Talk:J. J. Thomson

Comment
Suggestion(s),

where it says "exhibited a single charge-to-mass ratio e/m"

i thought the charge to mass ratio was represented as q/m as opposed to e/m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.194.160 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on J. J. Thomson. 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/20110719091132/http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/museum/area2/cabinet3.htm to http://www-outreach.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/museum/area2/cabinet3.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed for 9 students as Nobel laureates.
User:Escape Orbit: Citation needed had been added for him being a teacher, and nine of students being Nobel laureates too, with comment "(removed unsourced opinions. Need cites.)". If citation is needed for that (for physicists and chemists of my age this is a no-brainer that everyone knew, like that 1+1 equals 2, where aplicable, which we do not usually need to support by citations), this is probably not the correct place for it (at least as you changed the sentence).

There is a list of his notable students in info box, and if citation were needed, it would be needed there to verify they were his students. In section J. J. Thomson, for nine of those there is a sentence listing them as Nobel laureates for Physics and Chemistry (his son was also his student, si he is the ninth), with links to all listed. If citations are needed, they are provided in their respective articles, and can be copied here (and reviewed and verified if needed). That is the reason the IP editor removed citation needed template there  and commented  "citation is not needed since this claim can be easily verified and does not contain relevant to subject".

When I find time at the computer I'll copy citations form those nine articles and add them as citations to each link to those articles (and verify them if they confirm they are Nobel laureates). I did that for Rutherford (and had to change URL, because site made a minor change there - that probably needs doing in several articles using same source, probably by bot). If somebody can do what I did for Rutherford also for the others before I find that time (s)he's welcome. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 23:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with synthesis like this is that errors can be made. You may be correct in everything you say about adding up his students, or you may be mistaken.  Was his son also his student?  You don't seem to be sure, but are assuming this. His article lists Thomson as an advisor in the info box, but that's not sourced or mentioned in the article.   It seems a likely assumption, but ultimately it's not up to be just decided by a Wikipedia editor. The Charles Thomson Rees Wilson article also lists Thomson as an advisor in the info box, but that's not sourced either and there's no mention at all of Thomson in the article.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have found a list of seven of his students who were Nobel laureates - see . This article adds that George Thomson’s thesis supervisor was Prof John Strutt and not JJ Thomson. Nothing about a ninth Nobel laureate. Dirac66 (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Year of discovery of electron
The beginning of this article says that Thomson showed that cathode rays were composed of what are now known as electrons in 1898, but later, this article seems to suggest this discovery was in 1897. YTKJ (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The year 1898 was added at 07:22 today, but it was reverted to 1897 as there was no reliable source to back it up. Ttwaring (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I would specify that it was reverted to 1897 as per the source cited at the end of the sentence from the Science History Institute. Dirac66 (talk) 02:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: General Chemistry I
— Assignment last updated by Yonderling (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)