 18:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Eunice Foote
The photo looks to be from the 1890's, by which time Mrs. Foote was dead. Perhaps it's her daughter? 2A02:8440:3308:3EBB:0:2C:1D9D:FF01 (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Allowed to speak?
I'm having difficulty with the sentence, "Foote did not read her paper to those present—women were in principle allowed to speak publicly at the conference—and her paper was instead presented by Joseph Henry of the Smithsonian Institution."

This would make more sense with "women were not allowed to speak publicly at the conference". Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you are having a problem with it. To me, it's clear, there weren't rules saying she couldn't but no one would have taken her seriously because she was a "mere woman", so she didn't. Saying they weren't allowed to speak would not follow the sources. SusunW (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I'm not following. If "women in principle were allowed to speak publicly at the conference", how does that explain either of "Foote did not read her paper to those present" or "her paper was instead presented by Joseph Henry of the Smithsonian Institution"?
 * With no actual barrier to her speaking, why didn't she speak? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am having difficulty understanding if this is a genuine lack of understanding or if you are attempting to provoke or incite drama. However, I will AGF that it is genuine and reply, but as I am going to be away, I will ping, a FA coordinator, to monitor the discussion. It is very, very clear from the sources cited and numerous scholarly works which can be found from a Google search that her work was discounted because she was a woman. At the time, women were legally classed as dependents often styled in a category including "criminals, idiots, women, and children". Few women were allowed education, and cultural expectation for a woman of her social class at the time would have been that she was "at home" and could not have accepted paid wages after marriage. Despite the fact that scientists considered her to be an amateur, she wanted her work to be seriously considered. Had she presented it, it wouldn't have been, so she opted for a man to present it. I cannot make it any clearer than that. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * If you are "having difficulty with the sentence" - and I don't blame you in the slightest if you are - then I think it may be a case of your more having difficulty with what the reality of the time was. As you say, to the modern observer it makes no sense. Nevertheless, it accurately reflects what the sources say about the event. (And about many, many other women's situations; but that is another matter.) Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "so she opted for a man to present it. I cannot make it any clearer than that."
 * Thank you, that makes it perfectly clear. Here's a suggested fix for the concern I raised.  "Foote opted to have her paper presented by Joseph Henry of the Smithsonian Institution."  Much shorter and perfectly clear.  If there appears to be a need to add further clarification, I'd have no problem with that. The important point is that it was her choice, which is not clear to people like me from the present article.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Er, no. The important thing, as brought out in the source, is that in reality she did not have a choice; no matter what the "theory" was. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and thanks . I appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 14:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Phew, thank you. So my original point, "This would make more sense with "women were not allowed to speak publicly at the conference"." was correct after all, yes?
 * SusunW's reply to my original point, "Saying they weren't allowed to speak would not follow the sources" seems to contradict Gog the Mild's "as brought out in the source, is that in reality she did not have a choice", which SusunW then agreed with.
 * Either SusunW changed her mind in the interim, or I'm suffering from dementia. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No your original premise was not correct, not in line with the sources, and I didn't change my mind. It seems obvious to me at this point that you do not know about women's history. I totally understand that because it isn't taught in general history courses and must be taken as a separate field of study in university level courses. There weren't rules saying she could not speak, as the source says. There was a similar situation when a friend of Foote, Susan B. Anthony, attempted to address a teacher's meeting in 1853 (around the same time as Foote's presentation). Debate ensued for half an hour by the men present over whether or not Anthony should be allowed to do so. Although they did let her to speak, the crowd was hostile. Custom, not written laws or rules, made it unlikely that a woman would be allowed to speak. The audience might have allowed Foote to do so, had she asked. But she didn't ask because few of the men present would have listened to her and fewer would have given any weight to what she had to say. SusunW (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "It seems obvious to me at this point that you do not know about women's history."
 * I don't claim I do. But for those like me who were trained in physics and work on the greenhouse effect, it would be helpful if the article clarified whether she chose not to present her paper or had no choice.  Gog the Mild said she had no choice, but if one needs familiarity with women's history in order to infer that from the article then surely that violates some WP guideline.  Vaughan Pratt (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * WP policy, not just a guideline, is against synthesis combining material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Which is why this needs a relevant source rather than generic knowledge of women's history. . dave souza, talk 10:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

[Shapiro 2021] states "The meeting was a friendly affair for some... But for a woman scientist, that probably was not the case.... Though the AAAS constitution did not explicitly discriminate against women scientists, only a few were extended membership in the 19th century, and those who were members rarely presented their own work." Suggest: For reasons that are unclear,[4][68] Foote did not read her paper to those present—even the few women who became members seldom presented their work at the conference[6][7][Notes 5]—and her paper was instead presented by Joseph Henry of the Smithsonian Institution. We don't need to get into the tangent of whether or not women were in principle allowed to speak publicly at the conference. . .dave souza, talk 11:08, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for weighing in. Women's choices were/are often somewhere between a rock and a hard place, giving the appearance of there being a choice when in truth none was available. Your solution, to me anyway, circumvents the issue. I've made your suggested change and appreciate your help.  SusunW (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)